User talk:186.9.130.34

Mistaken reversion of edit

It appears that I pushed the wrong button because I can see no reason for my revert. As unfortunate and unintentionally aggravating as it may be, mistakes happen. This could be easily corrected and indeed you have reverted the edit so there is no need for me to roll my edit back. Simply bringing it to my attention would be enough for me to recognize a mistake. An apology would ensue. I will assume you do not know about the levels of vandalism and disruptive editing on this project and the need for editors as well as Cluebot to quickly review recent changes in order to control it. Again unfortunately, neither the humans nor the bot are infallible. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Civility. Donner60 (talk) 03:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Abusive edit summaries

Knock it off. I had to delete some personal attacks in your edit summaries. If you keep it up, you may be blocked for disruptive editing.– Gilliam (talk) 06:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Glad to have got your attention. Now how about you take some action against the people reverting my edit for no fucking reason whatsoever to force unencyclopaedic nonsense into articles? Except of course you wouldn't because you like to indulge in a little pointless reverting of a similar nature yourself, don't you? 186.9.130.34 (talk) 06:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't want to engage in your hypocritical debate over who is more "detrimental to the aim of building an encyclopaedia".[1] – Gilliam (talk) 06:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

We know who you are Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP.– Gilliam (talk) 06:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Oooooh aren't you a sharp one! Well then, you'd better run around undoing all the basic and obvious changes you can find, lying about me, falsely accusing me of vandalism, and leaving me inane messages. Have fun! 186.9.130.34 (talk) 06:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Obviously it would be far, far too much effort to look at the edits I made to self-arrest, see that they vastly improved a very poor article, and warn those who are disruptively reverting for no reason at all, wouldn't it? Easier to block me for getting annoyed at wanton destructiveness, eh? 186.9.130.34 (talk) 06:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC)