Reverting a series of edits that blanked most all sources for the article. It's possible an old proxy source was among those, but there is a need to restore this to the previous (sourced) state.
—Carter (Tcr25) (
talk) 21:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I checked and there was an Ebscohost link in there, so not a false positive. It would have been helpful, however, if there was a way to manage within the revert process.
—Carter (Tcr25) (
talk) 21:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Date and time
21:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Comments
Note: If this is truly a FP, only sysops can implement the edit since the filter only excludes sysops and bots. – PharyngealImplosive7(talk) 22:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Pinned – This thread has been pinned and will not be archived until this template has been removed. @
Tcr25: You can get around any filter (and the
WP:SBL) using
WP:ROLLBACK (not Twinkle). That said, maybe this filter should exclude Twinkle reverts too. I'll look at it.
Suffusion of Yellow (
talk) 23:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Suffusion of Yellow: Something like &!(summary irlike "^(?:revert|rv|undid|restored)") might also work for now (checked against the last 5000 filter hits, looked good).
Nobody (
talk) 05:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I would probably also reduce it to warn and/or lower sysop to a less privileged group - disallowing for everyone except sysops seems excessive.
* Pppery *it has begun... 18:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I made one small change, removing an use of rmwhitespace() that was sweeping up unrelated links together. That would have at least prevented this filter hit. There were previous objections to excluding reverts at
Wikipedia:Edit filter noticeboard/Archive 9#"Unreliable source" filters; while I'm still of the opinion that people reverting page-blanking vandals shouldn't be required to fix existing problems, I got some push back to that suggestion there. The point would be moot if all of these links were removed; then a disallowing filter would be no worse than the
WP:SBL.
Suffusion of Yellow (
talk) 21:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Why because the system said I've rights to sign my talk pages but dinied and unsigned .
Date and time
18:05, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Comments
Private – One or more of the filters triggered are private, and the request needs to be evaluated by an edit filter helper or manager.(automated comment) —
MajavahBot (
talk ·
contributions) 18:05, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Not done – The filter is working properly. Please sign your talk pages with four tildes (~~~~), which will automatically leave your IP/username and timestamp, not your email address or anything else. Thanks!
Rusty4321talkcontribs 22:24, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
removing entirely irrelevant content and adding a small relevant piece of information in the first paragraph. Surprised it was rejected; there is no reason it should have.
Date and time
09:06, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Comments
Private – One or more of the filters triggered are private, and the request needs to be evaluated by an edit filter helper or manager.(automated comment) —
MajavahBot (
talk ·
contributions) 09:06, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Private – One or more of the filters triggered are private, and the request needs to be evaluated by an edit filter helper or manager.
Codename Noreste 🤔
La Suma 04:09, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Private – One or more of the filters triggered are private, and the request needs to be evaluated by an edit filter helper or manager.(automated comment) —
MajavahBot (
talk ·
contributions) 05:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Not done – The filter is working properly.
Nobody (
talk) 05:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Private – One or more of the filters triggered are private, and the request needs to be evaluated by an edit filter helper or manager.(automated comment) —
MajavahBot (
talk ·
contributions) 05:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Not done – The filter is working properly. Please stop spamming.
Nobody (
talk) 05:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply