Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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".
If you revert by manually changing the text to the old version, they will not receive a notification, which some editors appreciate. If the edits you revert are clearly disruptive or vandalism , it may be better not to notify the disruptor or vandal of your correction, by reverting manually.
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.
Get AOL Mail for FREE! Manage your email like never before with travel, photo & document views. Personalize your inbox with themes & tabs. You've Got Mail!
Incidentally, I assume when you say "revert", you mean "undo", because the software isn't smart enough to identify any other kid of reversion. If there were really interest in getting rid of impulsive reversions, I would start by eliminating the undo button (leaving the rollback button, strictly for use against vandalism). The undo button ...
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 ...
To revert edits by banned or blocked users in defiance of their block or ban (but be prepared to explain this use of rollback when asked to) To revert widespread edits (by a misguided editor or malfunctioning bot) unhelpful to the encyclopedia, provided that you supply an explanation in an appropriate location, such as at the relevant talk page ...
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.