User talk:LeaveMeB

Welcome!
Hi LeaveMeB! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Happy editing! DanCherek (talk) 15:17, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from 7 nm process into 10 nm process. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. DanCherek (talk) 15:17, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

7nm process
Stop editing the articles. Give a definition of 7nm process first. Then prove Intel 7 is outside of this definition. The 7 nm process article does include Intel 7. If you want to argue, argue with its editors. Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 15:22, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artem S. Tashkinov (talk • contribs) 06:44, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

September 2022
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on 7 nm process. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. —  Newslinger   talk   21:43, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * Hi LeaveMeB, I see that you have started a discussion at, but the recommended venue for discussing changes to an article is the article's talk page. For the 7 nm process article, that would be the Talk:7 nm process talk page. Instead of edit warring, it would be best to obtain consensus on the article talk page before implementing disputed changes to the article. —  Newslinger  talk   21:46, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I've started a discussion at . —  Newslinger  talk   22:16, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:7 nm process. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. —  Newslinger  talk   22:22, 20 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I know that the discussion at and on other pages is getting heated, but please do not ask another editor if they are "illterate". This is a violation of the civility policy that does not add to the discussion, and it is fully possible to substantiate your points through the use of policy-based arguments without needing to make personal attacks. Thanks. —  Newslinger   talk   22:25, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

In regard to Intel CPUs articles
Your disruptive edits:


 * Add zero new information
 * Make tables unnecessarily large
 * Make tables mobile-unfriendly

It would be great if you found other articles to "beautify"/"improve". These Intel CPU article have had the same formatting and style for over a decade now. There's no need to "improve" them. Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 10:06, 20 September 2022 (UTC)


 * LeaveMeB's table style is superior. A mobile-unfriendly table can indeed be very desktop-friendly. You might not have that much experience, but do you know the backlash when doing controversial changes to both content and formatting?--Pension Pennerglück (talk) 23:27, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your support. My style table has been used on 'List of Intel Core i? processors' articles and I thought they provide more useful infomraiton and are consistent with the table styles used for AMD. LeaveMeB (talk) 01:23, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I see exactly nothing "superior". We have over 10 Intel CPU lineups articles with the same design.
 * What has been introduced here:
 * A metric ton of duplicated data
 * Tables which become 50-100% wider for no reasons
 * Unnecessary highlights
 * Someone wanted to copy AMD style which I find tasteless, garish and useless. Specially their "Enthusiast" ::"Performance" and "Mainstream" division which is just idiocy. Why? Because people buy CPUs based on their purchasing power which varies a lot from country to country. What's "Mainstream" for the average American, is actually "Luxury" for the average person in the Central African Republic. WP's task is to provide raw data, not to give its own agenda, opinion, verdict on what is what. Even AMD itself has long stopped using these categories.
 * I've got a ton of objections in regard to Zen articles but considering that they are edited by rampant fanboys dedicated people who prefer to keep their ears shut, so I don't touch them. They are in many ways just ugly and technically bad. For instance they specify the total amount of L1/L2 caches for Zen CPUs despite the fact that L1/L2 caches are not shared. Thus it's pertinent to specify per core L1/L2 caches only who will listen to me? No one. "WE LOVE IT THIS WAY, GO AWAY".
 * Mr. LeaveMeB is welcome to continue to beatify Zen CPUs articles. Please let Intel technical unbiased articles remain as they are. Thank you.
 * E.g. this looks just horrible: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_4 On my 2560px wide monitor I have to scroll the table horizontally. Now indulge me why 90% of the data for all the four CPUs in the article is the same? What's the point listing the same attributes over and over again? E.g. the iGPU is exactly the same for all four CPUs, why not move it out of the article? Compare this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:AMD_Ryzen_7000_Series to this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:AMD_Ryzen_7000_Series&oldid=1109583927 and tell me which one is better and easier to read and grasp. The existing article has turned into madness/graphorrhea. Someone wants to bring the same "style" to Intel CPU articles. No, thank you. Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 08:41, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That's quite rich coming from an Intel fanboy who has been gatekeeping Intel pages and can't cope with certain Intel facts like Intel still using 10nm. It makes absolutely no sense to have Intel tables:
 * without product segmentation into Core i3, i5, etc.
 * not including full details because you find some facts convenient
 * no inclusion of details like release dates and memory support
 * You genuinely come across as self-centered and childish who feels personal slight that someone has dared to question them. It is also not true that the Ryzen 7000 table goes off the screen, stop being ridiculous. I have a 1920x1080 monitor and it easily fits. You need to get some perspective that you are not the sole arbiter of what should be included and go edit something unrelated to semiconductors rather than being disruptive and attacking others who disagree with you. LeaveMeB (talk) 13:27, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Product segmentation is there and has always been. Full details are still there. Memory support is there. Release dates are there. There's no need to add everything to tables which you've AGAIN made large as hell. Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 17:38, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Stop complaining. You are in the minority here. LeaveMeB (talk) 17:40, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I see two people who have never edited a single Intel CPU related article previously who want them to look funky, look horrible on mobile, require extensive scrolling both horizontally and vertically. Lastly your edits provided absolutely no new information whatsoever. Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 17:47, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lizzy McAlpine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Folk. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Daniel Case (talk) 20:22, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Military Infobox
I checked Clint Eastwood, his is acceptable due to him being an state officeholder. - FlightTime  ( open channel ) 17:17, 29 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I just noticed your block, I suggest you open a discussion on the article talk page and seek consensus, if you restore you edit you'll could be blocked again, a second block will be longer. -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 17:22, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

September 2022
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit warring. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC)