User talk:ComputerUserUser

Welcome!

Hi ComputerUserUser! I noticed your contributions to Color management and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Fragrant Peony (talk) 16:54, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Color management, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Printer. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024

Hello, I'm Philipnelson99. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Wafer (electronics)—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Philipnelson99 (talk) 23:05, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Philipnelson99: I gotta say in that case, it was an improvement and you had no reason to revert it. — Smuckola (talk) 00:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My rollback was probably wrong but including the word "wafersss" was unnecessary @Smuckola Philipnelson99 (talk) 00:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Philipnelson99: Well yeah but among all his needless tiny edits that confused us both, and probably confused a lot of other people in the last weeks because he keeps doing zillions of edits instead of simply exercising any impulse control and using the Preview button, he also did correct that typo before you reverted it anyway![1] So let's say that your real complaint is the needless flurry. — Smuckola (talk) 01:15, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ComputerUserUser, you're doing a lot of good small edits, but this is getting very old with mindless edit warring WP:3RR by just robotically reverting people, the multitudes of tiny edits that could have been one (use the Preview button and a modicum of patience), writing in needless past tense MOS:TENSE, and with every edit lacking an edit summary. All editors must use meaningful edit summaries WP:ES. The only one I can remember you ever having used is nonsense and the results are wrong.[2] Editors can be blocked for these behaviors. — Smuckola (talk) 23:55, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Smuckola, you've made a mistake in leaving a comment on my talk page. ComputerUserUser (talk) 00:04, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, It looks like you replied to someone else by accident instead of starting a new section. ComputerUserUser (talk) 00:09, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No I did not, and that didn't make any sense. One of the things you misunderstand about Wikipedia is that we group constructive feedback in a standard month and year format. My gosh dude, it's called a thread, like every website. — Smuckola (talk) 00:14, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also you are wrong on most, if not all accounts. ComputerUserUser (talk) 00:05, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay can ya elaborate on that nonsense? And why just me? Do tell! — Smuckola (talk) 00:10, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You also need to stop creating redirects, and file speedy deletion on them all. Every redirect youve ever made is invalid and some have already been deleted. You dont understand what redirects, or parenthetical disambiguation are for. Yours are redundant and meaningless junk. There is no reason for them to exist and they couldnt be named that way with parentheses if there was. — Smuckola (talk) 08:39, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are again wrong on most, if not all accounts. You are harassing me. ComputerUserUser (talk) 13:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prove it. WP:CIR WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Sending you praise messages on your talk page, cleaning up all your editing messes, and flooding you with 'thank' buttons on lots of your good edits is the weirdest failure of an attempt at harassment I've ever heard of. — Smuckola (talk) 22:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are harassing me. ComputerUserUser (talk) 15:03, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Steve Jobs. Okay. That's it. You simply *will* stop your warpath of junk, one way or another. You refuse to use any edit summaries whatsoever WP:EDITSUMMARY, and you mainly respond to me by a completely needless mass revert WP:3RR even if you then stitch my very same carefully commented (by policy) edit back together one character at a time which is just nutty. You generally edit everything by spamming a zillion un-commented and pointlessly tiny edits practically one character at a time for absolutely no reason. You have a war against image captions, where you blatantly destroy sentence structure which was already complete and succinct, and even just pad existing optimal correct sentences with unencyclopedic junk like "it's a photo" before you also break them lol! You actually thought you needed to explain that an image is a photograph? There is no type of group activity in the world where this behavior is acceptable, and I can't tell you how many Wikipedia editors I've seen blocked for even just the lack of edit summaries and the blatant hostility. I'm trying as hard as I can to prevent you getting blocked for disruptive editing and edit warring because the other half of edits are excellent. But that's when they're cited, when you optimize the word flow, or something purely technical and basic like that. Wikipedia is not a toy and policy sees this behavior altogether as disruptive editing. Admins will see my many engagement attempts as ultimately warnings to protect the encyclopedia. Get it together and end the lone wolf tantrum of acting like you WP:OWN the world. — Smuckola (talk) 20:10, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong. ComputerUserUser (talk) 23:16, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: You are partly wrong, but not entirely wrong. ComputerUserUser (talk) 21:38, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 5

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Stepper, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ASML.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Xerox PARC (Palo Alto Research Center)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Xerox PARC (Palo Alto Research Center) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 6 § Xerox PARC (Palo Alto Research Center) until a consensus is reached. — Smuckola (talk) 12:04, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024

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. NM 00:34, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not always true that a short summary is better than no summary. ComputerUserUser (talk) 15:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to make the same request. See also Wikipedia:Edit summary legend. - bkil (talk) 08:39, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removing content without discussing

Please raise any concern on the talk page of the respective article before you remove content. Alternatives to removing content is rephrasing, referencing, pointing to internal wiki pages, placing templates that request updates or clarification (and removing of course if the information is not useful). bkil (talk) 08:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistent cite formatting

I noticed you sometimes change formatting of templates that is inconsistent with how the rest of a given page is formatted, such as: [3] Is this something that a plugin is doing within your editing interface? bkil (talk) 08:49, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Graham87 (talk) 02:53, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

ComputerUserUser (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I believe I was blocked on false pretenses. Please unblock me. Any further block that is made upon me I request be made under valid pretenses. ComputerUserUser (talk) 14:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Having read this user talk page and looked at your edits, I think this block has merit. In your next unblock request, you should say what you did wrong, and what you will do differently in the future. PhilKnight (talk) 17:30, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

ComputerUserUser (talk) 14:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This completely inflexible application of eccentric ideas about correct wording, which produced nonsense like "shaving and tooth extraction and basic surgery", is the last straw here, after your extreme arrogance up above. You are not welcome here because you lack the competence to edit here. Graham87 (talk) 02:53, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Please see my unblock request above. ComputerUserUser (talk) 14:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

ComputerUserUser (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was blocked in part because I was editing too quickly to be able to verify the validity of my edits, and I was not leaving any edit summaries, which makes it difficult for editors to verify the validity of the edits. There were a few instances where I misremembered a guideline and applied it without double checking it first. If I am unblocked, I will not edit so quickly like this in the future.

Decline reason:

The disruptive editing is much more serious than this. This request is not convincing. Yamla (talk) 21:21, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

ComputerUserUser (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

It is clear to me that I was not following the Wikipedia:Civility guideline. I had never seen it before, but now I have reviewed and read it, and have every intention of following it in the future. I would like to be unblocked. ComputerUserUser (talk) 06:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Based on what I see here, this is only one aspect of the block; you address a different aspect above; there are still others you haven't spoken to. 331dot (talk) 08:11, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Unblock again

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

ComputerUserUser (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The reason for my block was "This completely inflexible application of eccentric ideas about correct wording, which produced nonsense like "shaving and tooth extraction and basic surgery", is the last straw here, after your extreme arrogance up above. You are not welcome here because you lack the competence to edit here.". That "inflexible application of eccentric ideas about correct wording" was the result of editing too quickly to be able to verify the validity of the edits. I have already said that I will edit more slowly and carefully, and I have already said that I will follow the Civility guideline. There is nothing more. I would like to be unblocked.

Decline reason:

You're basically making the same request, just worded slightly differently. As this is your fourth request on this block more or less repeating the same theme, an inadequate theme based on the previous declines, we will be revoking access to this talk page so as not to waste any more of your time or ours (you will still be able to use the private UTRS system, though access to that is a privilege as well). — Daniel Case (talk) 06:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Daniel Case (talk) 06:03, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]