Help desk
< May 9	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 11 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

May 10

Edit Conflicts

Almost all of my edits have been resulting in edit conflicts as of late, but when I check the page history there is usually no edit I can see that would have conflicted with mine. This generally only happens to me when I am editing articles, not anything else. Additionally, this has only started happening since I completely revamped my preferences, but I have been unable to locate which preference or gadget may be the source of the problem. Can someone help me out here? Thanks. Bzweebl (talk) 01:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes trying to send an edit through twice may cause such conflict -- although usually the first edit ends up going through. If it's a Preferences thing, just try them one by one see which one was the issue -- and make sure to report the bug! :) Salvidrim! 02:29, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to be able to edit my edit descriptions

I would like to be able to edit my edit descriptions.

I find it quite astonishing that after correcting grammar or spelling mistakes in an article, if I then make a spelling mistake in my edit description I can't correct it.

Editors who are logged in should be able to correct or change their edit descriptions. If its a case of "then everyone will be back-tracking through thousands of their edit descriptions" - then at least allow us one revision of the last edit description we wrote. Thats all thats needed really.

It also quite disconcerting to see that you've spent quite a bit of time editing and then you've let yourself down by making the same mistake in your edit description as the one you were trying to correct in the article.

I think allowing editors to change mistakes in their edit descriptions would improve the article's history page. Its also quite nice for editors to feel as though the article and edit description are under their full control and that the edit description is of equal importance.

It would also allow for those silly moments to be redressed. For example, someone vandalised the article on "William the Conqueror". I spotted the vandalism because I was reading the whole article and the vandal had buried the vandalism half-way through. It was quite a big article and for most people scanning the article it may have been missed. I corrected the vandalism. The thing about this vandalism was that it could have only been done in that way by the vandal reading the article; at least to the point of the vandalism. In my edit description I wrote jokingly "at least he read the article before he vandalised it". Obviously vandalism is a serious matter on Wikipedia and my flippant comment may have been seen as counter-productive by admin and other editors. I should have been able to change it.

Does anyone else have an opinion on this or is there some reason this is not practical

Sluffs (talk) 02:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "edit description"? Do you mean edit summaries? Nyttend (talk) 02:16, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think he is quite clearly and unambiguously referring to edit summaries. However, this might be more suited to the WP:Village Pump, since it is a proposal, not really a question. :) Salvidrim! 02:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Serious issues are rare but see Help:Edit summary#Fixing for options. bugzilla:10105 - "Allow editing of edit summaries after the fact" is a WONTFIX. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. The "dummy edit" may be an option and I will go to the Village Pump to see if it may be put as a proposal. Quite right that most edit summary mistakes are not serious issues but editors do take pride in their work. The future may think better of us if the edit summaries had less mistakes. Imagine if every edition of Encyclopedia Brittanica had mistake-ridden footnotes to articles that were never corrected and were carried forward to the next edition and with new mistakes added. Just as we have trouble reading Chaucer without an understanding of old English; so we are leaving future historians and editors a minefield of mistakes in the edit summaries which will be made more problematic by the simple fact that language evolves.

Sluffs (talk) 00:53, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But an edit summary isn't anything like a footnote. I agree, the EB would look somewhat unprofessional if footnotes were riddled with typing errors, but think of an edit summary as something "behind the scenes", with which a user of the encyclopædia (the person for whom WP articles are intended as well) is unconcerned. Edit summaries need to summarise the edit; as long as they're accurate and unambiguous that's enough. Tonywalton ^Talk 01:07, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why Is This Page Uneditable?

The page on James Randi [[1]] is higly biased and one-sided. Any attempts to provide supplemental information that indicates his "One Million Dollar Challenge" might be a hoax is constantly deleted, giving the impression that Randi's honesty is above reproach. Is there some particular reason to keep readers from fully evaluating the integrity of his "Challenge?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.222.81.105 (talk) 02:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This page is not currently protected, it is thus editable. If you find yourself in a content dispute where you believe some content should be added but you find others disagree, perhaps you would be interested in reading our policy on dispute resolution. :) Salvidrim! 02:39, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit worked just fine, it's just that you were reverted and rightly so. The content you added besides being motivated by an apparent agenda, was mostly unsourced, a blatant copyright violation, and the source you infringed by copying and pasting its content is utterly unsuitable, not being a reliable source but an anonymous internet posting.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Contact if someone purposely and erroneously accuses you of sockpuppetry?

Who would you contact to report such an individual when they are personally attacking you and accusing you of sockpuppetry instead of solving the dispute? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can dispute the sockpuppetry here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/DoctorK88. Bryan Hopping ^T 03:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two things, first, I would prefer that someone other than the person accusing me answer my question. Second, if you read the policy on defending yourself from these accusations that is not the protocol. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a helpful page Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guidance discussing how to go about defending yourself. Bryan Hopping ^T 04:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware. That's the page I was referring to. I would appreciate it if you did not answer my question and allowed someone not involved to answer. Thanks in advance. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 04:20, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I'm sorry for any unpleasantness. I'll step out if that would be helpful. Bryan Hopping ^T 04:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do, your acts have had nothing but malicious intent behind them. You know you are in the wrong. I think the fact that you have been unpleasant to say the least is apparent. As I said, please refrain from answering a question clearly directed at everyone but you. Thanks. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 04:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What would I possibly have to gain by being malicious? I have no agenda. No ax to grind. I'm sorry that you interpret all of this through that lens, but its not my point of view. I've been an editor on WP for a while, and I've learned one gains nothing by being rude, and one gains much by being kind and civil.Bryan Hopping ^T 04:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You talk the talk, but you do not walk the walk. You have refused to engage in a civil discussion as I initially asked for and when I decided to talk to DRN which was the course of action recommended to me by many users due to your inappropriate reversions, you respond with the puerile action of suggesting a sockpuppetry investigation. That is hypocrisy with malicious intent if I ever saw it. Your gain would be the absence of an opinion in opposition to your own. You clearly chose not to actually be constructive and have an open discussion and allow others to join in as well and see how it pans out. Furthermore, you shared information on this page that did not belong here such as the link you provided. Quite frankly, this is nonsense what you said. You would not be launching a character assassination were there no malicious intent and your intent is evident through your actions which speak far louder than your words here. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 04:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(after multiple edit conflicts...) If you were accused you basically just go to the case page and post your defense, which I see you've done. If the outcome is that you're not socking in violation of policy, and you continue to be accused by this editor, you could report it at WP:ANI. Of course, if the outcome is that you are socking in violation, Hopping's report was warranted and this account will probably be blocked. And Hopping, stop poking the bear please. You've made your point, now back away. Also see WP:HOUND. Equazcion ^(talk) 04:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input Equazcion. I'm well aware of what you have said here but the point remains that his accusation and his reversions were unjustified for many reasons. You can see his behavior clearly displayed here as you noted with the "poking the bear" I don't know if that is a wikipedia/wikiquette term or not but either way it's clear that is what he is trying to do. It does not make sense though that his report is warranted based on the outcome that sounds like post hoc fallacy to me. Either way, I think anyone who is objective will see what is happening. I've already explained at length to an administrator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TylerDurden8823 (talk • contribs) 04:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there are issues other than this sock allegation and you think he's targeted you for some reason, the best thing to do would be to report it at WP:ANI. Just be aware that your own history will also come under scrutiny there. I'm not privy to your actions other than here or your disputes with Hopping, so I can't say how that will go, but if you're in the right, it will hopefully come out there. Equazcion ^(talk) 04:50, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I may just take your advice. Thank you for the information Equazcion. I appreciate it. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 04:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tool to separate out references while editing

I'm sure I remember a tool to separate out references into a separate editbox when editing an article. Can anyone help me find it again? Rd232 ^talk 09:50, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean RefToolbar, by any chance? Yunshui 雲‍水 10:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. There are a number of tools that try to make editing references easier; what I remember was a tool that separated the references out of the wikitext. That separation made editing the body text easier (when you have lots of references in a paragraph, it becomes impenetrable and very hard to edit), as well as the references. Rd232 ^talk 11:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you are after WP:WIKED. It is a gadget you can select in your preferences. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 11:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that was the tool I was thinking of. WikEd has the right idea (with the "hide refs and templates" button), but it's much heavier and clunkier than the tool I remember. Playing with it, it seems more trouble than it's worth, which certainly wasn't the case for the tool I'm thinking of... ... it's possible my memory is flawed of course. Any other suggestions? Rd232 ^talk 11:50, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe ProveIt? Do we win a prize if we guess right? Yunshui 雲‍水 11:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the script at User:M/monobook.js will remove references from the edit window, though I've never tried it... Yunshui 雲‍水 12:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

... and this script gives you a "hide refs" option in your toolbox. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you're looking for User:PleaseStand/segregate-refs.js.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

YES! Thank you! That is indeed the one. Simple but brilliantly effective. Why isn't that a gadget - or included in another ref-type gadget? Rd232 ^talk 17:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Maybe you should suggest that? I personally have it and don't use it much, but it's quite unobtrusive with its little green link.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category-like articles

Is there a guideline on whether category-like articles need references or not? What I mean by "category-like" are for example list articles that could also exist as categories. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 12:26, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists#Listed items: "The verifiability policy states that material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source." The page mentions category-like lists briefly. Dru of Id (talk) 16:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Contributors - what do the bracketed numbers mean?

If I check the contributors page on an article it shows (for example)

34 (24/10) Chaheel Riens

What is the significance of the 24/10? Undo? Rollback?

Just wondering thanks. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where exactly are you seeing this? When I check the page history of an article, I see entries such as

2012-05-10 T00:52:15‎ ClueBot NG (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (26,390 bytes) (-15)‎ . . (Reverting possible vandalism by 76.110.38.226 to version by Dac04. False positive? Report it. Thanks, ClueBot NG. (1065896) (Bot)) (undo)

Do you have any scripts installed? What skin is selected in your preferences? -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 12:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In page history, above the actual contributions there is a selection of links:

External tools: Revision history statistics · Revision history search · Contributors · User edits · Number of watchers · Page view statistics

If you click the Contributors link, you'll see what I mean. No scripts, and default skin. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:50, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that these numbers show which edits decreased the size of the article (the first number) and shows the size in bytes by which the article was decreased and the second number shows an increase in bytes. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 13:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first number is simply the number of edits made to an article by that editor - in my case above I had made 34 edits to the article in question. What I don't understand (and I admit it's not an earthshakingly important question) is what the split in the brackets are for. I don't think it's to do with bytes - the numbers just aren't enough. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Translation: 34 edits total, 24 regular, 10 marked as minor.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:18, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Before I "Go Live"

Dear Wikipedia, I have reedited my article and want to go live again, but have a few questions; 1) When I last went live, my name appeared online before the subject name, which of course was very embarrassing. Why did this happen, and how can I avoid it happening again? 2) When I press “Show preview”, the box on the top right that shows my subjects name, birth place and website, is missing other bits of information that I intended it to contain (ie “medium”, “active” and “instruments”. Why is this? 3) Also when I press “Show preview”, the “Categories” do not appear at the bottom. Will they appear when I go live with the article,or have I made an error? Thank you very much for your kind help. Maya Frida Barr (talk) 12:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I rearranged the sections for you - "Early life" should come before the details of the subject's career/work. You might want to separate the events in his career into subsections such as "Music", "Television", "Stage", etc. Categories are not shown in a preview. The references are not properly formatted and I'm not too sure if some of them are really acceptable reliable sources. BTW if it's not clear to everyone the draft under discussion is at User:Maya Frida Barr/sandbox. Roger (talk) 12:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, categories do show up in preview. They're way down at the bottom below the editing box and all the licensing fine print. I've commented them out though. If they aren't they still work and place the sandbox article in the live categories. I made some other tweaks per WP:SURNAME and WP:DATED. Also, titles of television shows, movies, plays, and albums should be in italics. Song titles and other short works go in "double quotes". Dismas|^(talk) 14:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching my error - yes categories are no supposed to show up on drafts. Roger (talk) 14:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You need at least to spell out titles of references. Ruslik_Zero 15:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody's answered your first question: see WP:SYMUD. --ColinFine (talk) 20:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Input on newly created article

On NPP, I came across this article Documentary film of the Netherlands and don't know what to do with it. Although passably well-written and well-intentioned it seems to be original research if one takes the lede sentence "A Dutch Documentary film is a documentary film made by a director of (partly) Dutch origin. Dutch documentary films are not necessarily bound to Dutch topics or locations in the Netherlands."
This would appear to be the page author's opinion and a rather vague definition. Also no other articles exist along the same lines (i.e. documentary films by country/nationality), is this SYNTH? I mean if a half-dutch guy/gal makes a film about the taco trade in Mexico, is that a Dutch documentary? Some input from other editors required. Cheers. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 13:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For a start, the title is poor English. It should be Dutch documentary films (as in the lede, which redirects to this article) or Documentary films of the Netherlands. The definition given is clear and self-evident, not to say obvious. (I'm not sure it needs a definition at all.) The list of documentaries is rather pointless because it's so open ended. Maybe just include the notable ones.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well obviously the title is not good English, I didn't page move it immediately because I was just wondering if it should exist at all. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 17:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An AfD discussion would receive input and determine whether to keep/delete. benzband (talk) 18:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Benzband, I was hoping for more, but this will do. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 20:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which ISO 15924 template?

I need to import a template to Wikibooks that will turn a name of a script into its ISO 15924 code. (For example, Latin → Latn). There are many ISO 15924 templates on Wikipedia, but I am not sure which one does what I want. Please advise on the one that will best do what I want. Thanks, Liam987 14:16, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Try WP:VPT.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:44, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'see also' links on article?

Hi, I was wondering how to put the 'see also' links all onto one line on the following article...Liverpool City Region. The links are found on the Transport section of the article. Also, I'm not sure if I've written the links in the correct format...for example one see also link reads 'St Helens, Merseyside#Transport and infrastructure'. Is this the correct way to write it, looks a bit strange to me?

Richie wright1980 (talk)Richie wright1980 (talk) 14:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've compacted them into one line as you can see here. I don't know how to the the anchor tags (#) out though. Dismas|^(talk) 14:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Template:See also#Usage. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated, thankyou! Richie wright1980 (talk)Richie wright1980 (talk) 15:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image

It is certain I may have the right to keep this image I uploaded to "Lessing Photo Archives", whereas, a number of users have (I was once a student of Erich Lessing in his arts class). Although, I have the right to upload certain images I have uploaded to Wikipedia, from what I have photographed and yet have permission, from the person who created it, and yes I took the photo, but may upload the photo

File:"Uraeus Cobra figures, Reverse side of the throne of Pharaoh Tutankhamun, Egyptian Museum, Cairo, Egypt.jpg".jpg

to the main site of a zodiac sign is my question, sir. I know some administrators will pick on others due to they may not like the photo or just becoming rough, but delete another permission photo of a snake decoration from North America on the Snake (zodiac) article is inappropriate as the rest of the zodiac articles as well have different photos from other countries, unlike, User:Future Perfect at Sunrise who only picked on the snake (zodiac), because of a simple edit I have made, and the rest the user did not seem to bother, so please at least give me some assurance of might to add this photo and stop disruptive edits by this high ranking ,yet doing the right-thing user calledUser:Future Perfect at Sunrise and I know the user means well. I am looking forward talking --GoShow (...............) 14:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because copyright infringement is a potentially serious issue, Wikipedia cannot just take your word for it that you have the necessary permission to upload the image. Please take a look at the advice set out at WP:CONSENT and follow the instructions there to provide an appropriate permission. Hope this helps.--ukexpat (talk) 16:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I did thanks--GoShow (...............) 17:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Close a merge discussion please

To this day I have not yet figured out how to pick the right venue to resolve simple questions. I don't think it's WP:3O or WP:DRN. Can somebody just pop over, peruse a couple articles, Brammo and Craig Bramscher, and then close Talk:Brammo#Merge proposal? Merge, don't merge, {{resolved}}, {{unresolved}}, whatever, just something so we can move on. Thanks! --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:47, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as "stale" (no discussion for 18 months) without prejudice to future proposals. Bencherlite ^Talk 18:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I need help with a hidden template

The idea was to drop off a semi-personal message on another's talk page--more to h/h benefit than mine. I tried it a number of times in the sandbox. The latest is here. When I click "show" all I see is "{{{2}}}". I've tried to see if there was any breaks in the script, and being still a bit of a novice, I've spent a few hours on this to no avail. What am I doing wrong (and I doing anything wrong)? Thanks.Civic Cat (talk) 18:20, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You need to put |2=The origin of my username etc (and "You’re user pages" should be "Your user pages", incidentally!) Bencherlite ^Talk 18:25, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It works!! Mind you, I didn't see it in the Template:Hidden. As for "you're" and "your," where did I err there--so that I might correct it. After al, wile won Canne use a spell check, won can still err. Good word choice and being Abel to catch the rung words is like suite smelling colon. :-D Civic Cat (talk) 18:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Usually, the apostrophe indicates one or more missing letters (except in possessives, like "Peter's"). So "you're" is an abbreviation for "you are". "Your" means "belonging to you", which is what you want here. HTH Rojomoke (talk) 12:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Style change?

Not sure what has happened but everything that is links in watchlist an contrubitions etc instead of beeing the normal it appears to be bolded so very vibrante in colour and quite off putting--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 126#Watchlist - bold letter article titles!.--ukexpat (talk) 18:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article Disappeared

An article was recently submitted from this account about entrepreneur Dan Carey. Now the article can't be found and the deletion log on the account is also empty. I also can't find any record or saved version of the article. Is there any way I can find out where it is or what happened to it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjasc (talk • contribs) 19:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but your account has only this section as a contribution, deleted or otherwise, I'm afraid you must not have saved it properly--Jac16888 ^Talk 19:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The most common cause of this problem is that you clicked on the Show Preview button instead of the Save Page Button:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

This is a minor edit Watch this page

By publishing changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 4.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.

Publish changes Show preview Show changes Cancel

If you do not click on Save Page, the edit will not be kept. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 15:15, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bold watchlist items

How can I turn them off and have my watchlist appear as it was before? -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 20:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Watchlist_-_bold_letter_article_titles.21 follow the bit near the bottom about css--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 20:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See #Style change? above.--ukexpat (talk) 20:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A nice workaround, and one I'll use until they give us an option to turn the eyesore off, but it does have the downside of removing the bold from watchlisted pages in recent changes. --Onorem ♠Dil 20:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Watchlist, annoying green star

Why is there an annoying green star next to the page names in my watchlist? Fifelfoo (talk) 22:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a new feature. The green star means you didn't look at the page since the last change. It looks like this is still being tweaked, and there will probably be a preference or gadget to disable it. See WP:VPT#Watchlist - bold letter article titles!. Equazcion ^(talk) 22:08, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because you need help knowing which pages you've looked at since the last time they've been edited. strong.mw-watched a{background:none;padding-left:0;} on your /common.css page will remove them...and there are several discussion going on about it. I think the most active one is at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). --Onorem ♠Dil 22:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, it is visually appalling design. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:16, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another "feature" foisted on us without any well advertised community discussion. In that regard, some shameless canvassing: for anyone who moves pages with any regularity and cares about the interface (and the English language) please vote for bug 34961.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not care for the star either. Perhaps the developers can allow us to select an icon.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

What is the difference between rollback (AGF), rollback, and rollback (VANDAL)? Tboii99 ✉ 23:29, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those extra buttons are part of Twinkle, a userscript to assist editors you must've installed. See the relevant Twinkle documentation item for your answer. Allmightyduck  What did I do wrong? 23:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. I'm mostly comfortable with Twinkle, but I'm still trying to get the hang of it. Thanks. Tboii99 ✉ 23:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agf and just rollback is used to revert things that are not vandalism (like unsourced), but still needs to be reverted. It is generally what's used to revert non-obvious vandalism and unsourced content. The Vandal revert is used to revert obvious and blatant vandalism.--Deathlaser : Chat 17:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, got it, thanks. Tboii99 ✉ 22:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]