User talk:Cattenion

September 2025

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Game theory 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.
If you need help, please see the Introduction to Wikipedia, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, place {{Help me}} on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Game theory was changed by Cattenion (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.859081 on 2025-09-01T15:15:31+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 15:15, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Small, sequential minor edits

Thanks for your wikilinks! If you're adding a lot to the same section of an article it's easier on the page history if you make them all in one go, rather than sequentially. You can use the "Preview" button if you want to check how they'll look before proceeding.

It's also worth leaving a simple WP:EDITSUMMARY so that other editors can easily see what you're changing. Belbury (talk) 14:27, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Avoids edit conflicts & less stressful having to find the location continuously - the save function gives a small rest: for the eyes and for thought Cattenion (talk) 14:29, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image at Algorithm

The image at that article was a diagram showing the Euclidean algorithm. That image was fine, though the text in it was hard to read (and widely spaced).

I had replaced it with my own version, containing the same text, except without the weird letter spacing. Yet for some reason you undid that edit. Could I ask why is that? Thank you in advance. БудетЛучше (talk) 18:30, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Algorithm&oldid=1310596457

s zero

yes

(t)he value of r

error: t isn't shown Cattenion (talk) 20:53, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

true. i’ll fix the image to fit it. thank you! БудетЛучше (talk) 12:07, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 2025

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! Zefr (talk) 23:52, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If a peer-review process is thought better for everyone - this would need a review of the edit - an edit summary as trusted doesn't include the possibility of article error - like a judge giving a verdict without looking at the evidence - I thought not putting in a summary would force editors to have to review the edit - this is a guarantee of resolution of any problem in the reality of the article - but also by looking at the article again it restimulates any interested editor (those who are watching) to maybe make another improvement - everytime looking at the summary as the only input isn't reliable - summary not article input is repeat summary learning which could be thought as irrelevant to the reality of any important subject; is my defence - I think you'll insist again on "good editing" - but your "unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying" is erroneous I think. Cattenion (talk) 00:56, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point. See WP:EDITCON which states "All edits should be explained (unless the reason for them is obvious)—either by clear edit summaries, or by discussion on the associated talk page. Substantive, informative explanations indicate what issues must be addressed in subsequent efforts to reach consensus" -- it is a matter of building consensus for the edit -- and by WP:FIES: "Accurate summaries help other contributors decide whether they want to review an edit, and to understand the change should they choose to review it." Zefr (talk) 22:51, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cattenion! I noticed that you recently made an edit and marked it as "minor", but it may not have been. On Wikipedia, "minor edit" refers only to superficial edits that could never be disputed, such as fixing typos or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not minor, even if it only concerns a single word. Thank you. Seercat3160 (talk) 21:38, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 2025

Hi Cattenion! I noticed that you recently made an edit at Vulture and marked it as "minor", but it may not have been. On Wikipedia, "minor edit" refers only to superficial edits that could never be disputed, such as fixing typos or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not minor, even if it only concerns a single word. Edits of citations or references should also not be marked as minor. Thanks. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver (talk to me, maybe?) 20:54, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]