PastieFace
April 2017 edit
Your addition to Physical Address Extension has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. The material you added is found verbatim in Volume 1, section 3.3.2, of the Intel® 64 and IA-32 Architectures
Software Developer’s Manual. Jeh (talk) 08:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Physical Address Extension. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Justeditingtoday (talk) 16:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Physical Address Extension shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
First off, none of the edits involved here (yours included) are vandalism - please read WP:NOTVAND. Second, as I am saying here, persisting in inserting your material despite multiple other editors disagreeing with it isn't going to get you very far. Jasper Deng (talk) 20:29, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
April 2017 edit
A page you created has been nominated for deletion as an attack page, according to section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
Do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject or any other entity. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia, and users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing. – Train2104 (t • c) 00:50, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:58, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Personal attack - threat of outing by PastieFace. Jeh (talk) 02:34, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Warning re: WP:OUTING violations edit
@PastieFace: Please read WP:OUTING. Repeated threats to attempt to out a user (regardless of if your belief in who they are is correct or not) is a violation of Wikipedia policy. The threats have been removed again; continued restoration of those threats can result in your block being extended and/or your talk page privileges being revoked. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:30, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
This is just ludicrous, Outing? If I simply wanted to out "Jeh", I'd post all his personal info on Facebook right now with evidence of malicious and biased articles, SEO/ marketing, falsified material, etc along with phone number, addresses, email, company names and registry, associations, and anything else I see fit.
It'd be much easier than reporting which appears to be a waste of time.
I'm actually doing this Muppet a favour by using talk. Even after the trolling, threats, etc, I received..
Pm'd 2 admins already and got blocked. Others I see in the past have done the same. They got blocked. Aaron isn't a sock, I've seen him before He's right (even if hard to understand). My last resort as nobody on wikipedia I can see with authority seems interested or more likely half the admins already know, is to do what I said would, and use the media. I was not kidding.
What options are left, besides nothing?
I don't have enough patience anyway to go through these hoops.
Blocking, banning me, that's fine..
I just feel bad for other users like Aaron. This supposed sockpuppet went to the trouble of contacting Intel AND got a reply from an Intel engineer, just to verify his edits, after Jeh and croonies constantly vandalised them
For the record, @Guy Harris,
X86 = IA-32, 32bit. x64 is 64bit. From Intel Engineer, as seems u can't read a whitepaper.
Also...I laughed.
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=34344&mode=threaded PastieFace (talk) 07:52, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
PastieFace (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #18030 was submitted on Apr 14, 2017 10:11:30. This review is now closed.
--UTRSBot (talk) 10:11, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
PastieFace (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #18034 was submitted on Apr 14, 2017 22:53:06. This review is now closed.
Sockpuppet investigation edit
Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PastieFace, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.
General Ization Talk 02:41, 16 April 2017 (UTC)