User talk:49.177.107.107

Reply to comments on body positivity

Hi! Thanks for leaving a message. I'm messaging you back on your talk page, so that you get a notification. I've readded the tags for unsupported claims and unreliable sources. Before adding these tags, I quickly reviewed whether the problem with verifiability was sufficiently solved, and still found multiple citeneed tags and unsupported claims. It might be a bit premature to remove that tag. Inspired by your edit, I've also quickly reviewed the sources, and think some of them might not meet WP:RS. I would love to discuss these matters on the article's talk page, and will add some inline tags whenever I've got some time. In the mean time, feel free to improve on sources and/or start a discussion on the talk page! Cheers, Pyrite Pro (talk) 12:30, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

September 2021

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Kshatriya Kulavantas have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

• 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: Kshatriya Kulavantas was changed by 49.177.107.107 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.861537 on 2021-09-23T09:22:44+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 09:22, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, well you DID make a mistake: Especially shitty since I have been fighting a funking caste shitty vandal on several fronts, but by all means keep your stinking, ill-written par, badly capitalised and out of scope for the article, AND with deprecated sources. No skin off my nose in the final analysis. (I scored 'AN 8-point-something' or some such, as the reason.) What's the bloody point when bots revert the well-intentioned - reasonable - edits and leave the rubbish in? AND I will never know why, of course ... it'll be all "bot operating as it should be", etc. etc. ; "ooh, it's just to stop the flood of disruptive editing and of course a few innocuous thing will inadvertently get caught up", etc. effing, etc, on and on, ad nauseum. Next, a tired, stern, unconcerned registered editor will probably pop by and put some sort of comment or ES saying along lines of "IPs edit-warring", conveniently failing to notice all the times users with accounts have reverted the same edit in recent days. SIGH. 49.177.107.107 (talk) 09:46, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi! Note that ClueBot NG is a bot and does not read any replies. If you feel that the bot has made a mistake, you can report it (link in ClueBots message), remove its message and make the edit again. Cheers, Pyrite Pro (talk) 15:39, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Pyrite Pro: I know, I was being perverse! Taking a little wiki-editing-rage out on this page by "tilting at windmills". I re-instated my original edit, and reported the false positive (calmly!) immediately. 49.177.107.107 (talk) 08:36, 29 September 2021 (UTC)