MediaWiki talk:Undo-success

Wording

If you are undoing an edit that is not vandalism, you are required to explain your reversion in the edit summary

Policy is changed by editing policy pages, not system messages – Gurch 20:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably this tool with only the automatic edit summary is similar to rollback; the arbitration committee finds that "Use of the rollback tool on single edits implies characterization of those edits as vandalism or otherwise deliberately disruptive." Which is not to say that I particularly agree with that formulation, but I don't think that anything very new is being said here. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think "you are strongly encouraged to provide an explanation of your revision in the edit summary" might be a better formulation. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree completely with TheDJ. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 21:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest linking "vandalism" to Wikipedia:Vandalism to help reverters decide whether the edit is vandalism. –Pomte 23:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mbox

Please replace this page with the following:

{{Mbox
|image = none
|text  = <div>
'''The edit can be [[Help:Reverting|undone]]. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.'''

''If you are undoing an edit that is not [[Wikipedia:Vandalism|vandalism]], explain the reason in the edit summary rather than using only the default message.''
</div>}}

Thanks —Ms2ger (talk) 14:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon my ignorance, but I'm not seeing the change? UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 20:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's simply converting to the standardised Mbox format, as far as I can tell. Can anyone see a reason not to impliment, other than being in MediaWiki space? — Huntster (t • @ • c) 07:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, and now that that's been explained -

Done. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 20:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Using {{mbox}} was not correct, since mbox changes appearance depending on namespace (it for instance gets brown on talk pages). This was corrected by RockMFR who changed it to use {{ombox}}, which at the time was the best choice. I have now changed this message to use {{fmbox}} since that is now the correct choice for system messages like this.

--David Göthberg (talk) 02:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request

Enclose this message in a <div> with an id="mw-undo-success" attribute, so that it may be referred to by automated processes and user style sheets -- Gurch (talk) 13:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --- RockMFR 19:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just changed this message to use {{fmbox}}. Since fmbox has an id parameter for exactly this purpose I would like to move the "mw-undo-success" id into the fmbox. Thus making the surrounding div unnecessary. Since that means it will be an id on a table instead of a div that might affect any CSS or javascript code that uses the id, so I did a search but could not find any usage cases at all. Is anyone aware of any usage of this id?

--David Göthberg (talk) 02:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have now also manually checked the relevant subpages of User:Gurch, but could not find any usage of id="mw-undo-success". So I moved the id into the {{fmbox}}.

--David Göthberg (talk) 02:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is from the days before the API supported undoing edits, so any process wishing to do so had to use the user interface. Having the ID there simplified the check for whether the edit could be undone and made sure it didn't break if someone changed the wording. The API supports undoing edits now, so it isn't necessary, though things might still be using it. Where it actually is on the page doesn't matter. Gurch (talk) 22:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. Thanks for clarifying that.

--David Göthberg (talk) 00:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

Copied from Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous):

When I undo an edit, it says "If you are undoing an edit that is not vandalism, explain the reason in the edit summary. Do not use the default message only." I doubt this wording is ideal. I just made this edit, where I reverted a bad edit that removed a ref tag (it probably would not have qualified as vandalism, I'm not an expert on that definition). But because editing Wikipedia is not compulsory, doesn't it contradict that advice when we tell volunteers to do or not do something in an edit summary? Also, it seems too user-unfriendly, if I have gotten an article up to "good" status but I am unsure as to what this exactly means. Is there a better place for me to go raise this issue? Biosthmors (talk) 19:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree it should be changed. Perhaps to something like "if undoing an edit that is not vandalism or an obvious error, please replace the default message with an explanation." No demands and more leniency. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 21:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
That sounds much better, thanks. How do we make the change? Biosthmors (talk) 21:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I disagree. All organized volunteer work has do's and don't do's. We can't tell people that they have to revert mistakes, but if they do, then do explain why and don't be uncivil. Lova Falk talk 10:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC) (this comment was added after the text above was copied to this edit request)[reply]

Could an admin make this change? From

If you are undoing an edit that is not vandalism, explain the reason in the edit summary. Do not use the default message only.

to

If undoing an edit that is not vandalism or an obvious error, please replace the default message with an explanation.

Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 04:21, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with this. Unexplained reverts are one of the main causes for new editors to not stay around and edit more. It is very important that they get some explanation. I would rather suggest quite the opposite, and change the default message into: "Undid revision (....). Reason:" so editors might feel more compelled to state the reason. Lova Falk talk 10:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why should I, as a volunteer, be told what to do in the specific case I linked above? If editing here is not compulsory, how is supplying an edit summary compulsory? Why should I be told to devote any time to it, if I am helping the encyclopedia? And how do you know "Unexplained reverts are one of the main causes for new editors to not stay around"? I'm skeptical. How could that have been adjusted for potential confounding? Intelligence level could be a confounding factor in this case, for example. Have these claims been published and scrutinized in peer reviewed WP:RS? Biosthmors (talk) 15:52, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it helps we have a rule to ignore all rules, if it helps the encylopedia. The "do not" was added in this edit, in 2009.[1] Apteva (talk) 20:30, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware IAR exists, but I'd rather hear someone address the points I raise. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 20:33, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the 2011 Wikipedia Editor Survey] 49% of editors say that having edits reverted without any explanation makes them less likely to continue editing. It comes second in the list of what makes people stop editing. So I think it is good with a guideline that says: "if you revert, always say why." About your point "If editing here is not compulsory, how is supplying an edit summary compulsory?" - all kind of volunteer work has rules. Nobody obliges you to do volunteer work, but if you do it, you have to abide by the rules. Nothing strange with that. In your specific case, assume good faith and just tell the previous editor s/he made a mistake. Lova Falk talk 08:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wording suggestion

This editnotice caused one of my first moments of confusion when I started editing Wikipedia years ago. Currently the first line reads:

The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below...

The question I had when I saw this the very first time was: what exactly is "the edit"? Is it the edit that I am undoing, or the undo edit itself? Since this message only appears when undoing is possible, then I suggest more active wording, along the lines of:

You are about to undo an edit. Please check the comparison below...

Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 02:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I guess MediaWiki:Undo-success starts "The edit can be undone" to be similar to MediaWiki:Undo-failure which starts "The edit could not be undone". The MediaWiki defaults MediaWiki:Undo-success/qqx and MediaWiki:Undo-failure/qqx have the same starts. If you know that undo only works on some edits and you maybe have seen the default messages at other wikis then you may expect or like to be explicitly told from the start whether the edit can be undone. But I see how it can be ambiguous to new users. If you misinterpret "The edit" as the edit you are doing then the message will still be true so I don't think it's a serious problem. The full message also says "undoing the edit" in a contect which is clearly about your own edit: "The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit." PrimeHunter (talk) 12:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

+1. I find The edit can be undone to be confusing because my brain expects something with this grammar and this prominence to be This edit cannot be undone. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:42, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The edit can be undone

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change...

The edit can be [[Help:Reverting|undone]].

To...

You are about to [[Help:Reverting|undo]] an edit.

Discussed in talk page section above. If any concerns about consensus, could possibly wait a week to action this to see if anyone opposes. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:48, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. It's been 8 years without comment — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:34, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]