Hi, regarding the DVD acronym issue, I've made some edits explaining why the website of the DVD Forum uses "versatile" - as also noted on the talk page, Toshiba is apparently in charge of the website, and they are in favor of the "versatile" acronym; that's why the DVD Forum site uses it. The actual DVD spec does not define any acronym (or so I am told by the author of the DVD Demystified FAQ - I don't have a spare $5000 to find out myself). If you have an authoritative source to the contrary, please let me know! -- Wapcaplet 22:16, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

Got your message concerning differencies between English and French/German languages. However, I am still wondering how you differentiate between French as in "originating from France" and french as in "French language". The latter spelling I used to emphasize the fact that these expressions do NOT originate from France but from French language (this difference is very important to Romands).

Furthermore I do not understand why you stick on "Fondue Neuchateloise" for the general name of cheese fondues. This is simply not the case. Fondue Neuchateloise is just the name of the fondue originating from this area (Neuchâtel). Just as it is the case for la Fondue Savoyarde, la Fondue Valaisanne, or the Glarner Fondue. So please, change the title back to "Cheese fondue".

Greets juice

---

Hi Tooki, thanks for your help with editing mobile phone. I've attempted to put back the new intro but take your comments into account. As mentioned in the talk page, I'd like to make a series of edits, to sort out this page more. Please could you copy edit bad material so that it fits with your wishes or, if you dispair of spelling mistakes and don't have time, put comments into the talk page before reverting material. I can then fix this for you. Some of the reverted material is inaccurate ("cell phone" doesn't mean the same as "mobile phone" since cell phone doesn't include "satellite phone" but "mobile phone" does) so it has to be changed anyway.

Mozzerati 06:33, 2004 Jul 6 (UTC)

---

I take your point on the numerical sequence but I was trying to clarify that the 120V systems are generally 60 Hz and the 220V systems are generally 50Hz. I have tried another method. Tiles 08:20, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Not everybody understands the expression "mains" and the categories I used were hardly exhaustive. I have no real interest in having an edit skirmish. I was trying to clarify the fact that 50 and 60 Hz were the frequencies used in power systems that supply end use. Restricting the end use to household was misleading. In the scheme of things the issue is trivial and I hereby resign from the article. All yours, mate. Tiles 03:58, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Just saw your work on Body piercing. I think you're my new best friend. :o) — OwenBlacker 21:58, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

Hi, the point is not everyone knows where the Chesapeake Bay is. Perhaps when one is too close to the subject this isn't apparent, but putting some geographic info only helps. Perhaps it's simply the phrasing that is the problem. If it was Gulf of Mexico, Bay of Bengal or Sea of Japan, that would be one thing, but Chesapeake Bay is not self-descriptive or widely recognized enough to assume the reader has a good idea of its geographic location. Fuzheado | Talk 03:26, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

On capitalization, you are half correct. Wikipedia is not bound by Chicago or the OED. In non-technical writing, it is correct to use miniscules unless the name contains a proper noun. However, there is a considerable amount of technical work where species names are capitalized because they are used as proper nouns. Much debate has been given on Wikipedia as to which we will use, and we are as split as the scientific community. Blue Crab was using a mixture of upper and lower cases, so I cleaned it up towards my preference. (See various debates on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life, its offspring projects, and Wikipedia:Naming conventions for more details.) - UtherSRG 21:24, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

Mutilations are body modifications (and vice versa). Mutilation of mammarian glands and genitals belongs in the category of body-modification. If you cannot justify the removal of the category by October, I shall recategorize it.

Ŭalabio 00:16, 2004 Aug 27 (UTC)

---

Only AFP v3 and above stands for "Apple Filing Protocol" see:

• http://developer.apple.com/documentation/mac/Networking/Networking-223.html
• http://developer.apple.com/technotes/nw/nw_510.html
• http://developer.apple.com/documentation/mac/Networking/Networking-15.html

AlistairMcMillan 04:00, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Apple disagrees with you on the Power Mac/Powermac issue.

http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Hardware/Developer_Notes/Macintosh_CPUs-G4/PowerMacG4/0Preface/chapter_1_section_1.html

AlistairMcMillan 15:59, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sorry to be a bit more clear. Power Mac appears to be the official name, while Powermac is used in the developer documentation. Which means they are used pretty much inter-changeably. AlistairMcMillan 16:01, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, some of the dev documentation leaves it without the space, but all the marketing materials and public documentation use the space. This comes from the fact that "Power Mac" is short for "Power Macintosh", which always has a space as well. (The full listing of HW dev notes uses spaces uniformly, by the way: http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Hardware/hardware2.html ) -- tooki 17:17, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well since Apple can't even decide themselves and since both versions are used quite regularly (as the searches below show) I say we include both.

• Google search for "power mac" returns "about 2,850,000" results.
• Google search for "powermac" returns "about 2,800,000" results.

AlistairMcMillan 22:31, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think that's really unnecessary. Despite common usage, "Power Mac" IS "more right" than the other. Besides, it's not as if it's something that would cause confusion. We should leave it with the space. Besides, Apple did decide on one: with space. All of the promotional materials use the space, as do the front/back panels of the machines. I think that's pretty darned definitive. As for the small number of dev docs that omit the space... the dev docs aren't put through the marketing wringer, so they sometimes make mistakes. --tooki 02:57, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm. What can I say, I still prefer the no-space version. AlistairMcMillan 03:20, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (| talk)

You were listed on the Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Switzerland page as living in or being associated with Switzerland. As part of the Wikipedia:User categorisation project, these lists are being replaced with user categories. If you would like to add yourself to the category that is replacing the page, please visit Category:Wikipedians in Switzerland for instructions. --Army1987 14:39, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The proper name of UMBC is determined by the Maryland General Assembly and is University of Maryland Baltimore County. For more information on this topic, please see this entry: Talk:University_of_Maryland_Baltimore_County#Comma.2C_or_no_comma.3F. I first read the UMBC style guide years ago and know exactly what they say, but they lack the legal authority to actually change the name of the school. Additionally, the Maryland State Archives lists that the official name of UMBC is University of Maryland Baltimore County. Therefore, the entry belongs as University of Maryland Baltimore County. -Howardjp 20:58, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I hear what you are saying, but it is incorrect. No business in the State of Maryland can change its name without approval of the state (and I suspect this is true in all states). UMBC is no exception to this rule. As for the possibility of a "simplistic and shortsighted legislative document," you may be right. However, if this were the case, it doesn't change the fact only the legislature can set the name and the fact it was a mistake doesn't give the university authority to fix it. Further, it wasn't a mistake. Significant portions of the 1997 legislation amending the education article only change is to specifically add a comma to UMCP and UMB's names. This has to do with the fact that from 1920 to 1970, UMCP and UMB were one university of two campuses and the comma is designed to recognize that historical tie. UMBC never was a part of the University of Maryland. -Howardjp 22:13, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right. But a DBA still requires approval from the State. I just tried to check the Department of Assessments and Taxations, and their database is currently down. I'll try again in a few hours. Regardless, it is still nonsensical to have the main page at a false name when both University of Maryland, Baltimore County and UMBC redirect to the correct entry. -Howardjp 22:32, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone else has read what I previously posted and figured out I was right. -Howardjp 22:41, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I am not the only one to have fixed this since yesterday, even. You should learn to use the history function. What makes Wikipedia look shoddy is following the advise of those who failed to do their research. As an aside, a university that doesn't use its given name looks shoddy, too. -Howardjp 22:59, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, Tooki I see that you've contributed to the Apple computer article. I've recently edited the iMac article and put it up for peer review; but beyond owning an iMac, and loving it, I have little in-depth knowledge on the topic, historically or technically. I wonder whether you have time to read it and add your critical comments at the peer review page? Tony 08:32, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article New World ROM, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of New World ROM.

Sorry - I'm a Mac fan (and an iPhone owner) but I don't see that this article is of any value to the world at large any more. Maybe worth merging some of it into a more general article andy (talk) 22:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I actually wrote most of the technical content in that article, back in a time when the PowerPC Mac was still a going concern. PPC Macs have only been off the market since 2006, and people with Macs tend to keep them longer than they most people do x86 PCs (or at least they used to), so I imagine it'd still be useful to someone with a bit of massaging. -lee (talk) 02:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take your pick: SCSI Centronics It is not the proper term, but then again, neither is DB9. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 18:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, DB9 isn't the right name either, but it is the common name. I worked as a Mac tech back when SCSI was the Mac's standard peripheral interconnect, and the common name was "50 pin SCSI", not anything containing Centronics. I am simply disputing that "SCSI Centronics" was the common name for it, not that a few people called it that. I'm sure there were a few misguided souls who did -- but not amongst those who used that equipment on a daily basis! tooki (talk) 15:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, some feedback as requested;

The draft is unlikely to meet the criteria of WP:PRODUCT (or WP:GNG) while it solely depends on references from the corporate website. As an example I tried to find an independent reliable source for the development of the tool (or LiteRat) at Heinrich Heine University but specifically could find no match at http://hhu.de. Independent sources should be more than product reviews and form the basis of the argument for notability based on significant impact. The only news source matches I get are to the Citavi Corp. of Atlanta (which may no longer exist). Suitable credible sources might be newspaper or magazine articles, books or authoritative websites.

In its current state the article would be a deletion candidate due to notability or potentially speedy deletion as a product advertorial due to the lack of independent sources. Fæ (talk) 09:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to look at the proposal. This is most appreciated.

Indeed, this leaves me in a pickle: this is a new product in English -- there are tons of third-party/independent sources in German, since it's been out for years. At the same time, our competitors' WP pages have not been held even close to this standard. For example, the page about Qiqqa (a much newer and less established product) was written almost entirely by the product's developer and has only a single source -- and that's just a blog post mentioning it with no actual comment. (Note that I am not advocating removing the page, since it seems to be written perfectly NPOV as far as I can tell.) I'm sure you can appreciate that for us, it is frustrating for a developer with a much younger product to have a WP page while we don't. Frankly, clicking randomly through the pages of other programs listed on Comparison of reference management software, very few of the WP articles have meaningful amounts of sources at all. Citavi at least is notable and established in German. I'm at a bit of a loss of how to proceed, given that if I post, it will likely be deleted, but because of the newness of the English translation, nearly all that has been written about Citavi is in German. (I don't recall seeing that sources must be in English. Is it OK to use non-English sources on the English WP? What about the German WP article?)

Next, how is it sensible to verify product facts (specs, etc.) on third-party "authoritative websites", which often get it wrong, compared to the actual developer who knows what it can and cannot do? I understand the principle of peer review and CoI, but at the same time, articles on many major products (e.g. iMac (Intel-based)) link to the manufacturer's specs pages to verify specs.

It doesn't surprise me that the HHU website doesn't have anything, since LiteRat was released 15 years ago, and Citavi is not a product of HHU.

I hope my response doesn't come across as argumentative, I'm just trying to figure out how I can apply your feedback into something actionable. As always, I am open for any advice you may have. Regards, tooki (talk) 13:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give a few quick pointers:

1. German sources are fine (this is often misunderstood by contributors) but to avoid complaints please add a translation of the titles in any footnote - refer to Non-English sources. You can also add a translated quote from the source in footnote, so long as your translation is fair and accurate and the quote is not excessive (WP:QUOTE has some guidelines).
2. Qiqqa is a poor counter-example, I have tagged it as a notability issue. The blog referenced is a project run one and might marginally be treated as a reasonable source (depending on any COI of the author writing the post). It's a tricky area as in general blogs would fail WP:RS but they might be accepted if by established experts without specific COI. In general you should avoid rationales on the basis of comparison to other articles, this is a well known fallacy described by WP:OSE.
3. Wikipedia in other languages is not a source and any open wiki, forum etc. would fail WP:RS as they have no editorial policy.
4. Product specs are fine from the manufacturer's website, these are non-controversial facts and unlikely to ever be challeged unless the producer is suspected of over-inflating claims. Specs would not be the same as, say, extended sales prose extolling the virtues of the product, "facts" which defame competitors or dubious commissioned user surveys telling us that 80% of customers would sell their house to buy the product.

Cheers, Fæ (talk) 14:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged for the tips. (I am truly impressed by how quickly you can cite the relevant documentation; I've found the WP documentation to be daunting in its size and scope. I bow before thee. ;) ) We will work on the draft some more, and if it's OK with you, then ask you to take another look? Thanks again! -- tooki (talk) 10:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again! I've added a number of independent sources that I believe meet WP's reliability requirements and establish notability. (Note: I did not remove ref links to the product website, since they were already there, but these are for simple facts, i.e. pure specs and such. If you think it's too many citations, let me know. Also, I did manage to find mention of LiteRat on the Uni Düsseldorf site, but under the other domain name they use!) As best I can interpret the WP guidelines, I think the article is now in a shape that could be published. Would you kindly take a look and let me know if you'd "green-light" it? (I have also asked User:Karnesky to take a look.) I'm itching to get the article up. Thank you again in advance, and best regards, tooki (talk) 08:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tied up today but I will take a look at some point over the weekend if it is not green-lighted by others before that. Don't forget you can always try WP:RFF for some independent views. Cheers Fæ (talk) 09:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken a look at some of the sources. The couple of new citations I checked appear independent if not particularly deep about Citavi. I think there is no issue with creating the article now and you may want to keep chipping away finding more sources independent of the organization. Did you want me to move the article or are you happy doing that yourself? Fæ (talk) 09:20, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the green light. I would actually love to take you up on your gracious offer to do the move. Once it's up, is it OK for us to add Citavi to the Comparison of reference management software page? Thank you again for your invaluable guidance. -- tooki (talk) 07:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done There should not be an issue with adding to the ref mgt s/w page now. Fæ (talk) 10:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent contribution to Mike, der Taschengeldexperte. I am not a native speaker of German and thus translated "Taschengeld" literally: "Taschen" + "Geld" = "pocket" + "money". I had no idea it meant "allowance". JIP | Talk 18:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words! Your literal translation was absolutely correct, mind you (I think that even in English, "pocket money" has a related meaning to "allowance"). Regards, tooki (talk) 21:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Sega arcade system boards, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anti-aliasing (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) 11:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I declined your move request of Crocodile clip as this was previously discussed as a move with a "no consensus" outcome. The discussion is at Talk:Crocodile clip. Cheers,  Philg88 ^♦talk 11:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cornell Dubilier 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/Cornell Dubilier 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. Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:01, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Swiss passport, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page English (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The edit:[1]

Current discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Character matrix printer. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:52, 17 December 2018 (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) 00:03, 19 November 2019 (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) 01:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The July 2022 edit to MiniDisc contained the change “data pertaining to the music itself” → “audio faa”. Was this meant to be “audio data”? I have not altered the page as I am not entirely sure what the replacement text was meant to say. Ghiraddje (talk) 23:36, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ghiraddje, thanks for the heads-up, it was indeed a typo of “audio data”. I’ve fixed it. Regards, — tooki (talk) 11:15, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to ask you that AMD still seems to have an ATI Technologies ULC. left, is this related to the original ATI Technologies Inc. and should it be written into the article (? 2401:E180:88B2:6EA0:7CE9:5B6E:2584:224A (talk) 03:34, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because so far the latest Radeon graphics card or the subsidiaries listed in AND/contact them have mentioned this company, and they will also be with this company in the lawsuit ATI Technologies ULC. 2401:E180:8D01:5CD8:1EAD:5DC8:BAA1:D8E (talk) 02:25, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’m afraid I don’t know what you are talking about. Can you give me some context? Also, please log in so that you are able to be notified of replies. — tooki (talk) 12:14, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am asking about the company ATI Technologies ULC (it seems to be a subsidiary of AMD), and I would like to ask whether this company should be included in ATI Technologies

This article 2401:E180:8892:A8C1:9BE:2C10:B37E:ECCD (talk) 06:11, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can search for the company ATI Technologies ULC. 2401:E180:8891:8D1F:307B:4887:D8E8:B3DC (talk) 06:15, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The name of this ATI Technologies ULC company is on the label of the current AMD graphicscard.

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-radeon-rx-6900-xt/4.html 2401:E180:8891:4D1:3E1D:FE96:76F6:9C86 (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RX6000 Photo

[2]https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/attachments/1630124920548-png.214471/

AMD Web

[3]https://www.amd.com/en/corporate/contact/locations/markham-ontario

News

[4]https://wccftech.com/amd-certifies-numerous-d707-gpu-boards-at-south-korean-rra-new-rdna-3-cards-imminent/amp/ 2401:E180:88A0:3497:AD87:C1A0:7CE0:2103 (talk) 05:14, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

News

[5]https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-triggers-us-investigation-of-realtek-tcl-holdings-for-patent-infringement 2401:E180:8822:75BF:FC72:16F5:8D05:BBD7 (talk) 05:10, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This ATI Technologies ULC company is a subsidiary of AMD and holds graphics patents, so I wonder if we should add this subsidiary to the current ATI Technologies article. 2401:E180:8822:75BF:FC72:16F5:8D05:BBD7 (talk) 05:13, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TookiWhat do you think, these two names are almost the same (except Inc changed to ULC), and they are still in use today. 2401:E180:8820:2EF4:354F:6E28:7666:2207 (talk) 09:35, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]