User talk:Matt Britt/Archive 2

chat

• you (12:10:48 AM): well... I think I'm gonna go listen to some SRV and read a bit
• you (12:10:51 AM): have a good evenin
• you (12:10:55 AM): g
• you signed off at 12:11:07 AM

SRV??? -CobaltBlueTony 05:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah... cool. ;-) - CobaltBlueTony

Be careful of a 3RR violation

I notice you've been reverting the link that (ip_addx) has been putting into several different articles including Function generator, Signal generator, and Digital signal processing. I'm ambiguous on whether or not this link is commercial and/or linkspam and therefor worthy of removal, but it's certainly not overt simple vandalism, so please be careful that they don't tag you with a violation of the three-revert rule.

Atlant 18:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Featured Picture

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Airplane vortex edit.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. ~~~~

Congratulations, and thank you for nominating it. Raven4x4x 08:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Gyroscan processor picture

Hi Uberpenguin, in the illustration(Image:InternalIntegratedCircuit2.JPG), manufacturer of the microprocessor, is Motorola, dedicated for military use. Gyroscan is machine of nuclear magnetic resonance. It can use the illustrations without restrictions

...Microprocessor manufactured by photographic process. This microprocessor works 4.8 Ghz, used the image processing of Gyroscan 6,2 Tesla. First parts manufactured nanotecnology, works submerged in liquid Nitrogen, the temperature of -190° C FPW (Full Power Works).

)Leithold 01:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration

Brother, I know you have left off from posting and editing the Jehovah's Witnesses and related pages, but I ask you to please comment on Tommstein and Central's general behavior on my RFA as you have suffered much of their abuse and can speak about it first hand. You can find the request here (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Tommstein). If you do not want to, I more than understand. Duffer 11:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

uberpenguin, I've ceased using this account due to my actions. I have apologized and wish to cause no further disturbance. That said, I do no appreciate you implying that my desire was insincere regarding editing pages in question. I did it with the best of intent, although that doesn't excuse my actions my any means. However, I would appreciate you not singling me out in any of your posts. Retcon 05:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Since your methodology included the use of deception, überpenguin was accurate in describing your tactics as "misguided"; and since you were the only one reportedly doing so at any time remotely close to the time in question, referencing you by name remains appropriate. While your brothers and sisters, including überpenguin, are de facto much more forgiving than those "others", it may be necessary from time to time for us to reference you specifically as the topic may come up, and that may very well be by the handle(s) you used, as a matter of convenience and to not appear as sidestepping or diminishing the actions. I'm afraid that this may be the case for some time long after you are comfortable with it -- not that you have been all that comfortable with it to begin with. The fact of the matter remains, your actions will impact others' effectiveness for some time to come, even after we have resolved the matter in our hearts. - CobaltBlueTony 20:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tommstein

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tommstein. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tommstein/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tommstein/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Mackensen (talk) 03:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Now that the CPU is FA

Hey,

Now that the CPU is a featured article, do you want to work on the ALU next? --ZeWrestler ^Talk 17:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Get your Flame Proof suit on

I was arguing the same points as you yesterday, and Daniel Davis will not backdown. View Talk:PlayStation_Portable/pointless_bickering to see the discussion. (It is about the same topic he just was angry when he named the page). Seraphim 23:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Please if you can find any example of me not following WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA in that discussion please point it out to me. I don't feel I violated either of them, but if I did I do need to apologize. I asked Daniel to point out to me an example of me violating either of them and he didn't come up with an example. I feel that every post I made addressed only the facts, if that is not the case I need to apologize. Seraphim 23:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

He understands what the prefix's are. He feels that since sony uses MB in their press release that it should be MB in the article, and that the psp article is an exception to WP:MOSNUM. He doesn't feel that I have slighted him, he feels that the information I have presented is incorrect, and that it is impossible to prove that sony was talking about MiB in it's release. I really suggest you read Talk:PlayStation_Portable/pointless_bickering so you understand his arguments ahead of time. (The first thread is me pointing out the contents of the MOS and how we must follow it, the second thread is me pointing out that sony was talking about MiB. Seraphim 00:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

TOldja ;pSeraphim 03:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Regards

Seraphim- While I still don't agree regarding the notation thing, I do admit that I've been an ass. Although it's not a valid excuse, I've been under a lot of stress lately and took your comments personally- I ought not to have done so. As such, I'm offering a sincere apology for my rude behavior. I'm posting this to the other user pages too, so people know that I did screw up in my responses to you. What I OUGHT to have done was carefully explain about how in all my experiences, both me and all my colleagues have always used the 1,024 notation and not the 1,000 one. I would like to put this unpleasant situation behind me and hope you can pardon my bad behavior.

I hope that this apology posted to both this page, and the user pages, can make up for my error.

Regards, Daniel Davis 00:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC) (Doom127)

Compufrost

Hey man sorry for erasing your comment but I think Compufrost is the best new word to be added to the Wikipedia website! I mean just try this test... If you been at the computer for more than 1 hour measure your temperature. Then get off the computer and measure again after a min. of 30 min. off the computer. I bet your chilly right now. Anyway reconsider just throwing it away. Chow Chuck

Intriguing. No. -- uberpenguin 02:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Final decision

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tommstein case. Raul654 13:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

s/USA/U.S./ in ASCII

Hi. I changed "USA version" to "U.S. version" in the article on ASCII, following Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Acronyms and abbreviations. You've reverted my edit. Could you check and possibly derevert? (BTW, Image:Airplane_vortex_edit.jpg is awesome.) Chris Chittleborough 12:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, that was merely a mistake introduced when I was mass-reverting a link spammer. Feel free to change it back. -- uberpenguin 14:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, will do. Keep up the good work. —Chris Chittleborough 16:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Congrats

Congratulations on having your favorite article featured on the main page! - CobaltBlueTony 17:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: ABC on Computer

Your kind words: "Anyway, thank you again for being calm and collected." To which I respond: Nothing annoys a troll quite so much as being calm and collected! :-) SteveBaker 19:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Apple Macintosh

Hey thanks for taking the time to bring the article back into the manual of style guidelines. I reverted Dans revert of your corrections, however this battle over unit formatting will never end, Dan owns the article (honestly read the history, any changes are almost always reverted back to his). just thought you'd want to know it is infact hopeless to argue with him, and i wouldnt waste any time on it. thanks again! Mike _{(T C)} 04:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Colours!

Hams. -- uberpenguin 23:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

CPU article

Hi, I am working on recording a spoken word version of Central Processing Unit as you requested. One thing I noted as I am reading is the high number of acronyms in the article. I think it may be confusing for listeners to track what they all mean. Do you think it might be a good idea to have a spoken acronym guide either at the beginning or end of the article? Where I just read off the common acronyms used in the article and what they mean? Aguerriero (talk) 00:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I finished the article. If you have time to listen, let me know what you think. I ended up dividing it into two parts, since the total recording was somewhat long. Thanks, Aguerriero (talk) 16:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:John_cleese_silly_walk.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:John_cleese_silly_walk.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

John Cleese

Hi, just wondering what John Cleese is doing up in the corner of your user page coming out from behind the WP logo. Is it supposed to be up there like that, or is it just me? — SheeEttin {T/C} 16:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

SRAM

SRAM Come on, many watts, you do not seriously say this is the language of any official documentation? Do i need to argue further? This is definetively WP:Weasel, which calls for not to use many, lots of, few, some, etc.
Instead of reverting my edit (putting a sentence into italics, not removing anything), why don't you improve the article?. This is by no means threatening communication, i just do not understand your action (because the language usage is laughable). Just saying it, taking precaution. My only intention is to improve the article. And, if nothing happens, i will take action soon. Don't mind, i have latest Intel etc. manuals available. It is unbelieveable how this article obfuscates around for months. It is not really bad...just saying some passages look like a joke to me. I am sorry if they were not meant to be a joke. User:Yy-bo 18:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

"Many watts" is correct and does not express a POV. Its only failing is that it fails to put an exact number on "many". I don't consider that an instance of weasel words. Would that particular example benefit from a concrete example and exact number? Quite possibly, but I don't consider it critical to do so. Now, I would not suggest that the SRAM article is well written or even totally accurate, but I wouldn't classify that paragraph as containing weasel words.

As to improving the article, I guess I'll put it near the end of my incredibly long and ambitious todo list... Somewhere behind Computer, Semiconductor, P-n junction, Bipolar junction transistor, Personal computer, all the Computer storage related articles, and DRAM (which is a slightly more important topic than SRAM). At my current rate of featured article production I'll probably get to SRAM in ten years. I encourage you to do whatever you can to improve the SRAM article, and I certainly won't remove any accurate improvements you make. I simply disagreed with your slapping that tag on there.

Incidentally, Intel hasn't been one of the big SRAM players in a while. The big names right now are Samsung, IBM, Cypress, Hitachi, Toshiba, NEC, etc. I don't think Intel even produces any major discrete SRAM products anymore. -- uberpenguin @ 2006-09-01 18:39Z

Thanks for your immediate reply. The argumentation is allright. It is not really in the need to do it (to rewrite SRAM) immediately. My concern was (and is) to use a writing style similar to official technical references. User:Yy-bo 16:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Xbox 360 edit

Thanks for that - it really improved the prose there :) RN 16:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Try reading up on wiki policy first

Wikipedia is NOT a democracy, and your vote doesn't prove anything. "Wikipedia operates on discussion-driven consensus, and can therefore be regarded as "not a democracy" since a vote might run counter to these ends. Some therefore advocate avoiding votes wherever possible. In general, only long-running disputes should be the subject of a poll. Even then, participants in the dispute should understand that the poll does not create a consensus. At best, it might reflect how close those involved are to one."DeathSeeker 06:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh well.

I can't say as I blame you. It is a bit like banging one's head against the wall. Thanks for your great and constructive edits to the article, and I hope you come back when you're rested and recharged. Nandesuka 05:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Overclocking

20:43, 9 September 2006 Matt Britt (Talk | contribs) (→Cooling - this is not generally true, and FETs are not
what usually fail first at high CMOS IC temperatures)

If this is not true, what fails first? --CTho 16:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Resistors. Deviation from nominal resistance is usually 15-20% at best on typical CMOS anyway, so a large enough temperature swing can change resistance values enough to cause timing problems. -- mattb @ 2006-09-11T03:12Z

What circuits have resistors? The vast majority of paths are going to be ordinary digital flop to flop circuits, which are just MOSFETs and wire. Any one of them fails, and the chip stops operating correctly.... I just ran a spice sim of a ring oscillator. At 0C the period was 63ps, and at 100C it was 83ps (>30% change). --CTho 03:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

So it's not so much that MOSFETs slow down with temperature, but they do become more susceptible to noise because of the increased thermal voltage. The instability exhibited by, for example, an overheated microprocessor is probably due to some gate(s) not having enough gate voltage applied to drive it into inversion at the current temperature. If you want to re-add the text with that correction, it's fine by me. -- mattb @ 2006-09-12T05:53Z

I don't intend to insult you, but it doesn't sound to me like you understand the issue. I highly doubt most of what you just said - for example, based on everything I've learned, in order for your "gate voltage" explanation to be accurate, the threshold voltage of the transistors would need to increase by a factor of 3-5 (such that it's greater than Vdd). My explanation fits with everything I've learned, and with simple spice experiments: at higher temperatures, slower transistors means slower circuits which means that the logic along critical paths in the CPU won't have finished evaluating by the time the clock ticks, causing receiving flops to latch incorrect values... and thus instability. --CTho 03:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean to insult you, either, but it sounds to me like you've never actually designed semiconductor devices and are looking at SPICE simulations at a circuit level and guessing as to the cause of the effects you observed. You did not bother to explain WHY you think a MOSFET would slow down with increasing temperature, just that you don't believe my explanation. I don't expect you to take what I say as gospel, but if you're going to accuse me of misunderstanding then I at least ask that you attempt to offer an explanation of the appropriate effect rather than insisting that the transistor is going "slower" for unknown reasons. Failing that, I encourage you to review your device physics and basic quantum mechanics.

Let me explain again. The factor that most affects a gate's switching speed is obviously capacitance. However, the temperature dependance of capacitance in a MOS system is VERY weak (if you don't believe me, look up the mathematical models SPICE uses for temperature variation effects on capacitance). As a result, parameters like cutoff frequency and yes, gate switching speed, are not affected significantly by these small temperature swings. As I explained before, threshold voltage is probably the culprit here. To drive a MOS gate into strong inversion, the surface band bending of the semiconductor needs to be many times the thermal voltage. Taking the 100 K temperature swing you mentioned, it's not at all unfathomable that the threshold voltage of a MOSFET could decrease by a large factor. A quick calculation with some typical Si CMOS process numbers indicates that your temperature swing of 100 C could easily change a nMOSFET's threshold voltage by 35%, which could be non-trivial. I don't know for sure if this is a contributor to the instability seen in a mildly overheated VLSI system, but I suspect it plays a big role. It certainly plays a very significant role if you're comparing it to capacitance variation with temperature. Keep in mind also that a Si system begins to approach intrinsic carrier concentration at the temperatures you're talking about. The upper limit of Si device operation is usually put at around 450 K. Beyond that, thermally excited carriers begin to dominate doping-generated carriers and the device will simply stop functioning.

If you can think of or find a better physical explanation of the instability in an overheated microprocessor, please feel free to correct me. I don't claim to know much about digital VLSI, but understand that it's slightly offensive when you claim that I'm "misunderstanding" the device but you yourself cannot offer a better physical explanation of the effects you're observing. -- mattb @ 2006-09-13T05:01Z

A quick spice sim shows my nfets had a 300mV Vt at 100C, and a 291mV Vt at 0C. The pfets changed a little more than 10%. Vt is not changing enough to affect the operating state of the devices. I also measured the effective gate cap, which for practical purposes did not change between 0C and 100C (though I expected this, and you seem to expect it as well). My spice sim has no wires, so wire resistance is not being modelled. The only things being modelled are fets (and two ideal caps I used to check Vt, and two ideal resistors I used to check gate cap), which shows that FETs are slowing down significantly on their own. This would seem to show that regardless of the physical causes MOSFET performance is pretty signficantly dependent on temperature—which my original paragraph in the Overclocking article claimed, and given how much their performance changes anybody would agree that overclockers need good FET performance.

For what it's worth, before my original changes to the article, I checked with friends, all of whom have completed their MS in Electrical & Computer Engineering, some of whom are now pursuing PhDs... the rest are in industry. After you reverted my change, I asked them to verify that your reversion was valid; none agreed. I showed them this discussion, and the first thing most of them observed was that you reverted my original change citing resistance being the dominant factor but your first reply to my question focussed entirely on the FETs (which means you were already agreeing that FETs slow down, but were now arguing about the actual cause, which I did not discuss in the original paragraph in the article and therefore could not be wrong about it). --CTho 14:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note on my talk page. I proposed a wording on the overlocking talk page that I hope works with the way we each interpret the words in question (particularly, "slow")... let me know what you think. I'm definitely interested in cleaning up more computer-related articles :-) --CTho 23:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Essay

Fine by me, but a lot of others contributed as well, particularly [David_D.] and TimBarrel, this was an excellent article when I came to it, most of what I did was polishing and adding references. TimVickers 20:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I read the essay, it is certainly true that a few experts in a field can contribute a great deal to an article. However, I am concerned by sample bias in just using FAs. Major re-drafting is usually part of the qualification process. For example in Enzyme, about 200 edits were necessary in response to reviewer comments, so the person or small group who nominates and follows the nomination comments is going to dominate the recent edit history.

A different point to make is when sharply divergent views are involved, this can produce an article which is a mass of constantly-contested detail of no real use to the casual reader. This can be avoided, again if a few expert editors can co-operate and produce a consensus. Homeopathy is an example of this I have worked on and my interactions with editors such as [Peter morrell] have shown me that this Wiki system can work well if people with expertise are willing to work together.

A provocative essay in all, needs a wider readership. TimVickers 21:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Deletion in Computer

When a museum with no information (all offline) and a forum with hardly 50 members can be listed why can't http://www.softwaretipsandtricks.com/computer_terms/ be listed which explains the terms used in computer :S? KeKe 21:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

customize time for signature

how do you do it? thanks. --gatoatigrado 01:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I give you this barnstar for your good reverts. Nate | Talk Esperanza! 23:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

what the h***

why did you do this? [1]? Did I say anything wrong? I put it all on the talk page and it's been there for a few days. --gatoatigrado 02:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

um, sorry, it took you 1.16 minutes to click the revert button? I removed the vandalism already. --gatoatigrado 02:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

anyway, no problem, I'll go back to my version. --gatoatigrado 02:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

"I think this whole commentary paragraph is terrible and unneeded, but I'll leave it for now" - you mean you don't think there should be Intel / AMD comparisons? It is made throughout the article. The prepare to branch instructions were interesting I thought. --gatoatigrado 20:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Stored program architecture in Computer/Temp

As promised, I have rewritten this section. I ended up splitting it into two. The first part explains what a computer program is - with a complete example. The second part explains how the computer runs programs at the very most basic level.

What I've added is still very raw - it needs lots more links and grammar cleanup - but it covers the ground in a way that I think someone who had typed in "Computer" would want to be fed it.

Let me know what you think.

SteveBaker 18:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Image shading

I recently saw this image you made and I wondered what programs/techniques you used to shade the sections like that. Any help would be greatly appreciated; I'd like to do this myself. Thanks!--Zantastik talk 23:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

There's really nothing special to it. I just used a photo editor (The GIMP). I used a tool that snaps to edges to define the rough shapes, touched them up by hand, and shaded them. -- mattb @ 2006-11-06T01:24Z

Yes, but (1) what tool snaps to edges to define the rough shapes, (2) what do you mean by "touching them up by hand", and (3) how did you shade them? I'm not an experienced photo editor, but if I learned how to do this I could make many useful images for wikipedia. Thanks in advance for your help! --Zantastik talk 02:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

okay

as for the unsubstantiated (definition i intended) I'm talking about this edit. Whatever you classify your response as, it's unproductive. If LighthouseJ is wrong, I think you should tell him to stop the hype, and plainly state the correct answer. Exaggerating the truth as you see it to fit your argument doesn't help. For example, saying most USB devices are not HID or Mass storage devices would take a lot of professional research I doubt you did. --gatoatigrado 08:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is the giving away the binaries important? As I said, if they have to release modified GPL source that can be compiled with the alphaworks cell sdk, couldn't someone simply recompile it? Anyway, according to some sources it will be free after two weeks anyway. --gatoatigrado 08:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

question

After reading Branch predictor, I could only intuitively guess that the loading of sequences was more time consuming than actual integer comparisons (e.g. ==, <, >, etc.). Please tell me and I will improve the article.

About A-weighting, thanks for the link, but I still don't understand it. I see it is an adjustment for the sound pressure, and the article says it is relative to micropascals. Could you tell me basically what it does to the dB curve? does it generally increase values of loud noises? The graphs do not have a bottom axis so it is a bit hard to understand. I will improve the article if you tell me. Thanks. --gatoatigrado 18:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

um, did you not see this? please reply, thanks. --gatoatigrado 16:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

ps3 criticism

Replied to your unenthusiastic responce on the PS3 talk page. Please see.

PSP

Already responded on talk page, jackass, but you couldn't wait to revert the damage he's done by section blanking and removing useful information. RunedChozo 16:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Please stop being an idiot. Section blanking and removal of useful information from the article are damage, and the other edits he's done have done nothing to improve the article's readability. RunedChozo 16:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

ProductWiki link on PS3 Page

Hi, how do we build consensus on this issue? Omarismail 15:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion on userboxes...

But userboxes are pretty! ;) ~ EdBoy^[p]\_[m]/^[c] 04:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Work on the CPU article

Hi, Matt.

I originally added "LSI" because the article asserted that any CPU built form ICs isa microprocessor. THis is completely incorrrect: the S/370 CPU was built from ICs -- SSI ICs.

I added the "CPU core" section to counter the strong impression the article gives that "nearly all CPUs are now microprocessors." I believe it should be put back in.

No, an FPGA is not a CPU at all, any more than a jumbled drawer full of MSI integrzated circuits is a CPU. An FPGA is an amorphous mass of logic blocks. A designer can use this resource to build a CPU, just as a designer can use drawer full of MSI parts to build a CPU. after the designer instantiates the design, the CPU in the FPGA can operate as a Von Neuman machine.

Can we discuss this. perhaps a single sentence mentioning that CPUs are still not all microprocessors will suffice, but I though I add pared the information down as much as possible. -Arch dude 19:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes, it now says "single" IC. That's because of the changes I made at the time I added "LSI." Prior to that it said "ICs." But you are correct, since it now says "single," the "LSI" is redundant.

With respect to CPU cores for FPGAs ans ASICS: There is quite a bit of infor on this subject scattered over many Wikipedia pages, But a reader who arrives at the CPU page from the sfotware or general-purpose side will never see the information without a reference from here. Thanks for you suggestion to move to the talk page. I'll go there from now on. -Arch dude 20:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

ps3 FA

if you have time over December break to give PlayStation 3 a full peer review it would be nice. I see you've done much of the work making CPU a featured article, so you probably have a good idea what it needs. --gatoatigrado 07:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

other users say it looks good, see what you think. --gatoatigrado 21:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Featured Picture

An image uploaded by you has been promoted to featured picture status Your image, Image:Internet map 1024.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Raven4x4x 06:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations, and thanks for making it for us. Raven4x4x 06:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Misunderstanding?

There may be a misunderstanding? I am not deleting any warnings from anywhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by West wikipedia (talk • contribs)

Computer

Matt, I hate to see people put together good articles on important encyclopedic topics, then submit them to FAC and get the royal FAC treatment. So, my condolences. May I suggest that you spend more of your wiki time thoroughly in-line-referencing articles on minor movies and wrestling characters? You'll be much more successful in FAC.</sarcasm> Yeah, I haven't been here three years like you, but I often feel similarly. –Outriggr § 03:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't expect it to blow over... it's the new ideology, and will stay until a resistance forms. I was actually going to say that you could probably expect your current FAs (noted on user page) to be up for "review" sooner or later—but I tend to be too negative, and stopped myself. :) There are some good people enforcing the new ideology (like SandyG), but the overall treatment of it has the significant danger of putting form ahead of substance (and, IMHO, even worse, skewing encyclopedia "features" toward extremely narrow topics). –Outriggr § 03:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

So now you've FARed an article you brought to FA? I hope I wasn't a bad influence. –Outriggr § 01:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I do understand. Good luck (I think). <lol> –Outriggr § 03:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:1615a logic analyzer.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:1615a logic analyzer.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. When you use a generic fair use tag such as {{fair use}} or {{fair use in|article name}}, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with 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 fair use images 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. MECU≈talk 21:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)