User talk:PastaEditor2

yey

my talk page

PastaEditor2, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi PastaEditor2! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like I JethroBT (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:02, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

August 2020

Your recent editing history at Soviet war crimes shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Pudeo (talk) 16:27, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, its because I was a water boy is constantly reverting random edits by people, and whenever i revert 1 of he's edits, he goes and removes another part so i need to revert this edit, then he reverts another edit, he claims that there is no consensus, even though there is 3 discussions in the talk page about it, he looks like an Sock puppet used to vandalize, and kinda look like an troll too. PastaEditor2 (talk) 16:29, 30 August 2020 (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).

PastaEditor2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

See my contributions:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/PastaEditor2, if you find any vandalism i did, you can ban me forever. PastaEditor2 (talk) 18:56, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No reason given to review block Amortias (T)(C) 19:26, 5 September 2020 (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.

about jack waterboy and driverofknowledge

The self-admitted Marquinhos IP had interaction with Jack90s15 sock Driverofknowledge: [5]. PastaEditor2 has interaction with Jack90s15's newer sock "I was a water boy": [6]

so, i had interactions with him but yee, its because i REALLY think he was annoying.

yes, i know driverofknowledge, when i wasnt editing wikipedia i found that Allied war crimes was vandalized. so i went to look who did this and it was him. PastaEditor2 (talk) 19:07, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

my behavior and gramatic:

MarquinhosWikipediano had a very troll-ish writing style and didn't bother to capitalize sentences etc: [3] Same can be said for PastaEditor2: [4]

well, its just a funny coincidence about my behavior, as i act like him (not entirely as i dont vandalize pages and troll people on SERIOUS pages).

my gramatic is kinda bad as im not a native speaker of english, its my second language so sorry if my gramatic is ugly sometimes. PastaEditor2 (talk) 19:11, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

reason for ip change and sometimes off acount

1:my computer for some reason doesnt save my password.

2:my ip changed from 187 to 177 i think (im too lazy to go see now)

3: 189 something else is the last owner of the house i live in, and also, i find unethical to you guys show the IP of this guy to me, as what IF it was another guy from another house kinda close and i wasnt a good person. PastaEditor2 (talk) 19:14, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

about MarquinhosWikipediano

yes, i know this guy, he didnt do alll wrong, but he was quite annoying sometimes yes i did have interaction with him. PastaEditor2 (talk) 19:18, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MarquinhosWikipediano had a very troll-ish writing style and didn't bother to capitalize sentences etc: [3] Same can be said for PastaEditor2: [4] my gramatic sucks basicaly so i cant say much and i dont capitalize sentences BECAUSE MY GRAMATIC IS BAD.

Newest registered account PastaEditor2 also calls edits that are not vandalism "possible vandalism" in edit summaries: [1] PastaEditor2 is focused on adding specific population transfer chapters to the Soviet war crimes article. Some of the IPs did exactly that, as you can see him list the chapters in this edit summary: [2]

well, deportation of ingrian finns happened during the winter war aswell, and the red terror was in fact during the russian civil war, dekulakization happened mostly in ussr when it wasnt at war, but also in their conquered countries and regions during ww2 and other smaller wars and conflicts, possible vandalism as i was a water boy didnt only revert my edit, but also MANY other users edits to a version that is on he's opinion the stable version. PastaEditor2 (talk) 19:18, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

thetimes arent changing

On July 26, one of the IPs claimed that TheTimesAreAChanging is doing "possible vandalism". On the same day, a troll account called TheTimesARENTchanginglol posted on Talk:Soviet war crimes. this was the last owner of this house probably, i only HEARD about him. PastaEditor2 (talk) 19:19, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

battle of montese

189.35.35.204 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) This Piracicaba, Brazil IP has publicly stated that he is the author of the draft Battle of Montese, meaning he is MarquinhosWikipediano. All the other more recent IPs I listed have the same geolocation.

i, pastaeditor2, didnt publicly stated that im the owner of the draft battle of montese, i know the 2 troll ish 9 year olds (marquinhos(vandal)wikipediano and driverof(un)knowledge) who did it but i only wanted the source code of the page to re do it and possible remove troll ish parts if there was any. PastaEditor2 (talk) 19:22, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

about my password loss

PastaEditor claims that they lost the password to Arandomitalo-japaneseamerican but has made no claim on the others. No sleepers.

yes, i in fact lost the password to the account

TheTimesARENTchanginglol (talk+ · tag · contribs · logs · filter log · block log · CA) is Likely to PastaEditor based on UA and geolocation. No sleepers.

my geographical location =/= proof if im a vandal or a simple guy.

No comment with respect to IP address(es). these other large ip addresses where probably from the cellphone or another computer of the last owner of this house i am.

i Have no data on MarquinhosWikipediano so I can't technically link them to PastaEditor. Behaviorally it certainly seems similar, but I'll let a clerk make that call. All blocked pending tags; if it's determined that they're not related, TheTimesaren'tchanging is the oldest account. Katietalk 15:20, 5 September 2020 (UTC) THANK YOU, you didnt link me to him as i simply arent him, my behavior is similar but i already said, coincidence, thetimsarentchanginglol is the oldest simply because i dont own it, well, i didnt see that they DO said that we're the same person, but to clarify, no, we aren't. PastaEditor2 (talk) 19:27, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

edits on soviet war crimes

Newest registered account PastaEditor2 also calls edits that are not vandalism "possible vandalism" in edit summaries: [1] PastaEditor2 is focused on adding specific population transfer chapters to the Soviet war crimes article. Some of the IPs did exactly that, as you can see him list the chapters in this edit summary: [2]

well, another coincidence that these ip users wanted to do the same as me. PastaEditor2 (talk) 19:30, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

can i edit on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/MarquinhosWikipediano#Suspected_sockpuppets to defend my self?

can you guys letme edit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/MarquinhosWikipediano#Suspected_sockpuppets to talk directly to you guys as when it all started, i was sleeping and didnt took part in the investigation to defend agaisnt myself agaisnt sockpuppetry accusations. PastaEditor2 (talk) 19:32, 5 September 2020 (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).

PastaEditor2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

sorry for the misunderstanding about the ip and edits from the last owner, really sorry, i wont vandalize wikipedia, as you can see, my contributions didnt include vandalism or trolling, really, really sorry, i promise not to vandalize wikipedia or troll people like the last owner did, give me a chance to prove im not a vandal. PastaEditor2 (talk) 19:35, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Checkuser verified abuser of multiple accounts. "The last owner?" Whatever are you talking about? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 21:11, 5 September 2020 (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.

did you read the talk page where i explained why its a misunderstanding, or ou just entered there to decline and say that im a crazy guy talking about no sense stuff? PastaEditor2 (talk) 02:57, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

can someone please review my block request.

its taking to long and i want to contribute to other pages, but i cant while im blocked and waiting for someone to see if im worth to be unblocked, like, seriously, no one noticed that im just trying to help wikipedia by contributing?, see my contribution page:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/PastaEditor2, u will see that i made NO vandalism or troll on any page. PastaEditor2 (talk) 21:02, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

just to carify

last owner is because i bought this home from the last guy that owned this house, thats why its the same geographical location.

checkuser said abusing multiple accounts checkuser =/= totally right and will always work properly without any error, in this case it was not an error but an misunderstanding about my IP and behavior. PastaEditor2 (talk) 02:56, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

unblock request, READ THE TALK PAGE!!!.

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).

PastaEditor2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

READ THE TALK PAGE!!!. sorry for the misunderstanding about the ip and edits from the last owner, really sorry, i wont vandalize wikipedia, as you can see, my contributions didnt include vandalism or trolling, really, really sorry, i promise not to vandalize wikipedia or troll people like the last owner did, give me a chance to prove im not a vandal. PastaEditor2 (talk) 11:00 pm, 5 September 2020, last Saturday (2 days ago) (UTC−4)

Decline reason:

Based on the SPI and your flimsy explanations here, as well as your aggressive attitude throughout this page; I don't see any reason to unblock this account. I am also locking talk page access at this time because of your aggressiveness. only (talk) 22:04, 7 September 2020 (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.

clerk note

Clerk note: I agree with Pudeo. Since we don't have technical data to link back to MW, I've tagged the named accounts as "suspected" (but, of course, left the blocks as CU blocks - whether or not they're MW, that's still a lot of accounts). 187.39.132.210 is active and seems fairly static, so I've blocked it for a month; the remaining IPs/ranges are more than two weeks stale. Closing. GeneralNotability (talk) 23:33, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

well, thanks for putting me as suspected and not assuming totally as sockpuppet and banning me forever, but with the 1 month thing, bro 1 month is too much for someone who did nothing wrong, i accept 1 week, but literally making a innocent person wait 1 month to edit on wikipedia is too much, can you reduce it to 1 week so i can AT LEAST think better about this with calm to solve the problem better? PastaEditor2 (talk) 03:13, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

can someone please review my block request. AND READ THE TALK PAGE WHERE I EXPLAIN BEFORE YOU DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT

its taking too long, and whenever an admin see it, he doesnt see the talk page and goes DIRECTLY to the block review to refuse it, so please, review it AND READ THE TALK PAGE. PastaEditor2 (talk) 14:36, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

how much more time ill have to wait until i can be unbanned and go back to contribute?

literally im waiting this for DAYS and NOTHING happened, so please, review my block revision request AND READ THE TALK PAGE. PastaEditor2 (talk) 21:52, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September 2020

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 why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

only (talk) 22:04, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]