User talk:67.173.134.210

Your activity at Transistor count
From https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:188.66.32.229: the cell = transistor, by your standard 90% on list should be deleted because those number are estimated as well.

look at the fabrication list, intel's 14nm density is 37.5mtr/mm^2 and TSMC's 16nm is 28.8mtr/mm^2 and GP100 Pascal titan XP is 25.08mtr/mm^2 which the number between two are likely close, this would definitely apply to intel as well. the number on list including those that never have any source should be taking down as well according to your logic.

'''so you're talking out of your ass because you think Intel "advertised" their fabrication note? learn how to spell you Russian garbage!!'''

let me ask you again, what makes you think that you have right to delete updates? just wandering. 67.173.134.210 (talk) 06:45, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

From https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1159424301 '''this IP is vandalized the page and need to be block from editing!!! Administrator on this web need to do something! that Russian is trying to attack the American website and need to be block or ban!!'''

I saw the insults you posted on my talk page only after checking your record, and first off, I want to ask you if you have age-related hormonal disbalance or whether you were diagnosed with some mental deviation and undergo relevant therapy. For that would at least somewhat explain the way you communicate. Explain, but not excuse though.

Second, when you see someone act in violation of rules, the right thing to do is not harassing the editor in edit descriptions or talk pages, but submitting a report to WP:ANI. So go there and repost your insults if you really think that you act fully within established norms and I don't, but I can tell you in advance that the result would be a quick block – and not just for you, but for any future sockpuppet to show up afterwards who would try to push through this or another unsourced or unreliable data or engage in vandalism and/or uncivil conduct out of silly childish revenge or for other reasons – especially considering that your editing pattern (showing up with a questionable, incorrect or disruptive edit, edit-warring despite repeated clear explanations why exactly it's not OK, and explosion with personal attacks after failure in some cases) is highly reminiscent of an editor who has been haunting a number of Intel- and AMD-related articles of late and – I suspect – is the same person with a long history of blocks and block evasion: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:176.9.113.53 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Xselant https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CristoCalis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:LeaveMeB https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Halvleder https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:LagoonMoon https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:APD4711 + possibly some more.

Now, as for transistor count of Rocket Lake, I have clearly and repeatedly explained you in the edit descriptions of reverts that various unsourced claims by media should not be used for reference even in general, whereas in this case they are not only unsourced, but resulting transistor density contradicts authentic data on 14nm chips coming straight from Intel's mouth (10–16 Mtr./mm²) – there's half a dozen of Intel's 14nm chips already in the table, and you can find even more on ark.intel.com where Intel used to quote transistor count and die size – until 14nm node, when Intel's *actual* transistor density (tr. count / die area) became inferior vs competition (which may well be the reason why they all but stopped publishing transistor counts.)

By the way, unsourced data from this Twitter account contradicts not only what's known about Intel's density, but AMD's as well: the owner claims 286.4 mm² and 6.24 bn tr. for Ryzen 5000, so density is 21.79 Mtr./mm², but if you check the table, Ryzen 7 5800H is enlisted as 180 mm² and 10.7 bn transistors, so the density is 59.44 Mtr./mm², in line with density calculated from numbers reported by AMD for Zen 3 at ISSCC (included in the table as well). So the numbers posted by that Twitter account need some proving to do, to begin with, and I would strongly suggest that unless you can deliver solid proof that the Twitter account's numbers are correct, and AMD's and Intel's are not, you should refrain from further harassment and edit-warring.

And since I take it you cannot find original Intel source either after a month of trying (since May 16 when I asked for it), what's the real reason of such insistence on including this unsourced and contradictory claim from that Twitter account and other media? I'm asking you in earnest; I could have reported you straight away for harassment, edit-warring and persistent violation of Wikipedia policies on sourcing and verifiability along with my suspicions of your previous record, but I'll give you a chance to explain it.

I have a couple of versions, but I want to hear it from you rather than guess. If you love tech and just don't care about correctness and civility norms, why not start a blog instead and repost there whatever unsourced crap you see floating from one Twitter account to another about Rocket Lake or anything else? Or am I wrong and you simply enjoy harassing people, and showing up on Wikipedia with incorrect or disruptive edits is nothing more than one of many available means to that end for you?

But either way, Wikipedia is neither a garbage collector, nor it is for harassers like you – is it clear to you? And in case you haven't been diagnosed, take my good advice: do consult a psychiatrist (not a psychologist) – such severe personal attacks on people who are polite with you can be a sign of a serious mental deviation, and people who are *forced* to interact with you — and this is obviously not limited to Wikipedia – don't have to tolerate the way you open your mouth at them. 188.66.32.223 (talk) 12:54, 16 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I gave the source already, the man from Twitter was working for Intel for 30 years and he was in the project and he knew more than whatever you do so leave it be or you're be banned permanently 67.173.134.210 (talk) 03:18, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

June 2023
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you purposefully and blatantly harass other editors. — AP 499D25  (talk)  04:21, 21 June 2023 (UTC)