I challenge usage 4. One hears people saying (even writing): "I'll revert to you as soon as I have some news" These starched-shirt types have been brought up to avoid using the word "get", so cannot bring themselves to utter "I'll get back to you on this one . . ."
Come on! The meaning of that is very clear. Re = again, vert = turn (compare invert, convert, subvert, controvert, etc. and various forms thereof). Therefore, revert is to return, turn back or, as you stated come back to. What could then possibly be wrong with "I shall revert to you on that"? Don't be a neologistic snob either.
I would like to see transitivity glosses on the verb senses. For example, "change back" can be intransitive ("he reverted to his old ways") but it could also be transitive ("I'll revert the software to a previous version"); is the latter generally accepted? Equinox◑ 10:20, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, we really need to account for especially the (widepread) senses we Wiktionarians use most often: "if you don't like my changes, revert [them]", and "I reverted to the version by Equinox" (where "I reverted" doesn't mean "I changed [myself] back", but "I changed (something) back"). - -sche(discuss) 01:04, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.
Rfv-sense "a convert to Islam" (noun), "to convert to Islam" (verb). IPs have repeatedly tried to remove these senses and been reverted. Both senses need context tags. Both senses derive from the argument, made by some Muslims, that all people are born Muslim, so those who "convert" really only "revert" (something which should be mentioned in the etymology, usage notes or context tags): but we need citations in which that notion isn't explained in the preceding paragraph, because books that use "revert" after explaining that notion are transparently only using the standard sense "to return, wholly or in part, to some preexistent form". - -sche(discuss) 00:59, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Cited the verb from three separate pro-Islam sources. That leaves the noun. Equinox◑ 18:02, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! The quotations check out with regard to my test, above, and I was able to use the second journal to find one citation of the noun. - -sche(discuss) 05:36, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Okay, now there are three citations for the noun, too, but two of them are from the same source (Islamic Society of North America), which isn't ideal. Equinox◑ 23:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm glad to be surprised/corrected; contrary to my expecations, this does indeed seem to be used without explanation. RFV-passed. Thanks for citing both parts of speech, Equinox. - -sche(discuss) 21:14, 15 June 2012 (UTC)