User talk:TECH-CYBORG-69

Long-winded edit summaries
Please don't leave long-winded edit summaries; a summary should be a short concise summary of your edit. If you have more to say, or questions, you should post a comment to the article talk page. Something like "split availability dates between mobile and desktop; see talk." OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:31, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. To your question-in-an-edit-summary you had here, non-breaking spaces are used to keep text that is related close together so they don't split across lines. See MOS:NBSP for more and examples. Instead of using the actual &amp;nbsp; editors should be using one of the templates. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:35, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Once you make an edit, it belongs to Wikipedia, you are told this in a message right above the "Publish changes" button, "By publishing changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license." If you don't want to lose credit for your work, you will need to participate somewhere else. 331dot (talk) 07:25, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I request that you engage the community in Talk pages, as everyone else does. Arguing in edit summaries without using spaces is neither productive nor how other editors want to work. If you are onboard with the concept that we collaborate to make Wikipedia better, you need to adjust to how others conduct themselves. You obviously are productive, knowledgeable and eager to contribute. THAT'S GREAT! I LOVE IT! But consider making small changes to your comments, i.e. using Talk pages, and spaces. Small price to pay for great success. -- Henriok (talk) 09:41, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Y'all might wanna take a look at the edit(s) at. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:10, 12 April 2021 (UTC) so ummm how long you planning on doing this block thing? this is more like a hobby to me to improve my coding skills and I happen to love and come to wikipedia alot, I just think it's unfair to b e treated differently just because i'm not admin or people being stubborn when I try to correct them but refuse to nudge and keep putting the WRONG INFO, but since they're admins it's ok right? I mean should we even argue common math skills? but yet some people (some admins included) wanna stick to the 2+2=8 mentality just because they refuse to admit an error...sounds fair hmm? you should blok or ban people who purposely wanna wreck articles...not those who are trying to improve them..or learning how to get better. i DO NOT deserve to be blocked or banned... arguing logic and common sense is pointless explaining to some because they'll go back to their erroneous wrong stubborn ways...how hard is it to say "hey I made a mistake in a fact or calculation? but no instead i get penalized..for trying to do good? you worry about me writing "LIKETHIS" in the comment section lol..I do that so i have enough room to make my point, sometimes few words aren't enough to some people...i mean how hard is it to even get a calculator to verify your so called wrong claim..?i literally wrote more than one x + y = z and explain how it's done ..and still the bitter or stubborn people here put the WRONG info... ON PURPOSE... but I'm the one who gets blocked for doing the right thing yes? when you use terms ike "VANDALISM" on people who are trying to improve an article it's insulting...yet we have people who PURPOSELY wanna put wrong info etc etc.... that's who admins should worry about..not the ones who are trying o do good..? in any of the edits that I or others in the network have done, did it sound like we were trying to improve or destroy an article? now there are those who are inexperienced in coding...like i was.. but little by little I got better and better by seeing how others edit and the codes they used etc etc..so if I make an error it's NEVER intentional...but others  like to purposely mess up articles..I'm not them ... difference of opinion is one thing but being stubborn when you're literally given the facts and still resort to their stubborn way and  use their admin status to block others jsut because they can't admit they're wrong at times? ...I mean we have to have a debate about something as simple as a calculation you can literally do with a calculator lol ? 48 x 8 is 384, 96 x 8 is 768 ..do we really need debates about something as minimal as spelling or math? I literally explained how the math is done yet some editors go back to their WRONG ways...why is it so hard to do the right thing? so yes I do believe some people do abuse their authority and when theyre wrong they'll continue to act wrong and put wrong info on purpose when I clearly explain how in my edits.. so I find it like there's a double standard for some editors...I do this as a hobby and to learn and also to get info..my contributions here not only help me but prob others who see them as well..but what I don't like is when i do something pretty good that inspires others to do similar work but yet I feel like i'm harassed and targeted..? why> cause i'm learning as i'm going along? cause i try to find ways to improve any article I work on? try things that work or not? so when I'm made to look as if i'm one of them people who purposely wanna put wrong info or mess up articles on purpose for fun ..is pretty insulting.. you should focus on those who would either mess up articles n purpose or are so stubborn that because of their position they feel they can be wrong and if someone has an issue they try to block or ban them? sounds fair to you? I didn'think so...If I'm messing articles on purpose is one thing..but don't get on my ass for me trying to do good here... unintentional editing mistakes is understandable..we all do them...but intentional ones are not good and those are the ones you guys need to focus on ..not people like me who contribute positively here.. I just don't like people putting the wrong thing on purpose and when I try to fix it. they revert to the wrong one..now I've changed my mind at times in my edits..to  see if newer info comes or if there's a different way of writing a table, that's how I got better at doing this.. you need to focus on people purposely doing the wrong thing, no those who are trying to learn or are trying to improve any article or how it looks or how it's written..I even try to find sources if possible... so what exactly did I do so wrong? I contribute positively here I'm not a vandal. trying to correct someone for doing the WRONG MATH should not be an argument lol, especially when I explain my formulas for it lol ..it's not as if I'm popping out with these numbers out of thin air lol, so let me get back to my editing and I don't want to be harassed by people abusing their authority and too stubborn to admit they made errors, admitting to ones wrongs is what makes you the BIGGER PERSON, i made a calculation and editing mistakes we all have but I try to be as accurate as possible with what info i'm given or finding as best sources as possible, as long as I don't get harassed or have people (certain admins included) put the wrong info intentionally and refusing to fix it and when I do they wanna revert it back then I won't have issues but some things you can't really have a debate about because it's common sense, we gonna argue with a calculator or one's own math or mental skills? we all make mistakes but you gonna argue with a calculator or reputable website sources -_-?TECH-CYBORG-69 (talk) 02:26, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

the new apple products were just announced yesterday, now idk the issues you've had with others who used this network or account but all I know is that I contribute like others here, I wanna be able to edit articles I'm interested in, I know we all have differences and I'll leave it at that but I like contributing here so you think you can take this block away because it's not fair punishing others who use an account or network for things others have done and from what I've read in the article history.. me and others on this network are really intentioned, I have spoken to others who edit here on this network or account, they have valid reasons for their complaints but it doesn't mean they're trying to vandalize anything, I just started this article myself today and I'm in the position of not being able to edit because of others editing or differences of opinion (many of them pretty obvious and valid ones) so anyone under this network or account can't edit now? I find that extremely unfair because me and others on the network/account are here to help out..some speak their mind and say it like it is.. others just wanna be able to edit peacefully, I have talked to the other editors under this network about this and it's pretty unfair what you're doing..now I can't edit because you have a difference of opinion from other editors in the same network or account? that's crazy ..so I'm not gonna be able to edit again here unless I'm on a different network? that's ridiculous, "you have made a valid reason to be unblocked"...what does that mean? you want people to BEG you to unblock for them trying to edit...? no one on this network is a VANDAL, get that straight and I do believe despite the fact any edit put on Wikipedia is OWNED or (taken credit) by Wikipedia is somewhat understandable but this is literally one of best platforms to contribute on but it's not far fetched for some to feel that their editing work is not appreciated...that I do get so can you not punish everyone on a network or account just because of difference of opinion or because from what I was told and personally read the edit history, they have a valid point to feel it's unfair to treat people who are clearly contributing positively here and the only issue is because of writing long comments in editing or because they're trying to correct an error made by others or themselves..it happens people make errors but I know for a fact those contributing under this network or account/s are 100% with the best intentions including myself but you can't castigate someone for correcting other's errors. and the errors don't get fixed and they're trying to fix it but you won't let them or me since i'm also on this network or account, what is it that you want? An apology? I understand that some may be a bit blunt and direct..yeah I read the history of the comments on this article lol but for the most part..they were justified, you can't ban people for having a difference of opinion or correcting their own or other's errors now I can't even edit here even though I didn't create this issue you have with some of the other editors on this network or account, no one is trying to sock puppet as you call it or vandalize here...no editor under this network, account, ip address here is trying to do that so can you please take this block off because I'm one of the people affected by this and I didn't even have anything to do with this at all so what is this issue here exactly? long-winded comments explaining themselves as thoroughly as they can? trying to correct their own errors or errors of others? I understand sometimes people can be a bit blunt n direct and a bit rude I apologize for them but that goes both way, people to at times abuse the positions they're given in some form at times, I'm not saying I'm not taking anyone's side here but I'm affected by this even though I have nothing to do with it.. now I can't even edit from this account/network or ip address...that is preposterous.. you want me to apologize for what other issues you've had with other editors here? you do understand (I've seen the edits) these are hard-working editors you're blocking..including myself who have nothing to do with this, you wanted sorry? fine, sorry but this goes both ways not just one, I saw one of the editors on this network trying to correct an issue and another editor not from our network kept putting the wrong info and still as of today hasn't been fixed so PURPOSELY you have other editors who some might have admin powers to do w.e they want..intentionally..there's a big difference between intentional and unintentional now I can't edit because of others on htis network correcting others or having disagreements or speaking up about what they think is fair or not..? not fair at all to me...and probably to the other editors under this network who we're all trying to do GOOD, these are VERY talented editors along with myself all we want to do is improve articles we re interested in, there is no purposely ill intent here at all so yes calling people vnadlas when they're tryign to do good is insulting to those devoting HRS of their time making the articles they have interest in ..better and they're not even getting paid for it, it's a hobby and a way to get experienced in coding here so don't punish everyone for the differences you have with others and the oens you should be focusing on are those who are messing up articles on purpose...If you have people here as admins, by now they should be able to tell the difference between ill-intentioned and well-intentioned editors many who go to school for something tech-related, we have passion and enthusiasm about doing this not just for us..but for others to learn from it just as we learned from it, I can even tell our work has influenced alot of people because they're still being used to this day..if you really THOUGHT we was vandals ya'll would have reverted back but you didn't you kept the improvements these talented editors have made ..but don't forget the editors on this network who put HRS to making these article tables as good as they can, obviously we're doing something right, obviously we're not VANDALS so can we all just go back to editing? you wanted sorry, fine I 'll apologize for them even though I have nothing to do with it but now I can't even edit either... don't punish people for doing the right thing and let alone when they're trying to fix their own or others errors, the editor who complained or blocked one of the editors on this network didn't even fix his/her error, we trying to fix it but can't because you blocked us, so what is the main issue? long-winded explanations or comments or differences of opinion or for speaking up against what they think its unfair or wrong? most would agree with thatsentiment, so can you not punish me or others on this network/account or IP for what others done..even then they have 100% valid points, now idk if I would have said it the same way as them lol, but I get their point and I get your point but at the end of the day you're affecting good editors like me and them from trying to contribute POSITIVELY in a website that most of us come to for different positive reasons, I mean unless i go on a different network or IP can't edit ever again here? from something I haven't even done? smh... this goes both ways if you want us to not act a certain way don't harass us, I apologize for w.e rude comments the other editors on this network might have said but they're all as well as myself "WELL INTENTIONED" so can we drop this and let us esp. me go back to editing on the articles we're passionate about? thanks TECH-CYBORG-69 (talk) 23:33, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I think your long, unhinged rants here prove everyone's points, including the admins. You are not positively contributing to anything. I've had to reverse your incorrect and unsourced edits to the Apple Silicon page multiple times now. For example, you claim that the M1 uses 2166MHz memory. It does not. Everyone has confirmed that it uses 4266MHz memory. Dnywlsh (talk) 05:12, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

apparently you do NOT know how to read MEMORY and btw before pointing out your stupidity you wrote "2166" that's your mistake right there ^_-...see what I mean... first of it's 2133 mhz not 2166 lol... second of all that's the speed when it goes "1" way lol... that's how it's written in memory but it goes 2 both ways so its 4266 when it goes back and forth hence the term "DOUBLE DATA RATE" or DDR..you colossal moron lmao... see what I mean? you can't even get right what you're claiming was done wrong when you yourself either by mistake or not knowing...putting the WRONG  INFO lol ...what's your excuse this time? do you understand how memory in a chip works when it's of a certain type of DDR/GDDR? the DD stands for DOUBLE DATA RATE lol ... in other words MEGA TRANSFERS or MT for short so something that's let's say 4266 MT or also could be written as MHz going back and forth with each way is 2133 mhz lol..I mean it depends cause sometimes it could be quadruple the amount in MT but in this course is double for MTs so when you see something like LPDDR4X-4266 as its written in memory terms it means that its transfer rate is that... but running at 2133 mhz EACH WAY...smh lmao unbelievable.. learn about something first before you're made to look like a colossal moron just like the idiot who to this day has in the apple SoC page having the A14 SoC EU count wrong when clearly it was explained how it's done but being stubborn refused to correct it, it's bad when someone is wrong but it's worse when someone is wrong and won't admitted how petty and childish those who are complaining and  stubbornly resorting to  putting  or keeping the wrong info without fixing it are truly the ones not worth  being editors here because we all can make mistakes but it takes a big person to admit they're wrong  and not fix them..why do you still have 48 EUs and 768 ALUs in the APPLE A14 when the math doesn't match, 1 EU=8 ALUs, you with me so far? lol so 96 EUs x 8 is 768 not 384 lol ... the 384 number would be if it was multiplied 48 x 8 which gives you 384 so if you change the EU you gotta change the ALU as well unless apple changes the EU and ALU values for each which they haven't, you just proved my point, if you have trouble with math that's what "CACULATORS" are for :) multiply 48 x8 and 96 x 8 to prove your stupidity wrong, next time make sure you type the CORRECT thing lol because you will be call on it lol and you won't like being made look like a fool but then again being made to look like a fool is something some people here love to make themselves ook like when they could either use a calculator or get informed or admit they made an error "oops i made a mistake in my calculation" ...it happens we al make mistakes shoot I I do but I correct it and I don't  try to justify my mistakes lol ..unlike some people...why isn't the apple A14 error not fixed yet? exactly some fo you can't take constructive criticism or admit to your own mistakes do you know how petty that is, it's ok to make mistakes but it takes a bigger person to admit to them and correct them which clearly hasn't been done yet and when I wanna fix it I can't because of idiots like you who are either admits or know admins and purposely wanna leave the wrong info on articles..hence abusing authority.. you don't wanna be called out? then don't give people reason to call you out when you or someone makes an intentional mistake and refuse to fix it..I believe that is called vandalism because your intent is not to fix it but leave it wrong because you're told how to do it but you won't smh lol, don't try to correct someone by putting the wrong info you're trying to blame me on lol here you go read this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LPDDR#LP-DDR4X, and shove the tongue up you know where, you see the I/O bus clock frequency (MHz) and the Data transfer rate (DDR) (MT/s) is this number here example LPDDR4X-"4266" that's the TRANSFER RATE overall not the actual clock is running on it clearly says it right there. TECH-CYBORG-69 (talk) 07:31, 22 April 2021 (UTC) TECH-CYBORG-69 (talk) 07:13, 22 April 2021 (UTC) good job IP address 186.188.88.5 :) thanks for correcting that error we couldn't fix because CERTAIN PEOPLE kept us from editing positively so thank you for that, w would have done it ourselves but for now we can't, blame the admins...see at least some people listen and put the right thing and I bet he got that formula from us or he's smart ..like we are...we all make mistakes but he fixed it, now unless it's found out later on that those specs are different it will be changed but at least that person fixed that error...now if you can also fix the error in the apple M1 someone seems to have put the memory as running at 4266 mhz when in actuality it's running at half that speed (2133 mhz) both ways so if you can fix that too I'd appreciated so it should be written like this: LPDDR4X-4266 Dual-channel 64-bit (128-bit) @ 2133 MHz (68.2 GB/s), fix that for me thanksTECH-CYBORG-69 (talk) 21:11, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, you're wrong. The M1 uses 4266MHz memory, which is the industry standard at this point. Tiger Lake uses the same speed. 2133 is really old and slow at this point, it hasn't been used in Apple's products for years. It's incorrect to list the memory speed as 2133MHz. Your personal attacks and insults here are making it painfully clear why you were banned, and why the ban will continue. Dnywlsh (talk) 16:12, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

https://www.hardwaretimes.com/what-is-the-difference-between-ddr4-lpddr4-and-lpddr4x/ you were saying? like I was saying before you're confusing clock rate with transfer rate, I literally just gave you a link to a source lol, what's the excuse now? they're not reputable lol? gimme a break this is just childish by now, gave you examples, sources formula on how to do it... some of you making this personal, it shouldn't.. I think it's envy what else? lol what some editors here admins or not are doing is making this personal "oh I wish I should have thought of that, I'm just gonna bane or complain because I wished I would have thought of it" do you know how sad and pathetic that is, call it rants call it w.e you want... it's free speech, free country yes? some of you just don't like to hear it like it is and taking a personal vendetta on good people and making excuses because I don't hold back, what can one possibly express in 10 words? lol sorry but I'm not like that... this is PERSONAL, that's why, has nothing to do who uses the network, IP, account etc, some just don't like when others do things better or think of things that they couldn't have themselves, and that's fine but when people, in general, explain to you a certain thing it's like you're upset you haven't came up with it, GROW UP, don't call out excuses of RANTS for people speaking their mind just because you don't like to be told the truth in your face, we tried being nice about it but I will not be silenced in how I feel and when we have good intentions, get penalized? right, maybe some of us made mistakes we all do but I mean if I give sources, you really gonna argue with that? but it's not that it's personal vendettas that's what it is that's the reason for the block, ban, suspension w.e the hell you wanna call it, sorry but we're not made that way, we can be nice to people who are nice to us back but don't expect us to let some people push us around, let alone by some nerds, gave you a source why don't you go argue with the editor in that website then lol because according to you they're wrong right? lol go ahead see what they tell you, also the MT or MegaTransfers can at times be written in Hz but MT is used when it's referring to it going back and forth as the link I provided says so either I'm right, you're right or we're both right but that link does support what I've said TECH-CYBORG-69 (talk) 01:05, 25 April 2021 (UTC) TECH-CYBORG-69 (talk) 19:52, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I'm the childish one here. Not the one making personal attacks and name-calling. I would ask you to act your age, but you're pretty obviously a teenager, so I guess this is normal behavior. You'll grow up some day. Until you do, you'll probably remain banned here. What a shame! Feel free to continue shouting at a brick wall here. No one will be here to listen to you. Dnywlsh (talk) 03:15, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

in the core count in the A12Z if the EUs and ALUs are gonna increase from the A12X's 56EUs/448 ALUs to the A12Z 64EUs/512ALUs at the same clock speed then it's NOT 1350.7 GFLOPS it's going to be 1372.1 GFLOPS, I'm not sure if I or someone else made that error but you might want to correct that. and yes like i always I use a calculator to verify that and also might wanan fix the M1's clock speed to 2133 mhz, the 4266 is the MT rate (which technically is in the hertz going back and forth not the actual clock speed)TECH-CYBORG-69 (talk) 21:21, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

the AppleA14's GFLOPS despite the clock speed being correct, the EUs and ALUs seem to be higher hence a performance of over 73% higher than GPU performance of the A12 apple based it on, apple officially said 30% over the A12, this is over 73% gpu FLOPS over the A12, I mean at least the GPU clock speed is correct based on the 748.8 wich is 30%  over the A12..as apple claimed... this EU and ALU although matches one another in value which at least they got the value right lol, 64 EUs does Equal 512 ALUs because every EU is 8 ALUs but this flop count is far beyond 30% over the A12, apple did not compare the % advantage of the GPU FLOPS with the A12X, A12Z or A13, it was based on the A12 and they said it was "30%" higher GLOPS than the A12 so I got the 748.8, then i had to figure out what clock speed gave me that number which i did figure out, it was 975 MHz, this is not 30% over the A12 this is over 73% over the a12, I even tried to do 30% over the A13 even though apple didn't compare the A14 to the A13 but i did the number nayway and it doesn't add up , it was higher FLOP count and thissi even higher because it's over 73% higher...  I mean I'm glad people are  understanding the formula of how to figure out the FLOP count but this is not what apple claimed...and this isn't even a close estimate.. 748.8 to 998.4 is a big gap so what article or source says that the A14 is over 73% than the a12? did apple officially give the EU, ALU and GPU clock speed count of the A14? ...not that's i'm aware off..all they did say was "30% higher gpu performance (hence flops) than the A12 so since the A12 is 576.0 GFLOPS you multiply that by 30% or .30, you get 172.8, you add that number to the 576.0 of the a12 and you get 748.8 based on 48 EUs/384 ALUs , the clock speed I figured out at least but you added more EUs/ALUs (thankfully valued correctly lol) but still this is more than what apple claimed so can the person who put that show the article where appel said the GPU performance of the A14 is over 73% higher than the A12? cause I don't think apple ever mentioned such a higher increase over the A12....this number is even higher than basing it over the A13 which apple didn't really claim so what article says and quoted by apple that the GPU is over 73% higher than the A12?TECH-CYBORG-69 (talk) 15:52, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

BTW the A12Z EU's and ALUs were increased over the A12X, apple never said they'd increased the EUs and ALUs of the A12X (56 EUs/448 ALUs) to 64 EUs/512 ALUs of the A12Z, they only unlocked or enabled the 8th core which is a fully enabled binned version of the A12X at the same clock speed of 1340 Mhz but oh well , but if you gonna change the EUs and ALUs at that clock speed have the correct FLOPS total: 512 (ALUs) x 1340 (MHz CLock speed) x 2 = 1,372,160,000,000 FLOPS or in shorter form 1372.1 NOT 1350.7 so can you change that to the correct GLOPS total, and the LPDDR4X clock speed and bandwidth are wrong,  the 4266 part of the term "LPDDR4X-4266" (or 4267 but it really is or usually is 4266) is the Data transfer rate (DDR) (MT/s) NOT the I/O bus clock frequency (MHz) which is the actual clock speed is running on which is 2133 MHz (or 2133.5 Mz if you base it on the 4267 number than the 4266) the 4266 (or 4267 if I/O bus clock frequency is 2133.5 MHz)  is the mega transfers or MT which in this case is the Hz going back and forth so one way goes 2133 or 2133.5 mhz and comes back at 2133 or 2133.5 mhz, together you get the 4266 or 4267 number part of the term LPDDR4X-4266 or LPDDR4X-4267 term which is the MT rate or MegaTransfer rate butt he actual clockspeed is half that, as far as I understand itTECH-CYBORG-69 (talk) 16:31, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

if you gonna put the LPDDR4X clock speed to 2677 Mhz on the A13 and A14 you have to change the MT rate as well since this is an OC version of the usual LPDDR4X-4266 (or 4267 if it's 2133.5 mhz) to 5354 is instead of the usual LPDDR4X-4266 (or 4267 if it's 2133.5 mhz clock speed) so it should be written like this: LPDDR4X-5354 since it's clock speed is 2677 MHz and the MT is doubled the MHz clock speed, so apple put a OC version of the usual LPDDR4X-4266 (or 4267 if it's 2133.5 mhz) inside the A13 and A14? is there an reputable article that says just that, I mean the formula seems right with the bandwidth and buswidth and memory clock speed A.K.A I/O bus clock frequency (MHz), but the MT was wrong so I showed you how to fix that and put it as LPDDR4X-5354 instead since the memory clock speed A.K.A I/O bus clock frequency (MHz) is higher than usualTECH-CYBORG-69 (talk) 17:19, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

no it's NOT appropriate you can't blame other people on the same network or ip used by many people and assume they're trying to do something wrong if they're making accounts on their own, has nothing to do with me, this is petty and childish, why don't they focus on people actually messing up articles on purpose, blaming me or others on the same ip or network doesn't help anybody, our contributions speak for themselves, what part of that do you not understand? what other people do in the network or IP is not my business or fault, you can't just blame everyone for the actions a few, you know how many hours of work have been put on here by me and others? ALOT, what is it that you want? people to beg or write an apology letter? NOTHING WRONG was done by me, this sock puppeteering or w.e you wanna call it doesn't apply to me, you got people literally putting wrong info, at times ON PURPOSE, others messing up articles but you're focusing on the ones ACTUALLY improving the articles.. I can easily see the type of editing I and others have done here, it's better more informative editing than being credited for, you're focusing on the WRONG people you see some of these tech articles we have contributed on, most have left it how it was or done it the same way we done it, funny thing is though o one else has done if before us, if it wasn't us doing it it would have never looked like how it looks now...you're welcome btw and we don't even get paid for it, but it's a good way to improve and learning coding skills so that's why we feel others shouldn't take credit for other peoples efforts because it's wrong they didn't devote to make those articles as good as we made them and if they were..what were they waiting for, if we wouldn't have improved those articles  I doubt many would have or not at all so yes this is terribly unfair so why don't you  tell your fuzzy hair friend to just look at the contributions does it look liek we're improving or worsening articles? it's pretty obvious we mean good so unless we re intentionally messing up articles(mistakes dont count cause we all make them) this is just not fair so you tell the fuzzy hair guy or oshwa w.e th his name is to just look at the contribution and really think "are these people helping wikipedia or harming it? " it is incredibly obvious you're targeting  good people who all they want is edit in peace because we love tech, what acknowledgement do some editors ar admins give for people like us who dedicate HRS trying to figure out how to do things, make articles better and more informative, finding better ways to edit etc etc  ? so you guys just take advantage of people and once they made the articles good enough..you block em? enough with the sock puppetry stuff, It doesn't apply to me ..i can't control who uses the account or not ,it's shared smh lol, I can't control what people say all I see is good editors like me wo put great effort into these articles get shunned out...what was the so called BIG CRIME..hmm? others using the account or IP etc etc..? that has nothing to do with me, theyre just editors like me trying to improve artcles thats it, there is ZERO ill will or intention in our edits but we do like to fix errors and explain them or, how is someone gonna know why you did a certain thing if you don't explain it? long winded comments? really lol would you rather be informed as much as possible or say a 10-word sentence and assume that explains your whole rationale hmm? this is not fair, enough is enough we done NOTHING wrong but improve these articles, it's ok to disagree but when you 're literally told how to do something or explained to you  it doesn't mean the person gets bitter or upset n then decides to block when all you re trying to do is fix or make articles better, more informative anyway tell fuzzy hair guy to unblock good editors we don't deserve to be punished when we contribute so much positivity to this website, the articles we contributed on ...they look good don't they? you're welcome that's OUR effort and you decide to block us for our efforts ,blaming others for the actions others do, we're good editors so let us edit, if fuzzy hair guy or oshwa has to unblock so be it but you can't punish the good guys, you focus on the bad guys not us  we re trying o IMPROVE articles not WRECK THEM, sigh....I really don't know what exactly you want me or others to do? we said sorry for w.e you think we did wrong, that ain't good enough? smh TECH-CYBORG-69 (talk) 20:51, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

 Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive. ([ block log] • [ active blocks] • [ global blocks] • [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/autoblock/?user=&project=en.wikipedia.org autoblocks] • contribs • deleted contribs • [ abuse filter log] • [ creation log] • change block settings • [ unblock] • [ checkuser] ([ log]) )

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice. Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:59, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you're correct about the difference between MT/s and MHz, but no one actually cares about that distinction at this point, and everyone simply refers to them the same way at this point. Linus Tech Tips actually explains it well here. He understands it's technically incorrect, but still refers to memory speed that way because everyone else (including computer, memory, and motherboard manufacturers) also refer to it that way. It might be technically incorrect, but it's how everyone else refers to memory speed. Dnywlsh (talk) 01:18, 31 May 2021 (UTC)