User talk:122.59.228.76

August 2017
Do not add personal information about other contributors to Wikipedia. Wikipedia operates on the principle that every contributor has the right to remain completely anonymous. Posting personal information about a user is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's harassment policy. Wikipedia policy on this issue is strictly enforced and your edits have been reverted and/or suppressed, not least because such information can appear on web searches. Wikipedia's privacy policy is to protect the privacy of every user, including you. Persistently adding personal information about other contributors may result in you being blocked from editing. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:14, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for contravening Wikipedia's harassment policy. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:15, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

Re: Jeh. Hi look if I did something wrong it wasn't intentional. I emphatically state the allegations are 100% genuine and harassment is the furthest thing from my mind. On the contrary I feel like the victim of it. I'm sure that Jengawean guy did too. I knew this would happen.

Also I can't speculate as to WHY these guys are doing what they're doing, I only know they ARE doing it. Especially the "Pushing the limits" most of that content comes from Windows Internals, I did not give out any personal info whatsoever. I could have though. And how am I meant to approach this with out discussing details?

Some Points: 1. the content of sources material cited by users in question is also written by the users who cited the source. Also very close affiliated with the publishers and resellers of same material. w 2. there is also a much bigger elephant which is wilful misinformation and deception re: Intel/MS. knowing much bigger Intel MS Brand management/Brand awareness (whatever term is nowadays) that has been ongoing since around 2008.

For the record, Jaengewaen (the supposed sock) is totally legit. I even tracked him down and emailed him. He's a rep over at AMD.

I can link to Intel dev forums where Jangewaen, after his WP x86 contribution had been reverted for the umpteenth time by Jeh and Guy, signed up JUST TO ASK INTEL WHY HIS WIKIPEDIA CONTRIBUTION HAD BEEN DELETED. The engineers didn't have a clue. And tbqfh neither did I. (I think it was the x86 page where he added that x86 were not 64 bit, which is bang on).

That dude has been treated like shit by Wikipedia. But hey he didn't give up. Which is really what prompted me to get of my butt and do something.

As I said I've been sitting on this for a long time and done nothing besides watch. There are other things I'd rather be doing none of which involve going through this rigmarole believe me. Also for the life of me I cannot think of one good reason why up until now no action has been taken to stop these guys or no concerns have been raised over the misleading content.

Am I the only one who knows of Jeh and Guy in real life? Are admins even aware of who they are?

To begin with its crystal clear to anyone with a working knowledge of hardware or OS that the articles related to CPU/Memory are heavily skewed towards Intel. Not only that but many statements or claims made (3GB barrier, x86-64, Virtual Memory, Pagefile, Memory Segmentation) are blatantly untrue. And I mean blatantly.

Example the 3GB Barrier, which btw already has a Neutral POV/Original Research/Reliable Source header (just article of one of many) audaciously claims (or at least, did) "It is a common misconception a 32bit CPU are limited to 4GB of RAM. A common misconception? Is it really? Bull. This claim is total and utter bull.

No CPU ever made with 32bit address lines supports more than 4GB of RAM. None. Further, the article itself is bogus because the "3GB barrier" is a non-entity. I challenge you to find '3GB barrier" in any architecture paper from Intel or AMD. The only "barrier" is x86 IA-32 CPU can access 4GB of RAM maximum.  This is a non-debatable fact. Have a guess who edited it the above page? Jeh and Guy Harris. This is only ONE example.

By the way if I sound angry, I am. But don't take it personally (how can one over the net anyway? :)

I'm angry because Jeh, Guy Harris, and likely Jasper Deng use bully tactics to rail-road genuinely concerned users like Jangewaen off of Wikipedia. Jangewaen - the so called sock puppet who debated with Jeh and Guy Harris over x-86 -64 naming conventions and also IA-32 x64 is absolutely correct in what he said.

The bullys just shouted him down, provide no valid argument - Guy Harris in particular has never presented a logical and reasonable rebuttal or provided verifiable sources that I can see. This Harris person is so ballsy he disputes the very documentation released by Intel which states x86 is a 32bit architecture. (I don't have the link for that specifically but I could prob find it if needed)

Jeh and Guy hide behind x86-64 name because it's ambiguous and does not specifically differentiate between 32 or 64 bit. In fact there is no x86-64. AMD docs state the same.

AMD used x86-64 unofficially for a press release 15 years ago. It's the name they came up with before AMD64.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:X86 Take a look here for example, Jeh a supposed developer tries to pass of a "Trade Journal" as a source (unless I misread it). Anyway

I'm also angry because the computing talk pages are FULL of complaints alleging that deceptive, misleading content is knowingly or unknowingly promoted.

The complaints go back years, 3 at least. Guess who most of the complaints were aimed at... Yep.

Here's a small selection which took me all of, oh - 5mins - to find.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Memory_segmentation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Memory_segmentation#A_toxic_mix_of_misunderstanding_and_misconception

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Virtual_memory&action=edit&section=13

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=X86&diff=prev&oldid=780916065

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:X86-64

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Virtual_memory

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Virtual_memory&action=edit&section=14

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Virtual_memory&action=edit&section=17

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Virtual_memory&action=edit&section=21

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Virtual_memory&action=edit&section=22

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Virtual_memory&action=edit&section=23

Guy Harris and Jeh (along with Jasper Deng). This lot have been tag teaming and gang banging IP users off of WP for years and NOTHING has been done to stop them. No wonder the membership has declined by 20,000 when Wikipedia is no longer an encyclopaedia but a Digital Content Marketing platform. Also, to be absolutely clear I had no idea "Jeh" was the same person affiliated with you-know-who, and who wrote some of the articles for you-know-what (TxxxxxxxT)(sources he spams everywhere) until AFTER I saw the misleading content, unverifiable claims, and ambiguous writing style which are prolific throughout the computing section.

I did not open the COI discussion just because I know who Jeh is. Not at all. And again, I thought long and hard before embarking on this journey. I never imagined it would be easy.

THe last straw was when I saw Jengawean bullied yet again for trying to show these guys for what they are, unfairly blocked again for being a sock puppet, reading the misleading content, the talk page complaints, the dubious unreliable references then realising I knew who Jeh and GH were in real life, I had to do something. And because I know of Jeh (through IT industry circles) I was actually in a position to lay a complaint against the persons/s and not just an anonymous user name. It's would any decent individual would do what I did.

Also the ambiguous writing style found in these articles (on Memory/CPU) is very similar to the MSDN library articles on Memory Limits which blur virtual physical memory into a mudpile. The only true limit is a CPU, the artificial OS limit is licensing.

Geoff Chappel covered this 10 years ago in a highly informative blog. Recommend reading,. http://www.geoffchappell.com/notes/windows/license/memory.htm

I say "online" because if you met Jeh IRL you'd see why he's no bully. To be honest I was reluctant to pursue this case because I felt I would end up gagged somehow, and I was right. Understand I've been extremely busy too and don't know my way around wikipedia

Second it's not just Jeh involved but Guy Harris whom I'm 99.9% sure is Jeh's partner (name suppressed). These two, with approx 4 others (Jasper Deng I suspect is one) are co-authors of the very content in the Technet blogs which they reference. Jeh & Guy are AUTHORS of Windows Internals. That's the part I didn't reveal earlier, because if I did it would have exposed them immediately.

The tone of the Wikipedia content vandalised by Jeh and Co. is right in line with Microsoft's own brand management. Take the Technet "Pushing the Limits - Virtual Memory" blog which has been cited innumerable times. The author claims upgrading from 32bit Vista to 64bit Vista ~7GB magically appeared whereas previously only 3.5GB could be seen. Accompanying before and after screenshots are provided.

The extra RAM was "made available" because the screenshot is from a completely different machine. It's an Intel64 Alienware Q8200 Core2Duo with 8GB of RAM installed out of the box.

The first "32bit Windows" laptop is a P965 IA-32 which like all IA-32 CPU's only supports 4GB RAM maximum. The second "64bit Windows" screenshot was taken They were 2 different machines.

The extra RAM was accessible due to the 64bit CPU, NOT the OS. This is what I've been trying to say. And that blog is just the surface.

More unfinished section below - again - ran outta time.





Understanding the concept of "Memory' is not complicated, not at all. Memory, like a brain, holds "stuff" the CPU might need to remember or retrieve quickly. When the CPU "stuff it needs" the CPU comes in 2 forms, Even the most non technical person would understand "stuff" can stored on a HDD (pagefile)or in in RAM.

Remember every virtual address must reference physical storage or not at all. It's called virtual because a process sees one address the CPU another, there's a middleman called a TLB which translates virtual to physical addresses.

Now if I wanted to be ambiguous I could muddy any differentiation between Pagefile and RAM to the point consumers would think they were the same or be so confused as to give up thinking altogether. Terms like virtual address space, linear address width, physical address, virtual space...  All terms designed to convulute any content on RAM amds memory. Which is exactly what Jeh and co are doing. the related articles.


 * I had included another section here describing a convo Jeh and I had on another site, Jeh had gone under his real name but changed it and I knew this. He didn't know I knew.

Basically what happened was he argued a perfectly valid answer I had given on Stack E regarding Commit Charge (Memory usage). When I asked him for solid proof to back up his bullshit claim a single screenshot of Task Manager was all he could provide.

I suggested Task Manager would be the last tool Winternals would recommend, lol - and he bit. .."Windows Internals is full of Task Manager screenshots" came the reply... Jeh is a co author for Winternals 6th.

In case u don't know, Winternals 6th contains 1400 pages. I think there's maybe 2 screenshots of Task Manager at most in the Memory Management chapter. So as one can see, Jeh is full of shit.



This ongoing deception by Jeh and Guy Harris etc can only be wilful, not good faith, because Jeh himself claims to be a world famous developer. In fact Jeh is NOT a developer - that's his over inflated ego talking.

Jeh hasn't developed anything since mid 90's, if he ever did at all. That's why he doesn't know anything about 64bit architecture, in particular AMD64 which is different world from x86. These guys all worked together at Dxx, and are acquainted.

Btw Russunovich sold to Microsoft in 2006. The blog supposedly written by him was published in 2008. O Rielly media authors write the blogs - MS publish them...

Further, - in case I sound like a conspiracy theorist - in 2008 which is when the blogs were written - both MS and Intel were being hauled over the coals by the European Trade commission for unethical marketing practises. Intel was fined billions for trying to drive AMD into the ground. 2008 -the wikipedia articles on memory and CPU architecture started appearing, ever since have been consistently vandalised to maintain ambiguity on Memory Limnits and RAM.

Google Geoff Chapel's Licensing Limits for Windows Vista - 2008. You might be surprised to learn Windows XP can handle 64GB of RAM. The only limitation is the CPU. It only ever is, because the CPU use RAM not the OS. Up until Core 2 Duo Intel did not have one single processor capable of using more than 4GB RAM, except Xeon. Contrary to what Jeh and Guy would have consumers believe, all virtual addresses must translate to a valid location in physical storage. Note I said "storage" not RAM.

RAM and HDD's are just physical storage, nothing more. RAM is primary storage, the HDD is secondary storage. A CPU can use the HDD to store pages which don't fit into RAM, AKA the pagefile (more accurately called swapfile).. both are physical storage, nothing more. RAM is obviously faster when accessing files. Like an SSD.

A 32bit IA-32 with 32 external address lines to RAM and 32 internal data registers can map a maximum of 4GB of physical storage into view. Including RAM and HDD. This means paging cannot take place. Virtual address 1234 for a process equals physical address 1234 in RAM. So 4GB period, and only 4GB HDD (standard in those days).

Now, a 32bit IA-32e with 32 external address lines to RAM can still only access 4GB RAM, however IA-32e has extra internal data registers, (up to 64 model dependant) Therefore even though RAM is limited to 4GB the CPU can now access over 4GB of PHYSICAL STORAGE (total 4GB RAM, + 4GB HDD = 8GB). Therefore it can run a 64bit OS because the HDD is used as secondary storage internal registers


 * more stuff here but deleted. ran outta time to finish, and I have dinner waiting.***************************************************

Also, I asked FleetCommand for private talk and another admin but got no response from either. Fleet Command seemed like a guy with ethics. I don't know who to trust on this site that's why I haven't given specific information. After retuning to the COI page just now I was dumbfounded at how far the discussion had progressed. In truth I procrastinated somewhat returning to the COI discussion as even I feel intimidated and I should have no reason. I've been in IT industry a long time and I can clearly see, as others have, the BS put up by Jeh/Guy. I doubt anyone could win a debate against those two. That isn't a compliment,. The two of them use bully tactics to win arguments or. Some of the rebuttals from Guy H use are just ludicrous.

It took me 3hrs to write this so that should give someone the impression I'm quite serious. Please respond in kind. I'm tired and no way can I write this much again.

Ask me for whatever sources you need in order to put the hammer on this bully and his 1 (or2) friends. Wikipedia will be a much better place without them. Screenshots, links etc. I have it all, I've been waiting to give them to somebody who can use them. 122.59.228.76 (talk) 07:04, 10 August 2017 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MyTalk

07:06, 10 August 2017 (UTC)07:06, 10 August 2017 (UTC)07:06, 10 August 2017 (UTC)~

I warned you about adding pesonal information about other Wikipedia editors. You are not allowed to publicly speculate about or hint at other editors' identities, so I have extended your block and revoked your ability to edit this page further. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 11:37, 10 August 2017 (UTC)