Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Twinkle

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 15:21, 4 November 2013 (Archiving 5 discussion(s) to Wikipedia talk:Twinkle/Archive 30) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"WT:TW" redirects here. For For other uses, see Wikipedia talk:Transwiki log, or WikiProjects talk Torchwood or Taiwan, see WT:TW (disambiguation).
Shortcut

This page is for general discussion and questions related to Twinkle. It is also one possible venue for reporting bugs and requesting new features; although see Bugs and feature requests below.

Consider also checking Twinkle's documentation, which may answer your question.

Consistency of user input

Sometimes, when using Twinkle to tag things, or to offer to delete them, a dialogue box or other instrument opens when one opts for the element from the list. At other times the dialogue box (etc) opens after submission. I imagine this is because of several tools having been grafted together into the TW environment.

From the user's perspective I have a preference for any additional input being made prior to submission, the more so since pressing cancel on the act post submission does not necessarily have an obvious effect.

So my plea is for consistency. I don't make this plea as a matter of urgency, just as a matter of minor importance. And I'm sure, as a plea for neatness, it will appeal to the chaps and chapesses who produce and maintain nTW with love. Fiddle Faddle 13:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this up. I completely agree with you. Some time ago, inspired by the work of Siddhartha Ghai on a project known as TWG, the tag module was changed so that popups are no longer shown to the user when they click Submit - instead, input is solicited through "subgroups" (input fields that dynamically appear when necessary). The only tag still using popups is {{expand language}} - I'm not too sure of the reason for this. The plan is to migrate the CSD module to a similar functionality, and after that I think we would mostly be popup-less (except for revert/rollback, which is special). How does that sound to you? — This, that and the other (talk) 00:26, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds excellent. I simply wanted to make sure it was on your radar screen. Often these things can be fiddled with when fixing something else, but one has to know they need fixing :) As I said, not at all urgent, just important for good consistency, the more so when pressing cancel sometimes cancels the thing in the popup and sometimes (not sure?) cancels the operation! Fiddle Faddle 08:06, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can see the work bearing fruit. Please will you look at CSD for an article previously deleted by a deletion discussion? It needs to default to the prior deletion discussion, only getting human input if it has a different name, please. I hope it's a tiny coding issue. The pverall improvement is lovely. Niggles there will always be! Fiddle Faddle 11:03, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AN3 report

Resolved

Why does Twinkle not allow an AN3 report unless it finds three edits to the same article within the last 24 hours? I had started an edit warring report last night using twinkle and there were only two reverts within the last 24 hours, and selected both. I explained in the comment section why it was edit warring and hit submit. Twinkle came back and said that I had to select at least three reverts before it would allow me to submit the report. Edit warring is more than just the three revert rule. GB fan 12:30, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can see this as an issue in cases where there has been a 1RR sanction set in place. Technical 13 (talk) 01:09, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@AzaToth: ? — This, that and the other (talk) 02:09, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That restriction could be alleviated a bit perhaps; The intention was to prevent people making reports where the letter of the rules hadn't been breached. →AzaToth 21:17, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@GB fan: Now, when you select fewer than three edits, you are simply asked to confirm whether this is what you meant to do, instead of being prevented from going ahead with the report. — This, that and the other (talk) 04:15, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

3rr feature request

The 3rr feature is great, but it would be nice to be able to report more complicated types of edit warring. For example edit warring by IPs or sockpuppets using multiple accounts, or "slow" edit wars of longer than 24 hours. Basically having an option to un-filter the article history list would work, letting you select diffs from multiple users, and for longer than 24 hours. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I second this - specifically, I would like the ability to select edits outside of the very narrow range that is currently possible. Can it be implemented sometime soon? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 16:17, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Watching sockpuppetry reports

It may just be my preferences, but I cant find where to set it of so. When I create a Sockpuppetry report I'd like TW to set it so that I am watching it. Currently that seems to need a manual intervention. Or, of course, I have missed where I ought to set it! Fiddle Faddle 10:30, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just opened up the code for our ARV module, and did a text search for the word "watch" - it doesn't even appear... This option is clearly something we should have. In fact, I think it should even be enabled by default. — This, that and the other (talk) 11:28, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Default for created AfD pages also seems to be to follow page preferences, may make sense to change that as well. Amalthea 14:42, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Amalthea: Currently we have two styles of watchlist preferences: the boolean true/false, and three-state yes/no/default (where "default" means "follow user's MediaWiki preferences"). I seem to recall that one of these is a legacy style, and the other one is supposed to be used for new prefs. Can you remember which is which? Or do we need to decide this now? — This, that and the other (talk) 09:57, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@This, that and the other: Hmm, did Echo have issues? Your ping didn't get through, I have no 'mentions' since October 19, but I don't see anything at WP:VPT.
The true/false settings are the legacy ones, back in 2009 the API didn't offer true 'default'/'nochange' options (bugzilla:19090).
Amalthea 09:48, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That was my fault: I initially used the {{@}} template, so went back to fix it, but Echo didn't recognise my second edit as a mention because it wasn't signed. Sorry about that!
OK, that makes sense. Eventually we should figure out some way of migrating the legacy boolean watchlist prefs to the new style, although it's hardly a priority. — This, that and the other (talk) 11:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see, I never considered that Echo would need more than an added user link to accept it a mention, but makes sense of course. :) Amalthea 19:32, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AIV: Double full stops

I cannot add a full stop to the end of my AIV reports, because when I do two full stops appear... click. -- t numbermaniac c 07:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously this needs to be fixed, but in the meantime, don't end your AIV reports with a full stop, as Twinkle adds one unconditionally. — This, that and the other (talk) 20:19, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Auto Removal of Unreviewed template

Resolved

When using Twinkle to tag for improvement or nominate for any form of deletion an article with the {{unreviewed}} template nestling in what is presumably the Creation Wizard fluff and clutter, might TW be enhanced to remove that template and surrounding comment clutter from the article?

Currently it means using TW to do the main job and then going in and doing a manual edit to declutter it. Fiddle Faddle 11:08, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkle already did that with the target of that redirect, it now also removed {{unreviewed}}. (Had to be changed in four scripts, should be unified at some point). Amalthea 11:23, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you :) Fiddle Faddle 08:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New CSD

Resolved

A new CSD criterion, A11, has been added, after talkpage discussion. Can this be added to Twinkle? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:16, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CSD F10 description

Resolved

The CSD dialog box when used on a file page has the description for criteria F10 as "Useless media file". This should be "Useless non-media file" per WP:CSD#F10, can this be amended? January (talk) 18:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wording was changed at WP:CSD in early 2012, I've made the change in the repository to get it back in sync. Will be deployed on here shortly. Amalthea 11:13, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Problem after saving Twinkle preferences

On Wikipedia:Twinkle/Preferences under the "Show rollback links on these pages:" section I'm unchecking the box marked "Contributions pages of other users", however, when I went to someones contributions page the Rollback links were still there. And every time I reload the twinkle preference page the box is marked, even if I uncheck the box, save my preferences and reload the page. Clearing my cache hasn't helped at all either. Is this a bug or am I doing something else wrong? Thanks. —  dainomite   23:11, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you're not seeing the "real" rollback link and getting it confused with Twinkle's rollback links? (At least on some pages, for others, it doesn't show them.) It's always there, whether or not you have Twinkle's enabled or not. (If you don't want it to be, you need to use custom JavaScript or CSS to hide it). Jackmcbarn (talk) 11:50, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have the rollback link hidden on my css and js pages but it still shows. —  dainomite   12:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Dainomite: Did you bypassclear your cache completely as outlined in WP:BYPASS? — This, that and the other (talk) 04:16, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@This, that and the other: Sorry, should've posted here sooner. It's fixed now, and yep yep, I wasn't completely clearing my cache per BYPASS. I was following the top of my twinkleoptions.js that said "Note: After saving, you have to bypass your browser's cache to see the changes ... Google Chrome and Safari users can just click the Reload button." Thank you for checking up on this though, I appreciate it. —  dainomite   00:29, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to anonymous user warning templates

Resolved

I have made some changes to Template:Welcome-anon-unconstructive and Template:Welcome-anon-constructive.

I moved the former to its current name per discussion at WP:TFD that occurred years ago but was not implemented for some reason. Since the former template now applies to any type of unconstructive edit, not just vandalism, I decided to change the text of the latter template per WP:BOLD to remove the mention of vandalism as well.

In other words, both templates now apply to edits other than vandalism, and I would ask that Twinkle be updated to reflect this. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 04:11, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So essentially you simply want references to "welcome-anon-vandal" changed to "welcome-anon-unconstructive"? That is easily done. — This, that and the other (talk) 04:20, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, there's quite a bit more to change - specifically, the descriptions for both templates should be updated as well. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I put in "for anonymous users who have vandalized or made unhelpful edits" for -unconstructive. What is wrong with "for anonymous users who fight vandalism and edit constructively" for -constructive? — This, that and the other (talk) 06:17, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What if I want to template a user who has made constructive edits other than reverting vandalism? To keep it consistent with the other one, I suggest simply changing "and" to "or". Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 06:20, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you wanted to do that, you would click the Preview button to see what the template actually says :) The descriptions are only there as general guidelines, not to be taken literally. But I take your point, I'll make that change as well. — This, that and the other (talk) 06:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the changes, but I'm not seeing them on my end... how soon are they actually going to be implemented? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 04:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As soon as an admin (usually AzaToth or Amalthea) synchronises the gadget on-wiki. — This, that and the other (talk) 00:10, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see the changes now, but not the later one - is this expected? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 22:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well in one sense yes, because I forgot to commit the second change. It will appear on wiki in good time. — This, that and the other (talk) 01:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have (re)created a user warning template {{uw-redlink}}. Is this the proper place to request it be added to Twinkle's list of single issue notices? If so, the explanatory text should be something like Indiscriminate removal of redlinks. —EncMstr (talk) 01:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support, this would be useful. Mlpearc (powwow) 02:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it'll be done when I have time. — This, that and the other (talk) 02:18, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, thank you. Mlpearc Phone (Powwow) 01:52, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Problem in Monobook skin

When I use the Monobook skin, two things happen to Twinkle. Firstly, all the buttons normally accessed from the drop-down menu (CSD, XfD, RPP etc.) appear next to the "edit" button. Secondly, the Twinkle interface has a huge blank space in the left of the box. George8211 conversations 20:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first thing you describe (tab layout) is by design: that is the way Twinkle always used to work before Vector was introduced a few years ago. When you switch to Monobook you are stepping back in time :) As for the second issue, which browser are you using? — This, that and the other (talk) 02:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Firefox 24. I've just upgraded to v25, but haven't seen if the problem's been fixed. (Right now I'm sitting with my tablet. And Firefox for Android 24. Yet to be upgraded. (The problem's still here in FF Android 24.)) George8211 conversations 20:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC) Update: the problem's still here in FF 25. George8211 conversations 17:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How odd. Could you please post a screenshot? — This, that and the other (talk) 03:34, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Templates

Lately, I've been editing templates so that the signature comes automatically. I just wanted to know if you guys would mind editing Twinkle so that the signature does not come when somebody AfDs, PRODs, or CSDs an article. If not, I would happily revert myself. buffbills7701 21:51, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is the reason for your changes? It's easy enough to change Twinkle to suit, but I can't see any good reason for your change... you're going to needlessly raise the ire of editors who use these templates manually... — This, that and the other (talk) 01:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is meant for users who use it manually. New users who forget to add the signature no longer have to, because the template will do it for them. buffbills7701 20:00, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If a template includes the signature, it is no longer easy to follow the standard text with a hand-written addition. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is not only a question of Twinkle. There are very many editors who are used to using one or more of these templates, and changing the way that the templates work is likely to create large numbers of uses of the templates have effects different from those intended. The most obvious problem is that people will add signatures manually, resulting in two signatures. Even if there is a good case for believing it would have been better had these templates originally been designed to automatically add signatures, it is very doubtful whether it is wise to change them now that they are so well established, and it is certainly not a good idea to make changes with such widespread effects without widely advertised discussion. In addition, the extra effort involved in typing ~~~~ is so slight, that the gain achieved by this change is probably not worth the trouble that it would entail. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:21, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DRV

Why is there still no such functionality despite it having been requested before? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 21:54, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down, we're all volunteers around here. My personal objection to writing a DRV module is that it would be very rarely used, hence not worth the time spent coding it. Can you link to the previous requests? Was there any discussion? — This, that and the other (talk) 01:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The very fact that there is WP:XFD functionality but none for WP:DRV screams deletionist bias to me - that's already one reason for implementing it. No, there wasn't any actual discussion - it was only mentioned once in the archives of this talk page as far as I can see.
By the way, mind commenting in the WP:3RR discussion above? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 11:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see the prior request now: Wikipedia talk:Twinkle/Archive 30#DRV for Twinkle?.
I don't see the parallel between DRV and inclusionism - DRV is for reviewing disputed closures of deletion discussions and disputed applications of WP:CSD, among other things; it is not somehow a way for inclusionists to ask for articles to be kept, so I don't really buy the bias argument.
Let me just say that I personally have no plans to add a DRV module to Twinkle; if someone else wants to write a Twinkle module for this purpose, we would welcome it. — This, that and the other (talk) 07:34, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I/We have a script for closing DRVs and I'm confident that myself and the other regular closers of DRVs are capable to manually doing anything additional. Since DRV would never agree to a merge anyway without referring a discussion back to AFD I can't say I feel any lack of functionality. Now, if you could do something on RMs that would be fabby. Spartaz Humbug! 19:28, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RPP module change request.

Currently, there is no option in the RPP module to lower protection from full to TE or semi. I'm not sure which section such a request should go under or if there should be a new section. Currently, people can either request protection as the new level, which sometimes gets misunderstood as the user not realizing the page already has a higher level and gets denied or, it goes under unprotection which sometimes gets misunderstood as a request to completely unprotect the page/template and gets denied. There needs to be a clearer option for this. Thanks. Technical 13 (talk) 10:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea. I would think that this would be handled via the existing interface, with a notice being provided to inform the user that the page is protected (similar to what admins get - add "sysop" to wgUserGroups and try it out). Language like "Reduction of indefinite full protection to temporary semi-protection" could be used on RPP (where the first part is automatic based on the page's current edit protection, and the second part is chosen by the user). How does that sound? — This, that and the other (talk) 07:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a new section should be added to WP:RFPP... Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 08:58, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uw-test1

I was wondering, regarding {{Uw-test1}} and other related user warning templates, can the link to the article (the Physical Graffiti link here) be targeted to the diff of the edit in question ? Mlpearc (powwow) 16:18, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Addition request

{{Uw-consensus1}}, this would be a useful addition to MediaWiki:Gadget-twinklewarn.js. Mlpearc (powwow) 16:41, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have some old text files containing plans for Twinkle warnings; I'll go and see what was said about this one. — This, that and the other (talk) 07:39, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I second the addition of this - and request any other user warning templates not yet included. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 18:10, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some little-used warnings are not included in Twinkle, to avoid clutter in the lists. For example, uw-redirectX, uw-icsX and uw-taxonomyX are examples of uw- series that are deliberately excluded from Twinkle. If you wish to use these templates via Twinkle, you can add each member of the series to your custom warnings at WP:TWPREFS.
As for uw-consensus, I have looked, and it doesn't appear on my list at all. I must have missed it because it is not listed at WP:UWT. How common is the issue it relates to? — This, that and the other (talk) 06:06, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we need all of the {{user warning templates}}. This one, I've had instances which I could placed it. Mlpearc (powwow) 01:13, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting additional functionality

Besides the WP:DRV functionality mentioned above, it would be very useful to include WP:MERGE, WP:SPLIT, and especially WP:RM (and the corresponding WP:MRV if WP:DRV is implemented) options. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 18:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For a start, merge tagging functionality is already provided via the "Tag" module. I suppose the splitting templates could also be added to that module. — This, that and the other (talk) 06:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm particularly referring to controversial mergers. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 07:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Uh... in what way? I mean, what exactly would you expect Twinkle to do with controversial merges? Beeblebrox (talk) 22:38, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would expect it to start a discussion, for one thing. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 22:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you go and try out the existing functionality; you may be pleasantly surprised at what it can do. — This, that and the other (talk) 00:13, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it can handle WP:MERGE, the rest still remain. (Also, you still haven't commented in the WP:3RR discussion above as I requested.) Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 00:28, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@ Dogmaticeclectic keep in mind this is a place for asking questions, making suggestions and having discussions between users of Twinkle and the Developers who maintain it, your statement implies you hold This, that solely responsible of handling all queries, this not how it works, any user can answer or decline any post. Mlpearc (powwow) 01:28, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody but me has responded in that section at all! Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 01:29, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've already asked you to calm down, Dogmaticeclectic. I am very busy at the moment and have no time to be making changes to Twinkle. I have so much off-wiki stuff to do that I probably shouldn't even be responding on this page... — This, that and the other (talk) 06:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Double signing

I recently PRODed a page. However, when Twinkle posted a notification to the creator's talk page, it signed twice. George8211 conversations 18:19, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This might be related: Twinkle seems to add a period at the end of WP:AIV reports (and since there's no indication that this will happen beforehand, it's quite easy to end up with two periods). Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 18:49, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The double signing is because Buffbills7701 (talk · contribs) has made a breaking change to {{Proposed deletion notify}}. See #Templates, above. -- John of Reading (talk) 19:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Buffbills7701 has made a large number of similar changes to numerous templates. Many of them have been reverted to avoid this kind of problem, but there are so many of them that some, such as this one, have been missed. I have reverted the change to this template, but who knows whether there are still more? It's a good example of why nobody should make extensive changes to templates without discussion. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:09, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect edit summary

Resolved

The edit summary for the WP:BITE user warning template produces a WP:REDLINK. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 22:12, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Twinkle is not including the namespace prefix. That is because Twinkle actually asks you for a "linked article" - although the template accepts other inputs, Twinkle does not expect these. Would it be correct to add the "User talk:" namespace prefix to the edit summary link if no namespace was already given? — This, that and the other (talk) 00:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, Twinkle does not ask for a linked article for that specific template. In fact, for that template, Twinkle is extremely specific about what to enter - and then turns around and uses the input incorrectly. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 00:27, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Link is now suppressed, thanks for the report. Amalthea 09:25, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback Error

There was two edits made by this IP address, 2A02:FE0:C510:4111:247E:C0B2:55F6:79B6, on a article that I was watching, when I click rollback vandal, it only reverted one edit when it was supposed to revert two. This has happened several times, and I'm starting to get curious of why is it doing that. Blurred Lines 21:07, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's because of bugzilla:44161, for which I submitted a MediaWiki patch not too long ago. However, patches can take months to even receive any comments or feedback, let alone accepted, so don't hold your breath... — This, that and the other (talk) 00:10, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

{{db-f7|reason=xyz}}

{{db-f7}} has a "reason" parameter, but Twinkle doesn't allow me to use it. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:42, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that needs to be added. For the record, normally the DI module's "disputed fair use rationale" (which allows input of a reason) or "replaceable fair use" should be used for F7 deletions, but I figure you already know that :) — This, that and the other (talk) 08:28, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course. However, sometimes people provide poor sources, so the "reason" parameter may for example be needed to show that an unfree image comes from a commercial source. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:39, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rolling back edits

Picture 4 edits in a row made by an editor, one of which needs to be undone, the rest of which are valid.

I appreciate that, if the invalid edit is not the final edit then there can be issues here, but picture this:

  • Edit 1 - wonderful
  • Edit 2 - useful
  • Edit 3 - lengthy, complex, glorious and in so many places in the article that it addressed a huge set of problems
  • Edit 4 - out of character, introduced uncited fact which alters the entire character of the article and should be removed pending discussion (etc)

Using TW to do an AGF rollback it tells me that [editor] has made 4 edits in a row, do I want to nuke them all. I do not. Just number 4.

What I'd like to be able to do is to say, "No, but the last edit must go!" and have that taken care of.

In a different scenario I'd like the last 3 removed, but not number 1, etc.

I envisage that this is technically possible, and I'd like to request it as an enhancement, though I am sure it is not going to end up anywhere near the top of the list. Fiddle Faddle 15:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Twinkle&oldid=580165322"