Cannabis Ruderalis

Rollback

(add requestview requests)


User:Jamesx12345

I sometimes go through recent edits looking for things and it would be far quicker (and with warnings) to use Huggle. Jamesx12345 (talk) 19:16, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lguipontes

I try to do my best for my mainspace edits be reasonable, I am very transparent about my Wikipedia actions – as you can see in my userpage, documenting the results of my activity since I started to put my local experience knowledge and experiment with my English language skills here 2 years ago –, and would like to have this tool to revert users who frequently delete sourced, accurate content because they just disagree with it (but whose changes end up buried in articles' histories, so I have to do this manually). Lguipontes (talk) 23:17, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done. Deleting sourced, accurate content because they just disagree with it is not blatant vandalism. You can't use rollback for that. Rollback is strictly for reverting clear cases of vandalism only. You may find this page Wikipedia:Vandalism of help in identifying such cases. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:04, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Do you mean that even if an account that does mostly problematic vandalism does a less problematic though still disruptive edit, it can't be used? Nevertheless, I'm pretty sure this will count. I promise, if I'm accepted, to stick solely to the latter case, if you say so. Lguipontes (talk) 06:27, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rollback can only be used for clearly unambiguous cases of blatant vandalism. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:09, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Vivvt

I got more than 15000 edits since 2010 and currently reverting the various vandals. Though I use Twinkle, this role would be nice to have. - Vivvt (Talk) 18:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leave a Reply