Last modified: 2011-03-13 18:05:27 UTC
On dewikipedia we had a discussion on how to remove rollback links in the history if the last editor is the person viewing the page history. I don't think that having a link that instantly removes your contributions is really wise. It is almost never needed and presumably only triggered by accident. It'd be nice to remove the rollback link for the editor whose edits would be reverted.
Then don't click it ;) Anyway, people may want to rollback their edits. This would just make the UI less consistent.
(In reply to comment #1) > Anyway, people may want to rollback their edits. This would just make the UI > less consistent. > People make mistakes. At our wiki, it's not uncommon for someone to edit a template, tweak it a dozen of times, then decide the old version was better and rollback.
Maybe adding a CSS-ID, so that users can decide themselfs and turn off the 'rollback my edits'-link via monobook.css, would solve this problem?
Sorry, but Aaron is wrong. I guess that others have similar experiences to me: During the last two weeks I accidently rolled back my own edit (which was good and valid) much more times than I had really to revert a wrong edit I made during the last two years. I am urging: Please remove rollback on own edits. Thats irrational and provokes unwanted errors.
(In reply to comment #4) > Sorry, but Aaron is wrong. No he's not. Just because *you* don't see the point in being able to rollback your own edits doesn't mean nobody does. > I guess that others have similar experiences to me: > During the last two weeks I accidently rolled back my own edit (which was good > and valid) much more times than I had really to revert a wrong edit I made > during the last two years. > > I am urging: Please remove rollback on own edits. Thats irrational and provokes > unwanted errors. > Even *if* you rolled back your own edits by accident, you can just undo the rollback.
Aaron is not wrong, and it's not irrational, far from it. I've purposefully reverted myself many a time when I made an accidental edit. Sometimes I revert a good edit by someone else mistaking it for a bad one, and so I just use rollback on myself to undo my revert. Any accidental revert of your self can be fixed by clicking the next rollback link that shows up. Making rollback links for one's self just completely disappear '''will''' make the UI less consistent. The only good suggestion here is the css id, though for validation's sake, that should actually be a CSS class. Then anyone who really wants this kind of functionality can simply set display: none; on that class to remove the links.
(In reply to comment #6) > Any accidental revert of your self can be fixed by clicking the next rollback > link that shows up. No it can't. Try; it won't have any effect. > Making rollback links for one's self just completely disappear '''will''' make > the UI less consistent. The only good suggestion here is the css id, though for > validation's sake, that should actually be a CSS class. Then anyone who really > wants this kind of functionality can simply set display: none; on that class to > remove the links. > That's probably best.
(In reply to comment #4) > Sorry, but Aaron is wrong... > About people ever wanting to rollback their edits or it making the UI less consistent? Even if someone though this was a good idea, I don't see how those points could be argued with.
No. Sorry. It is absolutely against any logics that one might wish to revert the own edit. There is practically no need to rollback your own edit. Basically, rolling back your own edit says: ''Ups, I am too stupid too use preview of the article.'' > Even *if* you rolled back your own edits by accident, you can just undo the > rollback. Why that complicated. One might ask whether a rollback in general has some sense but rolling back own edits does not have any sense at all. What you describe of removing your own edit is a one-out-of-a-million-situation. You also can revert your own edit, if it is needed in other ways. I don't think that the UI would be inconsistent if we're removing the rollback feature on own edits, in the contrary. Users might be vandals or they might not but they are not that stupid not to deal with that.
Ups, I am too stupid too use preview of the article. I need this rollback. An ID would be nice, but no must-have.
@Daniel Friesen: However, if I make a mistake in my edit I rather fix the mistake than reverting the edit in general. Reverting edits in general does rather make sense on discussion pages when you realize that you contacted the wrong user or if you realize that you've been totally wrong before ''he'' reacts, in articles you don't act like this.
.mw-rollback-link a[href*="from=YOURUSERNAME"] {display:none;} So for example, for me: .mw-rollback-link a[href*="from=Splarka"] {display:none;}
I'll be dev #3 to agree that this will not change. If you're prone to accidentally clicking the rollback link, your problems are not going to be fixed by this, since you're going to be clicking other people's rollback links too by mistake. I have seen self-rollback deliberately used more than once and have used it myself. This will not be removed. If you think the link is too easy to hit in general, come up with a proposal to move it or something and open a new bug. Please don't reopen this bug unless you're a developer. (In reply to comment #12) > .mw-rollback-link a[href*="from=YOURUSERNAME"] {display:none;} > > So for example, for me: > > .mw-rollback-link a[href*="from=Splarka"] {display:none;} You need "from=YOURUSERNAME&", with the & at the end. This will probably work to hide the button, as CSS, in modern browsers anyway.
(In reply to comment #9) > No. Sorry. It is absolutely against any logics that one might wish to revert > the own edit. There is practically no need to rollback your own edit. I use this feature quite often, to revert my minor mistaken edits and accidental rollbacks, and I find the restriction you proposed pointless. If I can revert anybody else, why shouldn't I be able to revert myself quickly and conveniently? I don't want to waste my time on opening old revision of a page, clicking edit, and filling in edit summary, in addition to three page loads instead of one.
(In reply to comment #13) > (In reply to comment #12) > > .mw-rollback-link a[href*="from=YOURUSERNAME"] {display:none;} > > > > So for example, for me: > > > > .mw-rollback-link a[href*="from=Splarka"] {display:none;} > > You need "from=YOURUSERNAME&", with the & at the end. This will probably work > to hide the button, as CSS, in modern browsers anyway. > My username is "Church of emacs". Do I need to replace spaces with '+' or '_'? And I also have the following line in my CSS: a[href*="Church_of_emacs"] { background:#C1FFC1; } Does this in any way affect the display:none;? It'd be really nice to get this working, then we could even change it to FIXED :)
Oh, well, .mw-rollback-link a[href*="from=Church+of+emacs"] {display:none;} worked. There must have been something still in my cache yesterday... This makes it possible for everyone to turn off the link, I therefor change the bug to FIXED.
(In reply to comment #15) > My username is "Church of emacs". Do I need to replace spaces with '+' or '_'? Look at the actual link and you'll see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brain-Washing&action=rollback&from=Church+of+emacs&token=0123456789abcdef0123456789abcdef%2B%5C + is correct here, at least at the moment (_ will work as well in the link, so maybe add two selectors). > And I also have the following line in my CSS: > a[href*="Church_of_emacs"] { background:#C1FFC1; } > Does this in any way affect the display:none;? No, because 1) it won't match and 2) background has no effect when display is set to none. > It'd be really nice to get this working, then we could even change it to FIXED > :) No, because the request was not "figure out a CSS hack so that people who want to and who know about it can use the hack to hide the rollback link, if it works consistently". Note that it won't affect the brackets, it will just hide the link itself. This request is still WONTFIX. In any case, you can't call a bug fixed if no change was made to the software. If there was no bug in the first place, or a feature was requested that was already in the software, it's INVALID, not FIXED.
