The Purple Barnstar | ||
Thank you for being here, Artem S. Tashkinov. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 21:24, 1 January 2023 (UTC) |
Hi, I want you to further specify what rules you mentioned in Alder Lake when reverting my edit. Isn't the {{ dunno}} template meant for that? Thank you. ᐱᔌᕬᐱɭᕮ ᐱᒧᐱᕬ (Talk) 01:51, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi Artem,
I see that on the AMD Ryzen 7000 series template that you have moved the bundled cooler info from being in an additional column, to in the common features list at the top.
However, I have also discovered that the bundled coolers info have been added in a new column to other Ryzen desktop CPU templates as well, such as 1000 series, 2000 series, 3000 series, by user CGBR.
For those other CPU templates, moving them out of a new column into a list would result in a very long sentence, something like "model 1 comes with type 1 cooler, model 3 and 5 come with type 2 cooler, models 6 and 7 come with type 3 cooler", thereby ending up being an inferior presentation of info to having them in an extra column, in my honest opinion, as it would become slower to read and get data from.
There's definitely some improvements that can be made to the thermal solution column on some of the tables, especially Ryzen 1000 series that could certainly make use of break tags...
I feel like starting a discussion on an article talk page somewhere (maybe Talk:List of AMD Ryzen processors? since that's the 'centralised' talk page found in the documentation of most of the CPU templates?), so we can get to and reach a fuller conclusion with input from other editors here.
One change I'm definitely intending to make throughout the tables if consensus lands on info being in the table is relocating the thermal solution column all the way to the right of the table, after or before price or something. I just feel like it's more of a "only need to know later" info whereas things like clock speeds and cache sizes are "what I'm right after".
What do you think?
AP 499D25 ( talk) 10:07, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello Artem,
So my latest work here has involved the merging of the List of Core 2, i3, i5, i7, and i9 articles, into List of Intel Core processors. This was done per the merge proposal set out on the talk page.
As I was working through the merge, I realised how incredibly cluttersome and inefficient the table layouts really are. They remind you of those old Ryzen tables, don't they? Those coloured rows, along with the ascending alphabetical order of the entries...
I really want to get rid of those sSpec number, part numbers, I think those are extremely useless details that excessively bloat up all the tables.
Furthermore, the majority of the tables, up until 11th gen desktop and mobile, use {{ cpulist}} templates instead of regular wikitables. When I first saw these, I was like, why?? I have expressed my opinions of it on the template talk page. I want to convert them all to wikitables too, and deprecate use of the cpulist template. Not only does the template require constant updating and maintenance from the so few people out there who can make templates, but also it allows very little freedom in changing the layout of the tables without having to significantly update the template. On top of that, they are extremely resource inefficient. Halfway through the merge, I realised I have exceeded a technical limit called the " post-expand include size limit", resulting in every single template from the Core 2 "Penryn", "Penryn-3M" (medium-voltage, 45 nm) section onwards breaking and not rendering correctly. Had these been all regular tables, then I'm pretty sure this would not have happened.
Let me know what you think of this. And feel free you drop your thoughts on the linked talk pages if you have any. — AP 499D25 (talk) 09:53, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
cpulist
template, so I've no idea what the reasoning behind them was, so maybe you could ping the most active editors for these articles to have a discussion with those who might care. That's an insane amount of work you're looking at, so I wish you the best of luck.Hello again,
Yesterday I have finally completed the merge of Core 2, i3, i5, i7, i9, M processors into List of Intel Core processors, with those former pages now converted into redirects to the merged page. Keep in mind I have not gotten to redesigning the original Core Solo/Duo and Core 2 tables; it's only the Core i-series and Core 3/5/7/9 series that I've all rewritten to be in the new table layout. Today I've just added the new Core and Core Ultra 3/5/7/9 series to that article as well. Needless to say, this is by far the biggest project I've ever completed on Wikipedia, taking up a total of probably several weeks worth of time to accomplish.
So I'm looking for a bit of feedback here. What do you think of that article in its current state, ignoring the original Core and Core 2 tables which are still in their original form? Is it too long to navigate and read comfortably, or is it okay? Does it load fast, or sluggishly?
Because it would help me decide in whether to split the rather long current article into new articles " List of Intel Core i3/i5/i7/i9 processors" and " List of Intel Core and Core Ultra 3/5/7/9 processors" or not.
P.S. This is what the merged article looked like before I did the table redesign. The extremely inefficient code of the cpulist template meant that tables from the mobile Core 2 "Penryn", "Penryn-3M" (medium-voltage, 45 nm) section onwards would not render, due to the post-expand include size being vastly exceeded.
Thanks! — AP 499D25 (talk) 05:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
On the Meteor Lake page: I've corrected the references and added Intel's references to address the issues raised in the request for deletion. Thank you in advance. -- Maxim Masiutin ( talk) 15:56, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi Artem,
I understand where you are coming from, but I would not call out any potentially good-faith edits, such as the ones you reverted on that Raptor Lake article, as "vandalism".
This edit is a clear example of vandalism, but this is not.
Just wanted to point this out, since accusing people of vandalism in a legitimate content dispute can be seen as a personal attack, and can actually lead to being blocked from editing.
AIV will only block users when the edits they make are very clearly vandalism, trolling, advertising, or whatever nonsense. If it looks ambiguously like a good-faith content dispute, or actually looks like one, then they will go nah, we won't block them here, please discuss it on talk page or take it to ANI or ANEW.
You've got a history of prior recent blocks, and so in the case that an administrator happens to review your behaviour in a request for administrative action or something, you could possibly get sanctioned quite hard, and I really don't want to see that happen to you, since you are a great valuable and significant contributor to the encyclopaedia here, especially on tech-related articles, which is why I am writing this message.
To help the other guy out, I dropped a welcome message on their user talk page, which includes info about what to do when an edit they make is reverted and how to deal with content disputes, so they can better understand.
Cheers. — AP 499D25 (talk) 03:26, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello Artem S. Tashkinov,
I think it'd be wiser if you stop the edit warring on Meteor Lake and discuss the issue on the article talk page instead.
Although three-revert rule is a thing, which you haven't crossed yet, edit warring outside of the three-revert rule (e.g. fourth revert just after 24 hours) is still prohibited and can lead to a block.
Just thought I'd let you know about this, since you had been blocked several times in the past for edit warring, and I don't want to see you end up getting blocked again for this.
Your request on WP:RfPP was actually declined for the reason "Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of dispute resolution. Please don't edit war."
Thanks. — AP 499D25 (talk) 01:40, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Artem S. Tashkinov. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:DXVK, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot ( talk) 13:01, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Where is the WP page that says Intel 4 is equivalent to TSMC's 5nm process? The "5 nm process" page explicitly lists Intel 4 in the 4nm table. Digital27 ( talk) 10:03, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AutoCAD version history until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.// Timothy :: talk 22:08, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
Artem S. Tashkinov,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
—
AP 499D25
(talk) 11:29, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
Being civil is required.
Feel free to show the discussion at Talk:XZ_Utils_backdoor#Perplexing_reverts to your friends and colleagues for additional opinions. Bad attitude is unwelcome. Bluerasberry (talk) 13:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi. You seem to have more knowledge about this topic than me, so based your revert on AVI here, I just wanted to let you know that the same editor also made a similar edit to VP9 here. If it's also incorrect, please revert them there as well. Thanks. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 19:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Artem S. Tashkinov!
Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the
Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the
Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!
Stuartyeates (
talk) 08:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
|
The Purple Barnstar | ||
Thank you for being here, Artem S. Tashkinov. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 21:24, 1 January 2023 (UTC) |
Hi, I want you to further specify what rules you mentioned in Alder Lake when reverting my edit. Isn't the {{ dunno}} template meant for that? Thank you. ᐱᔌᕬᐱɭᕮ ᐱᒧᐱᕬ (Talk) 01:51, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi Artem,
I see that on the AMD Ryzen 7000 series template that you have moved the bundled cooler info from being in an additional column, to in the common features list at the top.
However, I have also discovered that the bundled coolers info have been added in a new column to other Ryzen desktop CPU templates as well, such as 1000 series, 2000 series, 3000 series, by user CGBR.
For those other CPU templates, moving them out of a new column into a list would result in a very long sentence, something like "model 1 comes with type 1 cooler, model 3 and 5 come with type 2 cooler, models 6 and 7 come with type 3 cooler", thereby ending up being an inferior presentation of info to having them in an extra column, in my honest opinion, as it would become slower to read and get data from.
There's definitely some improvements that can be made to the thermal solution column on some of the tables, especially Ryzen 1000 series that could certainly make use of break tags...
I feel like starting a discussion on an article talk page somewhere (maybe Talk:List of AMD Ryzen processors? since that's the 'centralised' talk page found in the documentation of most of the CPU templates?), so we can get to and reach a fuller conclusion with input from other editors here.
One change I'm definitely intending to make throughout the tables if consensus lands on info being in the table is relocating the thermal solution column all the way to the right of the table, after or before price or something. I just feel like it's more of a "only need to know later" info whereas things like clock speeds and cache sizes are "what I'm right after".
What do you think?
AP 499D25 ( talk) 10:07, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello Artem,
So my latest work here has involved the merging of the List of Core 2, i3, i5, i7, and i9 articles, into List of Intel Core processors. This was done per the merge proposal set out on the talk page.
As I was working through the merge, I realised how incredibly cluttersome and inefficient the table layouts really are. They remind you of those old Ryzen tables, don't they? Those coloured rows, along with the ascending alphabetical order of the entries...
I really want to get rid of those sSpec number, part numbers, I think those are extremely useless details that excessively bloat up all the tables.
Furthermore, the majority of the tables, up until 11th gen desktop and mobile, use {{ cpulist}} templates instead of regular wikitables. When I first saw these, I was like, why?? I have expressed my opinions of it on the template talk page. I want to convert them all to wikitables too, and deprecate use of the cpulist template. Not only does the template require constant updating and maintenance from the so few people out there who can make templates, but also it allows very little freedom in changing the layout of the tables without having to significantly update the template. On top of that, they are extremely resource inefficient. Halfway through the merge, I realised I have exceeded a technical limit called the " post-expand include size limit", resulting in every single template from the Core 2 "Penryn", "Penryn-3M" (medium-voltage, 45 nm) section onwards breaking and not rendering correctly. Had these been all regular tables, then I'm pretty sure this would not have happened.
Let me know what you think of this. And feel free you drop your thoughts on the linked talk pages if you have any. — AP 499D25 (talk) 09:53, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
cpulist
template, so I've no idea what the reasoning behind them was, so maybe you could ping the most active editors for these articles to have a discussion with those who might care. That's an insane amount of work you're looking at, so I wish you the best of luck.Hello again,
Yesterday I have finally completed the merge of Core 2, i3, i5, i7, i9, M processors into List of Intel Core processors, with those former pages now converted into redirects to the merged page. Keep in mind I have not gotten to redesigning the original Core Solo/Duo and Core 2 tables; it's only the Core i-series and Core 3/5/7/9 series that I've all rewritten to be in the new table layout. Today I've just added the new Core and Core Ultra 3/5/7/9 series to that article as well. Needless to say, this is by far the biggest project I've ever completed on Wikipedia, taking up a total of probably several weeks worth of time to accomplish.
So I'm looking for a bit of feedback here. What do you think of that article in its current state, ignoring the original Core and Core 2 tables which are still in their original form? Is it too long to navigate and read comfortably, or is it okay? Does it load fast, or sluggishly?
Because it would help me decide in whether to split the rather long current article into new articles " List of Intel Core i3/i5/i7/i9 processors" and " List of Intel Core and Core Ultra 3/5/7/9 processors" or not.
P.S. This is what the merged article looked like before I did the table redesign. The extremely inefficient code of the cpulist template meant that tables from the mobile Core 2 "Penryn", "Penryn-3M" (medium-voltage, 45 nm) section onwards would not render, due to the post-expand include size being vastly exceeded.
Thanks! — AP 499D25 (talk) 05:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
On the Meteor Lake page: I've corrected the references and added Intel's references to address the issues raised in the request for deletion. Thank you in advance. -- Maxim Masiutin ( talk) 15:56, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi Artem,
I understand where you are coming from, but I would not call out any potentially good-faith edits, such as the ones you reverted on that Raptor Lake article, as "vandalism".
This edit is a clear example of vandalism, but this is not.
Just wanted to point this out, since accusing people of vandalism in a legitimate content dispute can be seen as a personal attack, and can actually lead to being blocked from editing.
AIV will only block users when the edits they make are very clearly vandalism, trolling, advertising, or whatever nonsense. If it looks ambiguously like a good-faith content dispute, or actually looks like one, then they will go nah, we won't block them here, please discuss it on talk page or take it to ANI or ANEW.
You've got a history of prior recent blocks, and so in the case that an administrator happens to review your behaviour in a request for administrative action or something, you could possibly get sanctioned quite hard, and I really don't want to see that happen to you, since you are a great valuable and significant contributor to the encyclopaedia here, especially on tech-related articles, which is why I am writing this message.
To help the other guy out, I dropped a welcome message on their user talk page, which includes info about what to do when an edit they make is reverted and how to deal with content disputes, so they can better understand.
Cheers. — AP 499D25 (talk) 03:26, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello Artem S. Tashkinov,
I think it'd be wiser if you stop the edit warring on Meteor Lake and discuss the issue on the article talk page instead.
Although three-revert rule is a thing, which you haven't crossed yet, edit warring outside of the three-revert rule (e.g. fourth revert just after 24 hours) is still prohibited and can lead to a block.
Just thought I'd let you know about this, since you had been blocked several times in the past for edit warring, and I don't want to see you end up getting blocked again for this.
Your request on WP:RfPP was actually declined for the reason "Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of dispute resolution. Please don't edit war."
Thanks. — AP 499D25 (talk) 01:40, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Artem S. Tashkinov. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:DXVK, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot ( talk) 13:01, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Where is the WP page that says Intel 4 is equivalent to TSMC's 5nm process? The "5 nm process" page explicitly lists Intel 4 in the 4nm table. Digital27 ( talk) 10:03, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AutoCAD version history until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.// Timothy :: talk 22:08, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
Artem S. Tashkinov,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
—
AP 499D25
(talk) 11:29, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
Being civil is required.
Feel free to show the discussion at Talk:XZ_Utils_backdoor#Perplexing_reverts to your friends and colleagues for additional opinions. Bad attitude is unwelcome. Bluerasberry (talk) 13:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi. You seem to have more knowledge about this topic than me, so based your revert on AVI here, I just wanted to let you know that the same editor also made a similar edit to VP9 here. If it's also incorrect, please revert them there as well. Thanks. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 19:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Artem S. Tashkinov!
Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the
Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the
Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!
Stuartyeates (
talk) 08:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
|