Talk:PIC16x84

message: I can not add external links to this page. I think they removed automatically, why this happen? Microcon 09:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Links to geocities.com/nozomsite have been identified as spam by experienced editors since at least 23 February 2006. The only editors that have ever added the link, and persisently, are a small set of IP addresses and now User:Microcon. Their only interest in Wikipedia seems to be to add links to this one site, indicating that the interest is in promoting the site, not what is best for Wikipedia. The site contains no references for its material and thus is not verifiable. Wikipedia needs more quality content, not unsourced external links. JonHarder 00:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

message: May be you right, but I do not see a big difference between it and the other one that you always keep in the external lniks section, no references and no copyright, I see you shoud keep them all or remove them all. On the other hand, the article itself needs more work. (Microcon 11:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the other links is inappropriate, feel free to remove it. The links I remove are ones that are spread across multiple articles by editors whose only edits consist of adding the same link (almost certainly a site they are affiliated with) over and over again. JonHarder 14:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It turns out that other link was added by a spammer who only inserts similar links. You are right, it should go too. JonHarder 14:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The other link! 

message: Removed link spam and changed this section to read "Official website".  Only link should be to microchip.com (fixed redirect) which is the only official site for this article.  Calltech 21:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 82.201.156.245, you'll have to say what edit you want to be made;  by itself doesn't say, and the edit can't be done unless you let us know what it is. --ais523 08:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: I don't really understand why that link would be classified as spam! it points to tutorials on PICs! And semi protected mode seems a little excessive. Just my grain of salt.
Zigi —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zigomushy (talk • contribs) 23:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it spam? 

message: I want to know about PIC16F84A .  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.81.67.182 (talk) 04:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  about PIC16F84A 

message: According to Motorola's "1988 Microprocessor, microcontroller and peripheral data" book, Volume II, the MC68HC811E2 was available in 1988; that's 5 years before the PIC16x84.
The MC68HC811E2 had 2KiB of EEPROM memory.
Unlike earlier (1985 according to the data book) microcontrollers using EEPROM for storing data only while code was stored in ROM, the MC68HC811E2 used EEPROM for storing both code and data.
Programming was done using an 9600 or 1200 baud serial interface.
Mr1278 (talk) 07:31, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  First serial-programmable EEPROM microcontroller? 

message: "The PIC16C84 was introduced in 1993 and has been hailed as the first PIC microcontroller to feature a serial programming algorithm and EEPROM memory (it was preceded by the Motorola MC68HC805B6 and MC68HC805C4 along with the MC68HC11E2 with serial bootloader and EEPROM program storage released in the late 1980s)."
This doesn't make any sense. It was hailed as the first (etc) in 1993 despite these Motorola devices having the same thing years earlier?
It also quotes different Motorola devices to those quoted by Mr1278 above
Rob Burbidge (talk) 22:29, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  First or not first?