User talk:67.84.203.109

August 2023
Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that your recent edit to List of Nvidia graphics processing units did not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting, and then click the "Save" button. Thanks! —DIYeditor (talk) 23:46, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

 Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. -- ferret (talk) 23:28, 25 August 2023 (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.

Hello, I'm InfiniteNexus. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Google Tensor, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:38, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Apple silicon
I have concerns in regards to your edits on Apple silicon. Back in August a discussion was started in regards to whether or not the information that now has been removed should be there or not. Plenty of time has gone over that without negative feedback so these changes were made. If you disagree, please 'first discuss the changes you want to make on the talk page at Talk:Apple silicon and provide actual arguments as to why that information should remain there. Especially your latest edits has undone various content fixes and fixes to a number of tables' markup. The Apple silicon page isn't your personal page (WP:OWN), "lot of effort when into this so please don't change it" is not an argument and is a near-literal quote from WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. YannickFran (talk) 13:17, 6 November 2023 (UTC)


 * you see all that info on that table? it was done by me and other editors, why change the status quo on something thats been there for "YEARS" and its informative and clean, I have not seen anyone separate the tables of that article since it was made so why do it now? so just because you don't like it it means you have to undo peoples hard work...you can do the fixes without having to alter the table, you wanna make grammatical or link errors, thats fine but don't mess with the table by changing it, you want to whine and cry and try to get your way by crying to the admins, that won't get you anywhere, people have different ways of doing things but after a while if something seems like the norm and it hasn't changed dramatically then maybe its for a good reason now I don't mind rewording or rephrasing or fixing spelling errors or reference errors, thats ok but why are you so stubborn to not stick to status quo, most of what you see on that table and it's accuracy was done by me and others, we don't get paid for it lol, it's a hobby so why are you so stubborn to try to have something one way when most editors agree the way it was its fine, no need to split up the tables or make radical changes, the information me n my colleagues put there is not wrong info, most of it is sourced, it just seems some are mad because they didn't come up with it or put the time we did for it, like I said i have no issues of fixing grammatical or reference errors, just don't make radical changes, do we get a thank you for our hard work hmm? no, but we don't do this for you we do this for ourselves and those who appreciated,you can't whine and cry to an admin like a child just because you can't get your way, its a matter of popular opinion and if that table was not right it would have changed a long time ago but it hasn't, it just kept building up as time goes on, putting as mcuh accurate info on it as possible, thats what you and others need to understand, you have your way of doing things, others have theirs, unfortunately for you the majority thinks the table should not be split and is fine the way it is, majority speaks, its been done a certain way for years and that info to this day hasn't changed so we're doing something right yes? all the info there is a accurate as possible, sometimes info changes and then we make the proper changes but we don't alter a whole table that people put hours into, like i said its ok to fix errors, just don't mess with the table, its not that hard but you wanna make it difficult and whine and cry just cause your way of doing things is not the popular one, if our way of doing things wasn't popular, it would have changed a long time ago don't you think? but when your decisions are not popular, what do you guys do? complain n whine to the admins like children, we were willing to compromise but the more changes you did to split table the more we didn't like it and it'be all those hours of hard work doing the calculations, finding the sources etc etc was for nothing, that table looks accurate because of me and others, if it wasn't for us that apple silicon article would have looked bad and instead of getting a thank you you wanna kickout just because you're the minority vote, most don't approve the way you and others like you do the tables but most people approve the way we do ours, thats hwo its been there for so long and all that info was from people like me who put the effort to put the info there, and no it's not my personal page, and it's not your either, we just wanna maintain it so its right and as accurate as possible, anyone can contribute to an article, but theres a difference those who intentionally wanna mess up articles and those who wanna improve it and keep it maintained, maintaining the norm of doing the tables thats been done for years, these articles took years to come up with all this info, you can't blame me and my colleagues for being upset about this, this is hours of our time and dedication we do for these articles just for a few to try to mess it up, if our way wasn't popular, trust me those tables would have looked radically different, everyone has their own opinion and way of doing things but when something has been done to the point it hasnt changed much in years , it's probably it's working, but you and others don't get that, you just wanna mess up yrs of editing work just because a few of you don't like what the majority agrees with of doing things, instead of try to suspend or ban people just because they have different ways of doing things than you why don't you try to "fit in" with the norm, you're opinion and others are the minority remember that, theres more of us who agree on thee articles being the way theyre done than you guys way of doing things, but what do you expect from right wingers right? lol i know you're a right winger and your opinions are the unpopular ones in the country, there's alot more of us than you guys remember that lol 67.84.203.109 (talk) 02:47, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, lets get this straight. With a few points here:
 * I have not seen anyone separate the tables of that article since it was made so why do it now is of course just circular logic. "I did this and nobody changed it until it was changed so this change is not necessary" is not how it works.
 * means you have to undo peoples hard work if you actually went out and look for it, I guess it took time. But no matter how much effort you put into it, that doesn't mean an edit should remain. I can write hours about Windows then publish that on the macOS page, the time I spend on it doesn't change that that content didn't belong there in the first place. Either way, you might as well have copied this information straight from MacBook Pro (Apple silicon) and other articles like it, because that's where it was already available, and where it belongs in the first place.
 * the information me n my colleagues put there is not wrong info, most of it is sourced I never said it was, that it was wrong never was the issue. The issue was that it was irrelevant to the article. The ports on a MacBook have nothing to do with the SoC within it. That's the reason it had to go. Perfectly showcased by the fact that you could have just copied this information from MacBook Pro (Apple silicon), note how that same information isn't listed under specs related to the SoC there. We don't write an entire section on the iPhone page about the iPad just because they share internals either. Regardless, it was however not properly inserted in the table in the first place, just grouping all variants of each SoC together as if they existed for all Mac's listed in these cells.
 * its a matter of popular opinion Sure. And for over 3 months nobody made any objection to the request of implementing these changes, if anyone disagreed you'd expect opposition there, wouldn't you (this is me repeating your own argument). Furthermore, other users did agree that these columns didn't belong in the article. You're the only one disagreeing with the change. You are not the "popular opinion".
 * we were willing to compromise but the more changes You have at no point shown any willingness to talk about these changes, never mind a willingness to compromise. That (and you deciding to leave a hostile comment on my talk page in an unrelated discussion) is exactly the grounds on why I reported this in the first place.
 * all those hours of hard work doing the calculations Yeah, that's just WP:NOR. It's not up to us to make none-routine calculations (especially not when they are based on different sources). How did you calculate the FLOPS of the GPU anyways, because the source provided cites other numbers?
 * Frankly you claim a lot of the work done on this article as your own as if you came up with these tables. These tables predate your first edits on it by years. These columns haven't been there "for years", they were added last year and frankly contained more manageable - if still irrelevant to the table's subject - information that has since ballooned to the proportions that led to opening the discussion in August in the first place.
 * but what do you expect from right wingers right ...what is wrong with you? Also: unpopular ones in the country? I'm happy to tell you that you're on Wikipedia, this is a global project. And if you really want to know, if I'd be what we call "right wing" here, I'd still be on the left of your left wing. Although I'm not sure what the hell that has to do with anything.
 * Your conduct has in my opinion - at best - violated a handful of Wikipedia policies including but not limited to WP:OWN, WP:3RR, WP:SOCK, WP:SPA and WP:TIPPING. That's why I reported it and its for admins to figure out if they agree. You're the one who decided that, instead of discussing the changes and any objections to it, throwing around insults and hostile comments was your way forward. I've request multiple times to discuss these changes, but you have consistently refused to have a conversation and instead resorted to writing repetitive nonsense as you've written here now, on my talk page, and in various edit summaries. YannickFran (talk) 11:14, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * btw the calculations there are wrong!, anyone with basic math skills knows 2+2 doesn't equal 5 lol, sometimes websites get the math wrong, this is something so basic one would only need to do the math themselves to verify the info is correct but nope you just wrong info without even checking it first, you're an idiot, this is why theres people like me who actually care about accuracy, you just put the wrong math just because a website got the wrong calculations and btw when we put that the m3 series gpu was running at 1.6 ghz, it was because at the time on the sourced website it had 1.6 GHz but then they changed it to 1.5 ghz, i tried doing the math at the clock speeds of 1500 mhz, 1598 mhz, 1600 mhz and 1698 mhz and all those numbers didn't add up to the FLOP numbers you put in lol, this is what I'm talking about wikipedia is ran by idiot mods and admins that punish the ones trying to do right by the website and those who purposely or neglectfully put the wrong info without verifying it don't get reprimanded...does that seem right to you? now idk if the info you put was intentionally or you're just incompetent with basic math skills but if a website has the wrong calculations, its simple, just pop out a calculator if you can't do the math on your own...this is why there should be a website thats opposite of wikipedia's corrupt admin system, why do people like you don't get suspended or banned for putting wrong info intentionally or incompetently, now people make mistakes sure but after that bs lecture you gave, you'd think you'd take editing more seriously and verify your work, do you not know the formula to finding FP32 Flops? then maybe you shouldn't edit for things you're not familiar with, like basic math skills 67.84.203.109 (talk) 04:11, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * btw to find out the FLOP count at least in FP32 (single precision) is number of ALU's x clockspeed x 2, just felt like mentioning it because apparently you got the math wrong on the m3 series at least because you followed the wrong calculations of a website that you yourself could have figured out on your own to verify if the info on said website is correct, you don't' need a website to tell you 2+2=5 for you to verify if the info is correct by doing the math on your own do you? that same website when i looked at it it had 1.6 ghz n then it was changed to 1.5 ghz and now i have to figure out the clock speed that matches those FLOP numbers you put for the m3 series, clearly I seem to care more about the accuracy of an article than you, either you just don't give a sht ....or you're incompetent...which is it? sources sometimes give you the wrong numbers that's why you gotta do the math, to make sure the info is right, don't lecture me when you're a hypocrite who acts like you're self righteous but can't even admit to your wrongs...whats the excuse now for getting the FLOP numbers and gpu clock speed wrong hmmm? you gonna blame it on the incompetent people who wrote the wrong calculations on the sourced website or you gonna blame yourself for not checking the numbers..its basic math ffs, and you get to walk scott free? you know why because its corrupt, wikipedia's admin system is corrupt, favoritism over accuracy is the wiki motto yes? no matter how wrong the other is or how much intentionally or incompetently they put the wrong info, as long as you're close to the admin u don't get reprimanded right? smh, so ya'll rather be wrong than admit your wrongs and fix em, thats childish and pathetic 67.84.203.109 (talk) 04:31, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * also apparently you based your flops numbers on the m3 series based on different clock speeds in around the 1663 - 1669 mhz range.....so even you got the 1.5 ghz number wrong because the math doesn't add up and not only was it not based on 1.5 ghz number but multiple clock speeds in the 1600 mhz range you based those flop numbers on, the m3 series gpus supposed to run at just one clock speed... see what I mean but ofcourse you won't admit you're wrong even if the math proves you wrong, w.e some article says without verifying the calculation its how it goes yes? just because other editors in those sourced websites can't do math properly doesn't mean you shouldn't either, your numbers are wrong because its based on different clock speeds when it should just be one clock speed for the gpu, now gpu cock speeds will go up and down dynamically at times but usually theres one clock speed to follow either the normal clock speed or maximum clock speed but so far its mainly just one clock speed thats the focus, you have multiple gpu clock speeds, until apple or reputable source confirms the exact clock speed, because believe it or not even the company who made the chips don't always give the exact spec, they'll give an estimate, something at 1698 mhz is not the same as something running at 1700 mhz, yeah the smaller the gap the smaller the difference but still is not the accurate number, I suggest just making all the m3 series gpu clock speed at just 1600 mhz and redo your math calculations 67.84.203.109 (talk) 05:12, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Are you blaming others for your own use of a source you yourself did not even trust? No, you don't get to pick and choose what information from a source you take for fact and then go "this number right next to it, no, I don't believe that". If it's a crappy source then it's a crappy source and you just don't use it, or you ask other people whether or not its inclusion would be appropriate. You don't just include a source, cherry pick which numbers you're willing to take as fact, and worse, then guess the digits after the decimal of a number you cherry picked to trust from an unreliable source and to top it all off, then make your calculation on a number for which you guessed to digits after the decimal of a number you cherry picked to trust amongst other numbers you deem untrustworthy. Especially if you then don't even bother to refer to the right page for that number. Pretty much the literal anti-thesis of how a Wikipedian is supposed to handle a source.
 * I don't care for your suggestions on how to best guess digits after a decimal. We don't guess numbers. Either you have a source for it, or you don't. If a source says "1.60 GHz" then that's 1.60 GHz. It's not 1600 MHz. We don't invent extra digits for greater precision, even if other numbers in the article do have that precision. If you find a source that claims Pi is "3.1", you then don't get to go "ooh, but we need more digits but this source doesn't have them, so I guess Pi is 3.100". Either we can validate that precision through another source and include that number to that precision, or we cannot, and we don't include it. It's that simple. Anything else is just NOR. And we certainly then don't start making calculations based on numbers we guessed. Especially not since you have no reason to believe that it's the clock speed that was right in the first place.
 * If these numbers are in doubt, then that's something worth talking about on the article's Talk page (especially since the source is a website that has been used elsewhere in the article) before you begin including that source. A simple "hey, here's this source we've consistently used throughout the article but this time their numbers don't seem to add up, what do you people think we should do with this" is all that's needed. The source you provided included numbers for the FP32 FLOPS, you don't get to blame other people for trying to validate the sources you included in an article, seeing that nothing of what you wrote matches up with what the source says, and updating the article accordingly. That's on you. To prevent future instances of this, see H:AAS.
 * I however am happy to say that - unlike you - I did do my due diligence. I did in fact double check whether your source was reliable. Yes, I included numbers from a source you introduced into the article, because the other option was just outright removing it and I didn't care to engage in yet another front on your edit war (this is the kind of environment that you have created, congratulations). Meanwhile, I actually did bother to seek out the authors of that source and have them confirm the validity of their information. The answer? It wasn't. The only confirmation for the number they had was an article on Wikipedia... more specifically Apple silicon. I think everyone can see how that's an issue. So instead of lecturing others on accuracy, I highly suggest you take some time to reflect on yourself. Having said that...
 * If you cannot follow the rules but everyone else can, maybe the problem is you, not the rules. You're the one including source you don't even are willing to fully trust yourself, you're the one including information in articles that cannot be verified by your own damn sources. You can blame the Wikipedia admin system all you want, you are the one who decided that the rules didn't apply to you. And if you really want to know, the thing that got you blocked; I'd argue it wasn't me. The block against your account wasn't initiated by the reports, it was because a certain someone decided to draw more attention to their own case by removing a report on themselves from an admin notice board (adding yet another violation, by the way), you guess who that someone was. Actions, meet consequences. But sure, it's everyone else's fault, everyone else is the "childish" one, nobody else can see their mistakes but you, the one who doesn't make them... You haven't taken an ounce of responsibility for anything. The only thing you seem to be able to do is projecting blame on everyone else. So sure, I'm sorry I made you use a faulty source, I'm sorry I made you do calculations on numbers you guessed, I'm sorry I made you refuse to discuss changes I was asking you to discuss, I'm sorry that I made you incapable of discussing content rather than resorting to attacking people that disagree with you for anything but the content at discussion, I'm sorry I made you delete content from an admin notice board. Hope that helps. "Childish", give me a break... YannickFran (talk) 22:56, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * omg already fk off already get a effing life lmao u pathetic lifeless nerd lmao:), in reral life i'd punch u in your effing face lol 67.84.203.109 (talk) 13:18, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. YannickFran (talk) 22:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC)