User talk:Artem S. Tashkinov

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SWinxy was:

This submission is not adequately supported by

Referencing for beginners and Citing sources

.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

The GamingOnLinux citations are the only suitable sources presented. The PCGamingWiki page is a wiki (

WP:RSs

are necessary to prove it. These are not great sources, but I encourage you to find more reliable ones.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:DXVK and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SWinxy (talk) 17:41, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		The Purple Barnstar
		Thank you for being here, Artem S. Tashkinov. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:24, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I want you to further specify what rules you mentioned in

I cannot find the rule right now but normally data which is not known must be left empty without putting anything, like the question mark (?). If something is not applicable than the { { NA } } template is appropriate but AFAIK it wasn't your edit. Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 10:09, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But isn't "Dunno" in the template title an abbreviation for "don't know"? I think the question mark in data processing/spreadsheets is synonymous with "unknown data" or "we don't know what the data is". Also, it's clear that you reverted my edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alder_Lake&diff=1131720849&oldid=1131718040).

(Talk) 11:26, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

TBO I don't know but e.g. "—" for the price doesn't look appropriate, as if pricing doesn't exist. Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 05:40, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

@AP 499D25

I don't think including cooling solution information makes any sense even separately within a bullet list. Here are the reasons: 1) The cooler is not a part of the CPU, it's an add-on 2) Lots if not most people replace an AMD cooler with something more decent 3) In many parts of the world AMD CPUs are sold as OEM parts without a cooler 4) These are articles about CPUs, not about what comes with them. Should we specify what kind of boxing they have? What about the included booklet? Oh, wait, there's also the sticker! 5) Not a single Intel CPU article includes coolers.

Those old CPUs you're talking about are no longer widely available or sold, so I believe as a historical evidence cooler information is no longer relevant. Do you think anyone really cares what cooler the Intel Pentium 200 MMX had? I bet not a single person on this planet :-)

Anyways, I don't have a strong opinion other than trying to keep tables relatively compact/narrow. The Zen 4 template I've edited stopped fitting in on my 1080p screen and started to require horizontal scrolling and I insta-hated it.

Whatever you [and other editors] will decide is OK with me. Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 09:31, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a crazy idea.

What if instead of listing coolers for CPUs in CPU templates we instead listed CPUs in the AMD Wraith article? It makes more sense to me :-) Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 09:35, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a brilliant idea! "Should we specify what kind of boxing they have? What about the included booklet? ..." Hahaha you're a funny man! Point #5 is especially true.

I hadn't given much thought as to reasons why the bundled cooler info should be included, or not included in the table in the first place, only thought about how to present it... So thanks a lot for your thoughts on this.

So here's my plan now. Since the additions of bundled cooler info to the tables were made

BRD

guideline.

I've never been one who likes overbloated tables with overwhelming colours and articles full of trivial and almost useless information... This is one of the first ever edits I've made after creating this account, I just got sick of every single GPU models' release dates being put in that article's infobox. More recently when I revisited the AM4 chipsets template, I became absolutely stunned and flabbergasted at what joke of a mess of a table that became, I mean filling up the entire width of my 25 inch, 2048x1152 desktop monitor, with so much blank space in the cells? Come on. Shortly afterwards, I made a series of edits to compact down the table as much as possible: before, after.

AP 499D25 (talk) 10:43, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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 {{

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)[reply]

I fully agree with everything you've said/suggested. I've never edited the lists of Intel CPUs based on the 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.

As for the List of Intel Core processors article, if you're to rework it, then maybe it makes sense to do as with the List of AMD Ryzen processors article is organized and that is via included templates, e.g. Template:AMD Ryzen 5000 Series, to eliminate the duplication of work.

While we are at it, NVIDIA GPUs have the same issue: product tables are duplicated in individual articles about generations, e.g. GeForce 40 series and in List of Nvidia graphics processing units. Sometimes, I'd even say, oftentimes products listings are not synchronized, so either of them may contain newer/up-to-date information. Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 12:40, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hello AP 499D25, this page along with

5nm articles have a very long history of certain individuals creating one off profiles only to change all the instances of the nodes that Intel is using to their worse versions, i.e. 7nm -> 10nm, 5nm -> 7nm. On several occasions it resulted in pages getting semi-protected because people insisted on demoting Intel nodes without any proofs. This has been happening for at least three years now and when I see absolutely new user profiles again doing this, I get mad, really mad as I'm absolutely sure these are the same people who have been banned from editing the articles. You're right, my edit summary wasn't the best and I'll refrain from doing so in the future and will just revert with "Citations needed, please discuss on the talk page first". Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 04:30, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Oh okay, that makes a lot of sense! Indeed it is a little strange and almost reeking of suspicion that someone would want to create an account to change the Intel 7 7nm links to 10nm. Though I'm not sure if all these accounts and IPs are the same user or not, I have a feeling at least a small number of them are just other people out there who believe Intel 7 is still considered a 10nm process. — AP 499D25 (talk) 05:06, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hi, thank you for your concern!

My question is, how opening a talk page discussion about the issue will prevent anonymous users from editing the article? I just don't get it. I asked politely to provide citations and information about this addition, the anonymous user's reply basically was "Everyone knows" which is a lie. The linked article for the controversial edit contains nothing but pictures/marketing slides which I believe is not something appropriate for Wikipedia. Sorry, I just didn't know how to resolve the issue properly and in the end I simply requested protection. Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 17:40, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay. Usually both parties should stop (at wherever the article is at) and then reach a conclusion on the talk page to decide how the article should actually be. Looking at the talk page of the Meteor Lake article, looks like the IP editor has already started a discussion there and tried to get in touch with you. However in the case that you begin discussion on an article's talk page but the other party doesn't join in and talk it together, you would invite the other party by letting them know on their user talk page of the discussion (such as by using the Please see template). — AP 499D25 (talk) 10:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

The 5nm process page has/lists both 4 and 5nm nodes. I guess it should be renamed to placate your concerns. @Digital27 Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 07:50, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm open to suggestions, just want to make it as clear as possible to the readers. Digital27 (talk) 08:01, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article AutoCAD version history is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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)[reply]

Happy New Year!

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)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Wikipedia:Civility

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)[reply]

Nothing that I said was even remotely "uncivil". Your edits on the other hand were extremely disrespectful and dubious in their motives in my opinion. 1. Changes in systemd were the result of this incident. 2. The fact that tech media paid no attention does not undermine them. 3. Your nickname is not known in security circles. And if you consider yourself well versed in security, you know for a fact they are pertinent, important and have their place on WP.

You insist that rules stand above crucial information. And multiple WP articles show that these rules are not set in stone. So, in essence you arbitrarily invoked these rules to prevent me from adding crucial information. Thank you. I will not touch this article ever again. There was no proper discussion for my edits either. "I, editor Bluerasberry, consider myself the God of WP and thus I will not allow your edits". That's in essence how my edits were handled. If you personally feel offended but whatever I said, my apologies. No offense was ever intended or implied. I'm not a native English speaker, so there's no way for me to know in advance how people may "feel" about what I say. When trying to publicly accuse people of being "uncivil" please be precise next time, provide quotes. And you could have sent me a private email, right? You didn't. "Let's just shame the guy". I've now reread what I said and I still have no clue what on Earth earned me this defamation on my Talk page. Again, not being a native English speaker could very well be the reason for my "insensitivity". Or maybe I've become callous (without knowing it) or even autistic. Who knows? You know but you chose not to say. "Let's just throw an "uncivil" card at the dude and shut him up". OK. Sorry again for touching the article. I will continue to edit others where other editors are not hell-bent on sticking to the rules to the point of depriving WP readers of crucial info. Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 16:25, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your English is perfect, so I don't think that's an issue. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]