Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Another case where the re-revert may be necessary is when an incumbent editor reverts without justification in the edit summary, which is a form WP:Status quo stonewalling. But see WP:QUO . Sometimes bold, revert, revert may function as a form of bold, refine (see above), particularly among editors who already have a positive working relationship.
Logged-in users will also see a "Revert" link for versions other than the current one. Click on a Revert link to make the change. If the image is at Wikimedia Commons you must click through to the image page there to do the revert. Then scroll down to the thumbnails. Beside the thumbnail you wish there will be the word "Revert".
There is a long-simmering issue when dealing with 1RR, namely there is no policy that covers what a revert is. WP:REVERT which defines a revert as reversing a prior edit or undoing the effects of one or more edits, which typically results in the article being restored to a version that existed sometime previously. is an essay, and Help:Revert, which is an information page, uses undoing or ...
The prefix re-means "again" but it is unclear if re-revert means: (a) repeated reverts by different editors, which in this context would be BRR, (b) repeated reverts by the same editor to the same previous version of the article, which in this context would be BRxR (with the x being either a revert or a different bold edit), or (c) any repeated ...
So, you revert the person, and they revert you too, with edit summaries containing, "There's no consensus! Stop edit-warring, I declare! See the talkpage!" The key to dealing with a filibusterer is to point out that they're filibustering and to ignore them. If they continue reverting, put in an RfC or report them for edit-warring on WP:ANEW ...
You forgot WP:WIARM: "Ignore all rules" does not mean that every action is justifiable. It is neither a trump card nor a carte blanche. It is neither a trump card nor a carte blanche. A rule-ignorer must justify how their actions improve the encyclopedia if challenged.
The essence of the cycle is that in order to become the WP:OWNer of an article, i.e. the most interested person, you should simply revert anything important anyone has to add, whether it is good bad or indifferent. If someone actually insists on trying to get something posted you might deign to discuss it with them, if you have time, and ...
Using the revert approach, you'd have to revert the article to the last good version (the one on January 1), and then manually add back the good edits of January 4 and 5. That would be the only way to avoid denying the readers of Wikipedia the good information and penalizing the editors who supplied it but missed the vandalism.