User talk:Henriok

POWER8 is a part of POWER, and it is to be released, so POWER is in current stage!!!! Applist (talk) 23:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very fascinating! And I'd VERY MUCH appreciate a sub section to this article which specifies the ins and outs of precicely this, what exacltly is Power Architecture from a technical standpoint. A description of the RISC arcitecture, and so one might separate it from similar description of ARM, Sparc, MIPS or x86 for that matter. But in a more narrative manner perhaps. -- Henriok 22:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

POWER has always incorporated 'RAS' features, PowerPC has similar features but no were near to the extent as POWER, yet PowerPC's 'RAS' features have made PowerPC a likly choice for military, aerospace, and embedded application were data integrity is paramount. To give you an idea PowerPC incorporated some 'ras' features in 1993, x86 is starting to get 'ras' in 2006, would you send a rover a few million miles away were timing is critical and you couldn't guaranty code execution well you would if you used x86. These are some of the reason why PowerPC is so popular amongst military and aerospace applications, "RAS" CODE EXECUTION INTEGRITY. It all started in the "America project" POWER1 was 11 chips, why partially because of 'RAS'. 'Reliability Accountably Serviceability' has been part of the design from day one{1988}.

x86 gets 'ras' in 2007, maybe then you'll understand.

"arm" who cares if you phone crashes maybe less then 1% of operation. "x86" do you think Boeing gonna trust a few thousand tons of steel over your head on x86, no they use PowerPC.

"ras" = .99999999999999999999999% x86 crashes all the time{heat,radiation,cosmic} try using this in a satellite.

I added a link for the other plane at Northrop Switchblade also. You would think that such a big company would be able to come up with a novel nickname for each of its planes. Are you interested in military topics? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh yeah! I have always envied the never ending creativity by the military-industrial complex to come up with cool codenamnes for equally cool projects, but this time they really let us down. My real interesst is in military aviation or anything really which pushes the boundaries of technology. -- Henriok 07:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made a mistake when proposing the merger. I just removed the merger note. Thanks for pointing that out! --Gortu 22:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that in reference to my edit made on Motorola G5 project... It is original research and probably shouldn't have been mentioned. I interviewed a high level Apple person who was made to do give a technical sales pitch for the school I was attendending and after talking about the IBM G5, he mentioned that they would have had a whole other machine if something else had happened. I probed him asking was he talking about the Moto chip -- he gave me a perplexed look and said to the person who he was trying to convince the G5 was a worthy chip that indeed Moto had a chip a year or two previous that apple was going to use, but it failed the early stages of mass production and seemed to need a full rethinking. Apple was pissed that they weren't getting their chip and asked IBM what they could do -- and soon enough the G5 was born. I don't have any published sources, only quotes I wrote down from this manager whose job it was to work with the 'PowerPC' alliance. -- MrMacMan 23:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Henriok, and welcome to Wikipedia. An article you recently created, P.A. Semi, has been tagged for speedy deletion because its content is clearly written to promote a company, product, or service. This article may have been deleted by the time you see this message. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an advertising service. Thank you.  :: Princess Tiswas 11:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are the various PPC 6xx chips similar enough that a page covering all of them makes sense? I get the impression that all the G3 chips have similar designs, and all the G4's do, but that the 601, 603, 604, and 620 had significantly different core designs. Guy Harris 09:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They do certainly differ technically but they could be grouped together in a historic perspective, just as I've done with the PowerPC 400 family. Since these processors are of yeasteryear, I don't think that the technical similarities or differences are the main thing, but the historical. Even though one might fill long articles with intricate details about either chip, I'm not the one who's prepared to write those articles, and this is the best I can do.. If I don't do something, I'd be surprised if anyone did anything. As it stands now, the separate articles are in a pitiful state. Time is not our friend here, and soon there will be hard to find any information about these processors. And besides that.. they do share the name for some reason. -- Henriok 10:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:POWER4multichipmodule.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Chowbok ☠ 16:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for defending the Terra Soft article. Needless to say, I don't think it should be deleted either, but I've done about as much work on it as I'm inclined to do, so I'll leave it to the AfD bureaucracy to decide whether its existence is an offense to the community. Regards, Fleminra 02:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added an article about the eFUSE. Mind looking it over and telling me if you think it's accurate? Thanks! --Audiodude 18:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do you put those pictures on your user page?Ciara me 23:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much!!! Ciara me 10:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the Power Architecture logo from the Mobius Strip article, because the use did not meet it's fair use rationale. mrholybrain's talk 21:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, it is. That's pretty subtle though. I haven't worked much with localized non-English computer systems (the only one I can think of was a WinXP computer at a hotel in Quebec, Canada which was in French) and I guess I just expected that most of the UI would have been in Arabic. I suppose I also would have expected the description on the image page to note that it was an Arabic localized system as well. -- Hawaiian717 18:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Henriok! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule republika\.pl, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was intended to promote a site you own, are affiliated with, or will make money from inclusion in Wikipedia, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! 75.117.234.53 15:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding inappropriate links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming and will be removed. Thanks. 75.117.234.53 15:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh! It's a shame they might remove it. I think it really is true though. Nintendo is notoriously secretive so in their case it's next to impossible to really find any OFFICIAL info. Well, let's wait and see if they do remove my additions... Nintenboy01 19:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So would it make sence to add up the core speeds (not including the 2 SPEs not used for gaming) to 22.4 GHz? -- TheN1Armyguy. 21:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No it would not. -- Henriok

Well then why do people add up the Xbox 360's cores to 9.6 GHz? What would you use to see which CPU is "better" than the other in terms of performance. I can't tell which is better, the PlayStation 3's CPU or the Xbox 360's CPU. -- TheN1Armyguy. 01:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do they? In that case, they are not arguing in any usefull manner. I'd measure performance in real world tests. Which console gets the highest quality picture, which console get the most awsome effects. -- Henriok 07:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answer. I was just saying that on the official Xbox website, they do add up the core speeds to 9.6 GHz. I'll try to look at all of the different factors. It looks to me that you don't like either console better. Anyway, thanks. -- TheN1Armyguy. 02:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good. Some minor comments:

1. It looks as if you've removed the date and the last access date from some of the URLs; should they be left in? Also, should "www-128.ibm.com", etc., just be "www.ibm.com", leaving it up to IBM to direct the request to a particular server?

1. Did POWER4 replace the PowerPC-AS architecture, or did it implement it, or a superset of it? (In the glossary, it says it's "Used in IBM's RS64 family processors and newer POWER processors".) If it's an instruction set architecture, I'd say it continues in POWER4 and later, with the tag bits, extra decimal helper instructions, etc..

1. "The 970 and its decendants is used" should be "The 970 and its decendants are used", in the section on the 970.

1. "Non compliant" should probably be hyphenated ("non-compliant").

1. In the section about future compliance, "there's no public documents available" should be "there's no public document available" or "there're no public documents available".

1. "Mac OS" should probably be qualified as "Classic Mac OS" - "Mac OS X" is, in some sense, the 10th version of the Mac operating system (even though it's completely different internally, being a Un*x with Carbon layered atop it), and the Mac OS page is both for the classic and X versions (with the Mac OS X page being for OS X-specific material). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Guy Harris (talk • contribs) 18:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

"the way I understand it, the PowerPC 2.00 spec that was introduced with POWER4 included PowerPC-AS and the POWER3 architecture."

It may have included the public part of PowerPC-AS, but there are other things that, as far as I know, IBM doesn't make public - they reserve it for AS/400^WiSeries^IBM System i. This comp.sys.ibm.as400.misc/comp.arch USENET article talks about some additional instructions, such as DSIXES, which is used to generate a word of hex digits mixing 0's and 6's to do fixups from an add of two decimal numbers done with a binary add instruction. Guy Harris 16:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the question is how IBM defines "PowerPC AS". This article says "PowerPC AS is virtually identical to the original PowerPC in one of its two modes of operation, while PowerPC Book E has optimizations for the embedded market." - the other mode of operation is the mode in which the processor runs with storage tags (so that you need special instructions to manipulate locations tagged as containing pointers), and I think the decimal-assist instructions and the like might be available only in that mode. Does "PowerPC AS" refer only to the stuff available in tags-inactive mode (which is, I think, all public), or does it also include the non-public extensions in tags-active mode? Guy Harris 19:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More information on the non-public extensions in tags-active mode are available in Frank Soltis's book, Inside the AS/400 (Duke Press, 1997). Here he mentions some details on tagged pointers and the instructions which manipulate them, how address translation differs between the two modes, etc. Bob Philhower 10 Jan 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 17:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Henriok, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Pa semi logo low rez.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Henriok/P.A. Semi. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not readd the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 04:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Henriok, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Xserve-xeon.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Henriok. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not re-add the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Please note that it is possible that the image on your page is included vie a template or usebox. In that case, please find a free image for the template or userbox. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 08:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Pa semi logo low rez.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 23:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my main concern is that it violates WP:CRYSTAL as mainly speculation about a future product without much information released on it yet. That's mainly why I tagged it with a notability tag rather than PRODing it. Perhaps it may be more appropriate as a subsection under the company's article (or a similar article) until more information is released? Redfarmer (talk) 15:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Pa semi logo low rez.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Roadrunner-schematic.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 00:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Henriok -- you asked me about this on my talk page? Can't really help you; I don't know anything about these tags. Timothy Perper (talk) 16:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your question about the reading-order image in the manga article. I didn't put the image in and don't know anything about its history. Anyone can edit Wikipedia, so if you want to remove it, you certainly can. However, from my experience with that article and the people who have worked on it, I would strongly urge you to post this question to the manga talk page and get consensus before doing anything. There are perhaps a dozen people who have this article on their watchlist, and some of them are very touchy about unexplained changes. So if you simply remove the image, you're likely to be reverted. I recommend asking first on the manga talk page.

I'm going to raise the issue myself on the manga talk page with some added details about the image, so you might want to look there too.

Timothy Perper (talk) 13:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Ydllogo 3d.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ViperSnake151 20:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've started writing the article here. It still isn't finished, but I think it is worth a look. Rilak (talk) 07:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I've stumbled into a writer's block for the article. Since I don't know when I will be able to start major contributions again for this article, I was wondering if you think that releasing the article would be a good idea. If the article is release, it will be in a noticeable position, therefore it will be edited by more people with more ideas. Thanks. Rilak (talk) 09:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the article is ready for release. It certainly has developed to a point where it is of value. Should you the honors or should I? Rilak (talk) 12:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, just hold the release for one second... The diagram of the physical layout of the central electronics complex in "IBM RISC System/6000 processor: Hardware overview" shows that there are nine chips (ten if you include the clock chip) that make up the CPU. However, the more detailed descriptions in the same document only account for eight of the nine chips. The unaccounted chip is labled "C" and there are two such chips. The description for these two chips is that they are I/O interface chips. Would these be the "I/O unit" described later and in more detail? The document and the entire issue of the journal do not say anything about how many I/O chips there are. Rilak (talk) 12:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article should be released. See my user subpage's talk page please, I've put up something there. Thanks. Rilak (talk) 13:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been released to POWER1 and its associated talk page have been moved to Talk:POWER1. I also want to thank you for your contributions and assistance in writing this article, your comments and the diagrams you made have made the article to become greater than what I could have done alone. Rilak (talk) 11:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I've noticed you've got a draft for the RS/6000. Since I mentioned on the IBM System p talk page that I intend to turn the current RS/6000 redirect into an article to cover the original RS/6000 systems, I was wondering if the contents of the draft are ready to be used. Thanks. Rilak (talk) 11:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the content in question from IBM System p over to RS/6000. You might want to take a look and fix anything I might have missed (categories, etc.), thanks. Rilak (talk) 11:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think (I could be wrong) it is a multi chip module variant of the Power6 with four 3.6 GHz cores and 32 MB of on-package L3 cache introduced very recently (a few days ago) in updated Power Systems. It seems to me that it was a rather quiet launch, since only two sources mention it in any detail: [1] [2]. Regards. Rilak (talk) 10:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remember how The Register wrote of IBM claiming the POWER6+ chips shipped in October 2008 were just typos in the press kit? It turns out that they were POWER6+ chips! [3] Rilak (talk) 06:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found a way to get the Power logo back. I converted the Power Nav box to a standard format navbox used in Linux. See what you think here. -- 18:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the content you (and 118.208.76.221) deleted from Cell_(microprocessor) could be OR. I felt that we could afford to be somewhat less bold seeing that some of the content dates from at least September 2006 (as far back as I traced) and has been constructively edited by 9 editors (not including me) since that time.

But, that's not why I wrote this section...

In your revert, you also reverted my deletion of a circular link to PPE. PPE is a disambiguation page whose only relevant entry points directly back to the Cell (microprocessor) page. Please consider re-deleting this link. Philhower (talk) 16:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Tss-logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have begun expanding the RISC Single Chip article using information from the IEEE paper after a link to a copy was recently included in the Microprocessor chronology article. I have included the link in the RISC Single Chip article in the "References" section. Regards. Rilak (talk) 08:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, I'm not a developer and I can't help that, however I've updated interwiki.py to the latest version. Don't know if that will help through. Thnaks. Techman224^Talk 18:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:EFIKA.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the image (or other media file) agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the image to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the image has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the image's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Images lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. AVRS (talk) 17:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I know you merged all PowerPC 6x0 articles into super article PowerPC 600, but what would you think if the PowerPC 620 got its own article? I am willing to write one using information from a five-page Microprocessor Report article as I need a more a substantial background for the POWER3 article I intend to expand, as it is based on the 620. Regards, Rilak (talk) 07:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the POWER4 and 5 articles, could you please point out where they could be improved? I am aware that they are lacking in content, but other than that, they seem OK. Rilak (talk) 12:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you suggested that the PowerPC G3 and PowerPC G4 articles be renamed to something more vendor-neutral and less Apple-centric such as "PowerPC 750" (Talk:PowerPC G3#Rename. I agree with your suggestions, but as you made those suggestions some time ago, I'm wondering if you still think it's a good idea. I want to rename those articles to something that is more precise. Rilak (talk) 15:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was thinking that the new titles should be those that you suggested. Upon attempting to move the articles, it does not work, and administrator assistance is required. One potential problem I think that might be encountered if a move is requested is WP:COMMONNAME. But since this is a matter of neutrality, calling the article what the vendor calls the product as opposed to what a user calls the product, I don't think the policy is particularly applicable. Do you think there should be a discussion so there can be more community input? Should the Computing and Apple WikiProjects be notified? Rilak (talk) 15:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I just want to let you know that I have just moved "PowerPC G3" to PowerPC 7xx. I know that you would have prefered "PowerPC 750", but if it were to be moved there, administrator help would have been required. All redirects have been updated to reflect this. I'll wait a few days before moving PowerPC G4 just in case Apple fans object to the new naming scheme. Regards, Rilak (talk) 06:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Ydllogo 3d.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk 04:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pop culture entries based on primary sources are original research. A pop culture reference must be notable. To establish the notablity of a pop culture reference, the citation must be to a third-party reliable source. See "In popular culture" content for further details: "However, passing mentions in books, television or film dialogue, or song lyrics should be included only when that mention's significance is itself demonstrated with secondary sources". (This is in reference to your additions to DeLorean time machine. Yworo (talk) 21:26, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A lyrics page is a secondary source. The song itself it the primary. There reference was not to establish notability but to establish validity. It's not a passing mentioning in the song, the entire song is about the need of a DeLorean time machine. -- Henriok (talk) 23:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. A secondary source is a discussion about the cultural reference by a third party (other than the artist who wrote the lyrics) specifically relating it to the subject of the article. In addition, most lyrics sites are in violation of copyright. The only lyrics we can link to are those published by the copyright holder. Yworo (talk) 23:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited IBM POWER microprocessors, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CISC (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 19:45, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Henriok!

Today I transferred 2 of your images to the Commons (RIOS-1 schema.png and RIOS-9 schema.png). I hope the move satisfies the requirements and the images will remain. I use them in the POWER1 article in the hungarian translation. BR, Pkunk (talk) 14:53, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...

You welcome! I'd use the other images too, like in the POWER2 article. Pkunk (talk) 19:19, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reactions and the possible misunderstanding - I'd say that in the future translations of the Power* articles I would include your pictures. Pkunk (talk) 00:11, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, sorry I'm quite new to this, saw your edits and think this is the way to use the "talk" function?

Good enough, if you check my page for the answers. It'd be best if you get an account of your own so you'll get a talk page of your own. That way, you'll get prompted by my answers. -- Henriok (talk)

Regarding 750VX I'd say it's good enough to be considered confirmed. I've wondered the same before and only decided towards accepting it factually because sources talked about Gobi alongside. Now IBM doesn't reveal roadmaps and I think they didn't back then as well, but they knew about Gobi and usually rumours talked about both. Gobi would ultimately come out on 2004; VX fell behind somewhere. Pretty sure it was legit at some point, makes sense too seeing IBM didn't produce G4's and it seems like they were trying to backport their G5 implementations into a G3, perhaps as a means to be able to have competing mobile chips.

Facts are that Gobi didn't show on any roadmaps, and neither IBM nor Apple talked about it openly. IBM did reveal roadmaps back then, at least after the fact, and you'd often find traces of 750 parts if you looked at the roadmaps for IBM's other offerings, like the POWER processors. I was heavily involved in the Mac rumor scene at the time and I didn't see any evidence outside the rumor sites of 750VX's existence. If it did, you would be able to find it still today with some googling, and you don't. It's likely that there was a Gobi on some internal roadmap though, and it was heavily reported on at the time so I think 750VX has earned its place in the article, but we must point out that it was just rumored. Wikipedia's rules demand it. -- Henriok (talk)

I'm pretty sure the bogus part of the news might be the notion of it being finished, perhaps it never was.

I think it might very well be finished but Apple refused it in favor for Motorola's G4 family. A chip is taped out at least a year in advance and samples are made about half a year until full production, and if the time tables are acurate, there should be samples of the 750VX for Apple (and others, like Nintendo) to test. From what I deduced about the 750VX it probably didn't offer any substantial advantages compared to let's say MPC7447 that was already on the market. It had the fast DDR FSB, AltiVec, large L2/L3 caches and SMP support and Freescale made a dual core part of it later based on the same e600 core, the MPC8641D. 750VX didn't seem to offer anything especially interesting at the time, but probably enabled IBM to make Espresso since it at least used the SMP and multi core stuff that might originate from the 750VX. -- Henriok (talk)

Nice work on adding the codename to the table, me myself was considering adding FSB speeds, and perhaps watt consumption, seems like something that shouldn't be missing there.

Thanks! Please make your own additions. Those figures were really important for us who followed the developments at the time. -- Henriok (talk)

Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.244.55.171 (talk) 22:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

…and get your own account :) -- Henriok (talk) 08:12, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited OpenPOWER Consortium, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page KVM (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited POWER8, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page SRAM (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you are smart and has had a similiar/same problem (with the same guy). [4]. comp.arch (talk) 22:50, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Power Processing Element, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ATI (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At least as I understand it, "Power ISA" is a name given to the instruction set formerly known as PowerPC. In addition to the instruction set, "PowerPC" also refers to a family of chips implementing that instruction set.

The first versions of PowerPC ISA (version 1.x) and PowerPS AS is not included in Power ISA. Designs such as 601, 604, 620, 750, 850, 7400, 970, RS64, POWER4 are not Power ISA compliant so a fair number of classic PowerPCs are not Power Architecture per definition. A lot of processors are branded PowerPC; some are compliant with Power ISA, and some are not. You can't say that Power ISA is a strict rebranding of what previously was called PowerPC. A lot of PowerPC designs that came after the introduction of Power ISA (in 2006) is not Power ISA compliant, like Nintendo's Espresso (750 based) or Freescale's MPC8641D (Core e600). -- Henriok (talk) 17:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, PowerPC and Power ISA are "versioned" architectures, in the sense that, at least currently, there's an explicit version number associated with them. (Some architectures, such as SPARC, were "versioned" in that sense since they were first released - the first SPARC version released was v7; some architectures, such as System/3x0, apparently became "versioned" at some point, e.g. with the S/390 and z/Architecture ARCHLVL, even though new stuff was added over time before that point; some architectures, such as x86, as far as I know, have never been publicly "versioned", they just got stuff added to them over time.) Was PowerPC versioned since Day One, or did they start numbering it after it first came out?

Presumably "compliant with {PowerPC,Power ISA}" means "compliant with some set of versions of {PowerPC,Power ISA}". Version X of a versioned architecture typically has more features than version Y if X > Y. If the features are optional, an implementation compliant with version Y could also be compliant with version X, and, unless version X made incompatible changes (removing features that were mandatory in earlier versions, changing "don't care" bits to "must be zero" bits, using bits that were "don't care" bits in earlier versions, etc.), an implementation compliant with version X is also compliant with version Y.

So, if designs such as 601, 604, 620, 750, 850, 7400, 970, RS64, POWER4 are not Power ISA compliant, presumably that's because all versions of the Power ISA have mandatory features not implemented by those designs.

From this chart, it looks as if PowerPC was versioned since Day One, but that it's not a linear history, with the "Book E" ("E" is for "embedded"?) version on a separate branch from the "general purpose computing" version until Power ISA, at which point they appear to have been combined in one specification. That seems, from the diagram, to be the only thing keeping PowerPC and Power ISA from being the same ISA, with the name changing in version 2.03.

I view PowerAS as a special case, as it has features (tag bits, decimal arithmetic assist instructions, etc.) that IBM have never publicly documented. Current POWER processors are publicly documented as implementing Power ISA 2.0x, for various values of x, and also presumably implement some version of PowerAS, as they're used in systems running IBM i. Guy Harris (talk) 19:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's a Power Architecture page; it says that "Power Architecture" is "The broad term designating all that is POWER, PowerPC and Cell including software, toolchain and end-user appliances." and that said term is "the focus of [the Power Architecture article]", and that the "Power ISA" is "A new instruction set, combining late versions of POWER and PowerPC instruction sets. Designed by IBM and Freescale."

…however: Power.org wants to use "Power Architecture" as an umbrella term to encompass all that ever been POWER or PowerPC, like RAD6000. That's fine, but RAD6000 is none the less not Power ISA compliant. It's not even PowerPC compliant. So there's no equivalence between what's "Power Architecture" and whats "Power ISA". As is stated in the article, Power.org is using "Power Architecture" to label toolchain and software, not just the processors that implement a specific instruction set but devices that implement Power ISA _is_ a strict subset of Power architecture. -- 17:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, so it sounds to me as if there should be a page describing the Power ISA, separate from the Power Architecture page. Perhaps that page, whatever it's called, should cover both the PowerPC ISA (starting with PPC 1.0, covering both the "general-purpose computing", up to 2.02, and "Book E" versions, up to 1.9), and the Power ISA, proceeding from PPC 2.02 and PPC Book E 1.9 to Power ISA 2.03, and continuing on to 2.07. If not, there should be some page giving details of the PPC part of the history, pointing after that to the page for the Power ISA, with the latter page giving the Power ISA part of the history. Guy Harris (talk) 19:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should the Power Architecture page also discuss the Power ISA? If so, should the PowerPC page somehow point to that page as the current page for that instruction set architecture?

Yes, Power Arch article should also cover Power ISA, and Power ISA could very well be a separate article. The PowerPC article should cover what was PowerPC up until some stuff went Power Arch. After that time (2006) the PowerPC article should only cover the technology that didn't migrate to Power ISA, like RAD750 based satellites, Nintendo Broadway and Espresso and Freescale Core e600. Even if some Power ISA stuff was labeled "PowerPC" after 2006, it's proper home is in Power ISA and Power Arch articles (Like PowerPC 4xx based devices from AMCC/APM and LSI and the Blue Gene/P). -- Henriok (talk) 17:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should the PowerPC page be split into a page discussing the ISA and a page discussing the implementations of that ISA bearing the name "PowerPC", and perhaps also the history of PowerPC up to the point at which the instruction set architecture turned into the Power ISA, with the page discussing the ISA covering both PowerPC and Power ISA? Guy Harris (talk) 07:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think a page discussing the instruction set bearing the name PowerPC would be a great idea, and there's at least four different PowerPC instruction set versions that comes to mind when I think about it: PowerPC 1.x (6xx, 7xx, 74xx), PowerPC Book E (4xx, 8xx(x) PowerPC 2.x (POWER4, POWER5) and PowerPC AS (RS64-x). I'm not qualified to sort out the ins and outs of what's what in such an article, but it'd be great! Bear in mind that most of what was Book E and PowerPC v2 at the time (2006) became Power ISA version 2.03, not the other stuff. -- Henriok (talk) 17:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "other stuff" is PPC 1.x and PowerPC AS. As per the above, I view PowerPC AS as an internal-to-IBM extension to PowerPC/Power ISA; it wasn't part of any published PowerPC spec, so it's not surprising that it's not part of any published Power ISA spec. So was there stuff in PPC 1.x that wasn't in PPC 2.x, or was that stuff dropped in the transition from PPC 2.02 to Power ISA 2.03? Guy Harris (talk) 19:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Listen. I do not want to be involved into a edit war. User:Guy Harris said, it is not disruptive to distinguish Historic ones from the Current ones, but the problem is, do YOU think sorting by series like POWER, PowerPC, Collaborated with Nintendo, etc. is disruptive? If not, please let me undo your edit as the current template can't distinnguish RAD6000 from POWER2. CloudComputation (talk) 01:49, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You said, "Legibility is way way down for no upside.". Did you noticed the end of template? CloudComputation, message sent in 2014/04/25 05:31 UTC, Unix time 1,398,432,660 — Preceding undated comment added 05:31, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited OpenPOWER Foundation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Canonical (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:51, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

DOME Microserver

added a link pointing to ARM

DOME project

added a link pointing to ARM

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Henriok,

I reverted your change to the summary chart at Apple system on a chip. Currently the chart reflects the infobox successor/predecessor/variant from the various Ax articles. The line going out the top of a processor box leads to its predecessor (as documented in the infobox), the line going out the bottom of a box leads to its successor, while the line going out the right side of a box leads to a variant. If you think the chart should be reorganized, I am happy to discuss it with you. Perhaps if we found a way to add a legend the summary chart would be clearer? —RP88 ^(talk) 20:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Henriok, thanks for uploading a refined version of your drawing of the A8 with updated markings. It looks nice! —RP88 ^(talk) 01:54, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I googled for "Mike Matas" and came across your User subpage. It's a nice start to an article, why not movie it to the main namespace? I'd be happy to help edit. Ckoerner (talk) 15:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's because I tried, but got shot down because of some dude who hadn't heard of him. You can absolutely take my beginning and make a run for it! -- Henriok (talk) 15:39, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the Apple AX pages, you changed caption from chip to processor. A system on a chip is the processor of the device, but it other things that are embedded inside a chip, such as memory, hence the name system-on-a-chip. According to Apple's page about the iPhone, it says: "The A9 chip is our third-generation chip with 64-bit architecture. It sits at the cutting edge of mobile chips...". There are people that refer to the SoC as the A9 processor, but the manufacturer's name should be the one followed.

To be more accurate, the caption could read "The AX system-on-a-chip" but it seems better to just say "The AX chip". Why do you insist on saying processor?

For this discussion a "silicon die" and a "chip" are equivalent. There are terms like "chip carriers", and "multi-chip module", "system on a chip" only makes sense if you refer to the die as a chip. In the case of Apple's SoCs, they do contain more than the SoC (chip).. they often include RAM too, but the RAM is not a part of the "chip". They might, however, be considered to a part of the processor. And for that matter a chip doesn't need to be a processor. A RAM-chip is not a processor. So using the word "chip" defines what's illustrated better. -- Henriok (talk) 18:11, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "chip" is the best way to define the AX images, but you changed chip back to processor. --Frmorrison (talk) 20:43, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You misinterpreted what I said. I completely stand by my labling as the whole Ax package as a "processor" not a"chip" since "chip" refers to only the silicon die, and a processor is more than that (in this case RAM and packaging). -- Henriok (talk) 10:00, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your picture File:Apple S1 module.png lack any scale reference at all. Could you provide one? Here's a good example: File:KickSprite sm.jpg Bytesock (talk) 09:00, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I actually don't have any that I'm really happy with. The only scale reference I have is a picture like this (image of S1 inside an Apple Watch) but I don't know if that's a 38 mm or a 42 mm watch. I did this scale reference, but then again.. I don't know if that's a 38 or 42 mm watch. -- Henriok (talk) 10:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not so much about the relative size in compared to the clock chassis as the absolute size. Anyway I found a image that makes it clear that it's 2.5 cm wide. Perhaps you can use it to insert a ruler inside the picture which is correct to scale? I see that you have many other images. Perhaps an idea for a new practice? Bytesock (talk) 10:18, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It's absolutely something I've thought about. The reason why I've omitted this is that this info is not always readily available and it'd take some investigation to retrieve them. But yes.. it's something I want to do. Thanks for the attention :) -- Henriok (talk) 12:35, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At least if you take photos yourself, you could put a ruler on the side of the object. Avoid what some people do, namely put something well known like a coin etc. The problem is that people viewing it are often in another country or the picture is so old that the coin has been replaced. And this goes for other "familiar" objects. When looking at things, it may be useful to know if they are 10 cm wide or 10 µm. I like your photos but also want to encourage people to make them more useful. Bytesock (talk) 15:53, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

However they are *not* photos, they are illustrations, made entirely in the computer, with photos as inspiration. And most of the time, there's no way for me to know the scale. -- Henriok (talk) 19:55, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Apple S2, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page NFC. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:35, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Arek Dreyer 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/Arek Dreyer until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Henriok, now that both TechInsights (photo) and iFixit (photo) have uploaded high-quality photos of the Apple A11 1W72 SoC, I was wondering if I could persuade you to update your illustration of the Apple A11 to accurately reflect the model/product codes for the A11? —RP88 ^(talk) 06:41, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Apple S2 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Seems to fail WP:GNG, would be fine as just part of a list but has no notability by itself

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 00:52, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Genesi 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/Genesi 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. A loose noose (talk) 05:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Henriok, once again both TechInsights (photo) and iFixit (photo) have uploaded high-quality photos of the Apple's latest SoC, which is now the A12 APL1W81. I would appreciate it you would create an illustration for the Apple A12 as you have for the previous chips in the series. If you are no longer interested, please let me know, and I'll make an effort at creating one (although I doubt one that I created would be as good as yours). Thanks again. —RP88 ^(talk) 22:27, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The TechInsights A12 photo is photographed against the same background as their photo of the A11, so it is particularly interesting from the point of view of getting the relative aspect ratio correct (the relative scale doesn't matter for our purposes since the size of the WP thumbnails are not determined by the size of your original illustrations). —RP88 ^(talk) 22:33, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, iFixit (photo) now also has a high-quality photo of the Apple A12X (APL1083). —RP88 ^(talk) 02:15, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you want to remove the hyphen from "real-world application"? The compound modifier "real-world" clearly calls for a hyphen. And changing "2Gbit/s" to "2GB/s" is contrary to the advice in MOS:UNITSYMBOLS: "bit/s (not bps, b/s)"

Chris the speller ^yack 22:57, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have not been editing very frequently lately, so I have again changed the article to comply with Wikipedia's MoS. Chris the speller ^yack 23:03, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing#Power Architecture on Wikipedia that's pertains to several articles, templates, and categories you've made significant contributions to. Thus, the discussion may be of interest to you. Regards, 99Electrons (talk) 00:17, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Power-architecture-logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:37, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article James A. Kahle 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/James A. Kahle 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. Infogapp1 (talk) 12:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Henriok, iFixit has done a teardown of the iPhone 12 in which they say the model number of the A14 is "APL1W01" (A14 photo) rather than the "APL1W87" that appears in your very nice illustration of the A14. When you have some time, would you consider updating your illustration? Thanks! —RP88 ^(talk) 20:22, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for updating the A14 illustration. I noticed you've since then uploaded an illustration for the M1, but it is a placeholder drawing since at the time you didn't have access to a reference photo. MacRumors has recently posted an article with a large image of the M1. The article is here (M1 photo). —RP88 ^(talk) 18:30, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thanks for Your contributions, but I have an insignificant question: the "PowerPC A2" naming is correct? anywhere where I seen, the A2 CPU describes as custom-designed CPU, and the POWER7 design known as more relevant sibling (but it still a different CPUs). I can be wrong, but, maybe, the plain "IBM A2" naming is slightly more correct? ThisIsNotABetter (talk) 16:17, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an insignificant question, minutiea is important! The processor isn't named anything but "A2" really, but it is an PowerPC processor. So I think the naming of the A2 page is correct (IBM A2), but when I included it in the BlueGene article, I game the text "PowerPC A2" to denote that it's also a PowerPC, like its predecessors. The BG/L and BG/P processors aren't named "PowerPC 440" or "PowerPC 450" either, but they are of the PowerPC 440/450 kind, they way BG/Q is of a PowerPC A2 kind… To be perfectly correct, maybe it should say "PowerPC 440 FP2 core", "PowerPC 450 FP2 core" and "PowerPC A2o core". -- Henriok (talk) 08:49, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's a perfect answer! Can I (sometimes) request Your help if I find something questionable? ThisIsNotABetter (talk) 13:40, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely! -- Henriok (talk) 07:45, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, some months ago I create a Draft:Template:IBM Hardware, but some historical models was hard to manage. Can You point me to my obvious errors in these list, if that's not a problematic? ThisIsNotABetter (talk) 21:47, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apple-designed processors title was updated. There is currently a misspelling on your user page ("system on a chipS" instead of "systemS on a chip"). Also, the title is outdated and should be "Apple Silicon".

Originally, the conflict escalated and under your wish, we stopped making modifications. Due to the opposing party's inactivity, I made a reasonable resolution. However, the opposing party just reverted my changes to what they think is right, clearly violating your policy. While reverting their edits, I was unable to fix a formatting issue with the table. Please help me out here and report TH3_T3CH_DUD3_MAST3R if that seems like the most appropriate way to resolve the conflict.

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Fixstars logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:09, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]