 | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change
"Misuse of the feature, even if unintentional or in good faith may give cause for it to be removed."
to
"Misuse of the feature, even if unintentional or in good faith, may give cause for it to be removed."
Thank you.--
Laun
chba
ller
06:12, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
| This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There have been many applicants for rollback that are not aware that the requirement is 200 mainspace edits ( WP:RBK#Requesting rollback rights), not 200 edits to any namespace. 200 edits should be changed to 200 mainspace edits. Esquivalience t 22:35, 21 April 2015 (UTC) Esquivalience t 22:35, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Done
Alakzi (
talk)
22:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I would like to gain some consensus for this first, however there have been many applicants that have applied for rollback despite having way fewer than 200 mainspace edits.
I have made some proposed modifications to emphasize that rollback is not for new users here.
Esquivalience t 01:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- Cmt: These procedural edit-notices are all so ugly. Res Mar 16:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree, I also think that if all you do is revert vandalism that you should be able to request and receive the right with out 200 edits. Rider ranger47 Talk 00:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- Comment Rollback is a special kind of edit since, as was noted by Rider, often it's to remove likely vandalism. Conceivably the roll-back gateway of 200+ contrivbutions could be reduced and, depending upon any adverse consequences of widespread abuse, restored back to 200. I'd welcome seeing the number 200 cut in half or reduced perhaps to around 30. Damotclese ( talk) 15:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- I also agree that the template could look a little better... perhaps left-align the text. If you want to change the accepted 200 mainspace edit figure that should be proposed elsewhere, such as WT:ROLLBACK or WT:PERM. I believe it has been discussed numerous times before, however. Check the archives — MusikAnimal talk 16:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
| This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
- Change:
- Fill in the form below, replacing "<tt>Reason for requesting rollback</tt>"
- Into:
- Fill in the form below, replacing "{{mono|Reason for requesting rollback}}"
- For HTML 5 compliance ( WP:HTML5)
EoRdE6( Come Talk to Me!) 17:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
- Done
Alakzi (
talk)
17:39, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
| This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change
"Misuse of the feature, even if unintentional or in good faith may give cause for it to be removed."
to
"Misuse of the feature, even if unintentional or in good faith, may give cause for it to be removed."
Thank you.--
Laun
chba
ller
06:12, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
| This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There have been many applicants for rollback that are not aware that the requirement is 200 mainspace edits ( WP:RBK#Requesting rollback rights), not 200 edits to any namespace. 200 edits should be changed to 200 mainspace edits. Esquivalience t 22:35, 21 April 2015 (UTC) Esquivalience t 22:35, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- Done
Alakzi (
talk)
22:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I would like to gain some consensus for this first, however there have been many applicants that have applied for rollback despite having way fewer than 200 mainspace edits.
I have made some proposed modifications to emphasize that rollback is not for new users here.
Esquivalience t 01:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- Cmt: These procedural edit-notices are all so ugly. Res Mar 16:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree, I also think that if all you do is revert vandalism that you should be able to request and receive the right with out 200 edits. Rider ranger47 Talk 00:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- Comment Rollback is a special kind of edit since, as was noted by Rider, often it's to remove likely vandalism. Conceivably the roll-back gateway of 200+ contrivbutions could be reduced and, depending upon any adverse consequences of widespread abuse, restored back to 200. I'd welcome seeing the number 200 cut in half or reduced perhaps to around 30. Damotclese ( talk) 15:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- I also agree that the template could look a little better... perhaps left-align the text. If you want to change the accepted 200 mainspace edit figure that should be proposed elsewhere, such as WT:ROLLBACK or WT:PERM. I believe it has been discussed numerous times before, however. Check the archives — MusikAnimal talk 16:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
| This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
- Change:
- Fill in the form below, replacing "<tt>Reason for requesting rollback</tt>"
- Into:
- Fill in the form below, replacing "{{mono|Reason for requesting rollback}}"
- For HTML 5 compliance ( WP:HTML5)
EoRdE6( Come Talk to Me!) 17:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
- Done
Alakzi (
talk)
17:39, 20 May 2015 (UTC)