User talk:2601:142:3:F83A:11D7:9B50:B8E0:BDAA


 * It is deeply tiresome to be reverted and templated by people who do not, apparently, bother to read edit summaries. Please read my edit summaries.  If you have a substantive objection to my edit after reading the diff and the edit summary, then I invite you to return to this talk page and write a sentence as if you are a human being laying out what that substantive objection is.  Please note: "you blanked a section" is not a substantive objection.  --2601:142:3:F83A:11D7:9B50:B8E0:BDAA (talk) 23:39, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * When mass blanking sections the burden is on you to explain it in your edit summary, simply stating "not notable" is often not enough. Shellwood (talk) 23:43, 13 July 2018 (UTC)


 * "Is often not enough" means "and you couldn't be bothered to check whether I was right or not before reverting", right? If you are worried, I invite you to go direct attention at WT:WPM to my edits.  --2601:142:3:F83A:11D7:9B50:B8E0:BDAA (talk) 23:45, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Please note that human beings are not perfect. Mistakes are often made by everyone. If you think that my mistake ("sin" if you want) is worse than murdering then you should really go to ArbCom. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus  (talk to me) 23:46, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I hold no grudge with you: you did in fact check whether the edit was good or not (albeit, after reverting). I also don't hold a grudge against cluebot below.  I do hold a grudge against people who make the mistake because they do not put in any effort, slap an ugly template on my page instead of writing a sentence as a human being, and are completely ungracious about acknowledging that is bad behavior.  (Note again that you are not in this category!)  --2601:142:3:F83A:11D7:9B50:B8E0:BDAA (talk) 23:50, 13 July 2018 (UTC)


 * @2601:142:3:F83A:11D7:9B50:B8E0:BDAA: No, it would just be good for you to go into a little more details than "non-notable" as an expalnaition to avoid situations like this in the future. Shellwood (talk) 23:53, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

July 2018
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to List of prime numbers has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 23:43, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * For help, take a look at the introduction.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this message: List of prime numbers was changed by 2601:142:3:F83A:11D7:9B50:B8E0:BDAA (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.90954 on 2018-07-13T23:43:53+00:00.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to List of prime numbers, you may be blocked from editing. I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding to your message (talk to me) (My edits) @  23:52, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
 * : good lord, does no one around here read edit summaries, page histories, or talk pages before they do the revert-template two-step? --2601:142:3:F83A:11D7:9B50:B8E0:BDAA (talk) 23:54, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Well in this case you should explain why you undid cluebot's edit since not everyone checks your talk page before reverting. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus  (talk to me) 23:56, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * At some point surely there must be some obligation on someone to actually think before reverting, mustn't there? Also you will note that my well-explained subsequent edit was also reverted, by yet another person.  If you would like to do something helpful, you could re-instate the edits that have been unthinkingly reverted (again, by people other than you).  --2601:142:3:F83A:11D7:9B50:B8E0:BDAA (talk) 23:58, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, I did think before reverting. The onus is on you to use an edit summary, not on me to pour over talk pages and page histories before re-reverting a Cluebot revert. I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding to your message (talk to me) (My edits) @  00:05, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I hope at least you will appreciate my annoyance at having the same (justified! or, at least, defensible and good-faith) edit reverted repeatedly by template-wielders. Anyhow, no hard feelings.  --2601:142:3:F83A:11D7:9B50:B8E0:BDAA (talk) 00:23, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Right, I tend to revert only unexplained (or obvisouly, vandalistically explained) deletions myself. A bit safer that way. I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding to your message (talk to me) (My edits) @  05:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC)