User talk:Thunderbird2

/2007

/Harassment by Fnagaton and Greg_L

Removal of KiB for disambiguation was discussed

Removal of KiB for disambiguation was discussed.

The argument goes something like this:

• KB is "ambiguous". Why? Because manufacturers sometimes use it is the decimal sense.
• The letters "KiB" can be used by manufacturers in the decimal sense in exactly the same way as KB has been. Therefore KiB is also ambiguous.
• KiB is claimed to be not ambiguous because it is defined by a "standards organisation".
• KB is defined by the JEDEC (a standards organisation) in the binary sense and therefore not ambiguous.

Conclusion: The only completely non-ambiguous disambiguation is expressing the exact number of bytes. Fnagaton 12:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't find the precise text to which you refer, but if you tell me it was discussed I believe you. However, what I meant by "discussed" in my edit summary was "discussed and agreed". You can expect changes to the KB vs KiB text to be controversial, so I think the precise wording should be discussed first at WT:MOSNUM. Thunderbird2 (talk) 12:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The point being why disambiguate with a unit like KiB or MiB which can be ambiguous. Which is why the discussion then got around to expressing the numbers of bytes in base two or base ten. Fnagaton 11:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

We both agree that disambiguation using explicit decimal or binary powers is a good thing. Where we differ is whether disambiguation using explicit binary definitions is equally good (my opinion) or not (your opinion). Thunderbird2 (talk) 11:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Then why do you want to disambiguate using units which can be ambiguous? Fnagaton 11:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't accept that the kibibyte is ambiguous. Thunderbird2 (talk) 12:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Why? Fnagaton 12:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Because I am aware of only one definition. Thunderbird2 (talk) 12:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Definition where? Fnagaton 13:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The definition introduced by the IEC (standard 60027-2, third edition, p121) and adopted by IEEE (Std. 260.1-2004, p12). Thunderbird2 (talk) 13:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

So just because it's defined by your preferred "standards organisation" it isn't in your view ambiguous? Fnagaton 13:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I don’t understand your point. All I am saying that a kibibyte is defined as 1,024 bytes, because I have never seen it defined any other way. It is you who are claiming the ambiguity, so the onus is on you to show there is a second definition. Thunderbird2 (talk) 14:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I showed the potential for ambiguity above "The letters "KiB" can be used by manufacturers...". The JEDEC defines kilo as 1024 so because it is defined by a standards organisation it is not ambiguous, as you put it. So either you have to accept that KiB has the potential to be ambiguous or you have to accept that kilobyte is not ambiguous. If you accept the former then then you cannot use it for disambiguation. If you accept the latter then kilobyte does not need disambiguation. Fnagaton 14:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

By that logic, the metre is an ambiguous unit because someone somewhere might use the word to mean yard. In other words, it's not sufficient to claim that it might happen - you need to show that it does happen. Thunderbird2 (talk) 14:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

That's not the same as what I'm saying because the metre is defined by a standard and is mostly correctly used by the vast majority. If the real world consensus for using kibibyte was of a similar strength to that using metre then your point would be valid, but it's not. Kibibyte (or KiB) being used in the decimal sense does happen in the real world just because you have not seen it happen does not mean it doesn't happen and also kibibyte is used by less than 1% of the real world. So actually real world consensus is against using kibibyte and because it can be incorrectly used you therefore have to accept that it is ambiguous. Fnagaton 14:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Your argument seems to read: “The kibibyte is not in widespread use. Therefore it is ambiguous.” That simply doesn’t follow. It is you who claims the kibibyte is ambiguous. The onus is on you to prove it. Frequency of use is irrelevant.

I guess it would be different if you were talking about the potential to acquire ambiguity. If, by widespread incorrect use of the term, it eventually becomes ambiguous (as happened with the calorie), then I will agree with you. Not before. Thunderbird2 (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

No you are incorrect because my argument does not read “The kibibyte is not in widespread use. Therefore it is ambiguous.”. My argument is as I've already said that in the real world KiB/MiB/GiB is used in the decimal sense, for example media that has been incorrectly labeled to use the neologisms without updating the actual numbers, and they are not commonly used prefixes. It is you who claimed you've not seen the other use but you cannot then claim that means it doesn't exist when it actually does exist. The "widespread incorrect use of the term" is fallacious because you know full well that the IEC prefixes are not in widespread use to begin with. Are you seriously trying to tell me you've never seen even one place where an IEC prefix is equated with a decimal base ten value? Fnagaton 18:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am. Does that surprise you? Use of the kibibyte and its cousins is rare, and when they are used it is usually by a specialist who has made a deliberate choice to avoid ambiguity. That combination is likely to make incorrect use very rare indeed. Your point will become more valid once (if?) these units are used by non-specialists. Time will tell. Thunderbird2 (talk) 18:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Even specialists make mistakes. Note the bit which says "1 KiB = 1000 bytes and 1 MiB = 1000000 bytes". ;) Fnagaton 20:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Amusing link (lol). Now I must reply "I have seen one example" but it doesn't alter my view that such incorrect usage is rare. Thunderbird2 (talk) 06:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Excerpt from the linked mail: "The MiB (and its derivatives) was invented by hard drive manufacturers in a very lame attempt to make their drives capacity look bigger,". This guy is confused and it's easy to prove him wrong. It's not surprising though that people with that kind of fanatic view would sabotage or boycott it - even subconsciously. People are rarely good at things they hate. Fail causes hate and hate causes fail. It's a vicious cycle. --217.87.122.179 (talk) 21:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes he is certainly confused, and was also soon corrected [1]. Still, we all make mistakes - and hopefully he learnt from his. Thunderbird2 (talk) 21:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

56k modem

1 start bit + 8 data bits + 1 stop bit == 10 bits per byte.

Thus a 56 kbit/second modem == 56000/10 bit per byte == 5600 bytes per second (after the start and stop bits are stripped). ---- Theaveng (talk) 18:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Theaveng. Thanks for taking the trouble to explain this. I see you've also included a footnote in the article. I've learnt something today :) Thunderbird2 (talk) 18:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Theaveng - this is wrong. 56k modems use a variant of HDLC framing (see V.42bis), which groups hundred(s) of bits together into a single frame, thus achieve an overhead of only 5% and not 20% as you mention. even for compressed / random data. the overhead you mention exists between the modem and the host computer, if they are using an asyncronous serial port, and thus the host speed is usually set to the highest possible speed (115200 or more). i corrected the article. 217.132.220.219 (talk) 20:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Trying it again at Talk:MOSNUM

I wanted to give you a heads up that I’ve transplanted the most important parts from my talk page to here at Talk:MOSNUM. Hope to see you there. Greg L (my talk) 20:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

How do we move forward?

T-bird, it looks like the voting at Talk:MOSNUM is going well enough that it’s logical to wonder how one actually implements the basic desire. It appears from Jimp’s posts that numeric values with more than 12 digits (rare but possible) won’t work with a template. Also, he appears to be expert only in templates and it appears that {delimitnum} will require a parser function (magic word). Those are apparently written by “developers” (the programmers who make Wikipedia’s magic all possible). Do you know how we go forward? Is there someone at MOSNUM who tends to such matters and sees to it that “developer issues” are kicked up the ladder and addressed? Greg L (my talk) 22:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Greg. Yes, you've done a fine job and the consensus has shifted in your favour. Persuading Tony is especially valuable because I think he knows how to contact the developers. If I were you I would ask him. Thunderbird2 (talk) 22:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks. Greg L (my talk) 22:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• T-bird, I contacted Random832 yesterday (request here). Things have rapidly progressed since that posting. Within eight hours, he had written up the Talk:MOSNUM {{delimitnum}} proposal and presented it to a developer via bugzilla:13025. My question to you is whether and when and how to notify the others that further debate is not required and the proposal is moving forward to development. Would it be premature to post such a notice now? Things seem to be going smoothly so I don’t see the point of kicking a sleeping dragon. I’m not a regular contributor to MOSNUM and don’t know 1) what is expected of me (or someone else?) under these circumstances, and 2) what is the wise thing to do at this juncture. P.S. I do know that the proposal’s current (unarchived) location is being used as a reference source during the developer’s efforts. So if the proposal is marked as “resolved,” it would be helpful if it wasn’t archived until the developer is finished. Greg L (my talk) 06:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• I also asked Random832 this same question. Greg L (my talk) 05:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Awe… never mind. Random832 answered my question first and said ‘do it.’ So I posted the notice of going to development here. It ain’t over ’till it’s over though. I’m curious as to how long it takes for these things (parser functions) to be made. Greg L (my talk) 06:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• • Good luck with the parser development. And thanks for keeping me posted. Thunderbird2 (talk) 07:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Sound Pressure level and sound level

The FORMAL chain is as follows. Sound Pressure is in Pascal. Symbol Pa

Take 20 times the base 10 log and you get Sound Pressure level (Para 3.3 in IEC 62672). It is expressed in decibel (dB) and the symbol is L_p.

Now, frequency weight it (A, B, C, D or Z) and you get Sound Level. However, in IEC 61672 to avoid confusion, because it is exponentially integrated we called it "time-weighted sound level" (para 3.8) to differentiate it from the linear integral of time-average sound level. Symbol L_AT(t) but it is usually just called L_eq or L_Aeq(t)

In earlier standards sound pressure level was correctly specified but then some said "usually called sound level"; hence for all practical purposes "sound level" and "sound pressure level" are used interchangeably although strictly speaking they are different.

The chain for the linear integral is:-

Sound pressure in Pascal

sound exposure, the time integral of the time-varying square of frequency-weighted sound pressure in Pascal-squared-time. Symbol E_A, units either Pa²hr or Pa²hr (para 3.12)

time-average sound level20 times the base 10 log integrated over the whole period. (para 3.11)

The main confusion people have with the linear integral is they think of it as a re-integration of the exponential integration of sound level - as given by the dc output of a sound level meter - and therefore ascribe a time constant to it; indeed some German laws even say "Fast Leq" or "Slow Leq". This is simply a mis-understanding of the maths - or "math" as Americans quaintly say.

All these are scalar quantities with the 'dimension' of pressure, but Sound Intensity is a vector quantity. (It has direction as well.)

24malbec09 (talk) 11:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello 24malbec09, thanks for the note.

I agree, and would summarise as: Sound level (SL) and sound pressure level (SPL) are different quantities that are sometimes (incorrectly) used synonymously. My feeling is that the difference between SL and SPL should be explained in the article. Thunderbird2 (talk) 15:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Talk:MOSNUM: {{delimitnum}} template

I just wanted to make you aware that I made a post here on Talk:MOSNUM regarding the new {{delimitnum}} template. See you there. Greg L (my talk) 22:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry T-bird. If I had read the goings-on better at Talk:DEC 3000 AXP and understood your position on the matter before I started typing, I would have just stayed out of the fray. I figured out your position after I had a head of steam going on my typing and so went ahead anyway. I hope you understand (why I posted anyway, as well as my position on that matter). Cheers. Greg L (my talk) 22:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, no worries - you're entitled to your opinion and anyway I agree with what you wrote. In other words I see no conflict between the choice of the most appropriate nomenclature (say KB, MB, GB) and the need to define that nomenclature. I will be happy with any outcome that permits an unambiguous definition of these terms, on that or any other page. What did annoy me though was Fnagaton's exploitation of your comment as if it supports his case. I've just been reading his beloved JEDEC standard and it makes interesting reading. Keep a watch on Binary prefix for details :D Thunderbird2 (talk) 22:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

It is against Wikipedia policy to use your talk page to misrepresent another editor. The fact is that the units you prefer do not have consensus for use, so do not keep on pushing for them to be used. If you are really interested in reducing what you think is ambiguity rather than pushing for certain units to be used then disambiguate using the exact number of bytes with power notation, like it says in MOSNUM. By the way, Greg's comment does support my case because it is basically the same as my position on this topic, i.e. use the most appropriate nomenclature which is to be found in real world sources relevant to the topic. Fnagaton 08:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• I think Fnagaton might have demanded for a retraction because I lead him to an erroneous conclusion by stating “No one like’s to have another editor wade in and change someone’s work without so much as a “hello” on a talk page.” I didn’t immediately realize the distinction between “no consensus" and “no discussion.” No worries then. I’m looking forward to a solution that makes sense and that everyone can abide by and feel comfortable with. Greg L (my talk) 00:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Oh, I see now. I didn't understand what you meant by it at the time, but it seemed that you were trying to help, so I just moved on. Don't let it bother you. If the debate gets too hot we always have the "real world" to escape to. That's the beauty of Wikipedia :D Thunderbird2 (talk) 07:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Third draft

T-Bird, is this what you were hoping to see? Greg L (talk) 00:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I like that. See you there. Thunderbird2 (talk) 05:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• Woo-hoo! Greg L (talk) 06:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

2nd survey at Talk:X86 architecture

Hi Thunderbird2,

I just wanted to ask whether you'd be willing to put the second survey on hold for a few days (temporarily deleting if you think appropriate)? My instincts are telling me that there's a chance that some approximation of a consensus might develop, if given the chance, but I don't think it can if we try to move on too quickly. My rationale isn't particularly compelling, I must admit, but it never hurts to ask! Jakew (talk) 20:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I've done what you asked. I'm curious how you think it might help though. Still, I'm happy to wait & see. Thunderbird2 (talk) 20:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear. It's taken a life of it's own now. (Take a look at the edit history). I don't think there's any harm done - the questions were intended to explore for compromise. Shall we just watch how it develops? Thunderbird2 (talk) 20:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah well, such is the wonderful world of Wikipedia. I agree: no real harm done. Jakew (talk) 20:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Fnagaton edit-warring again

Please keep an eye on Bondwell. As the edit history proves, the original authors used KiB until User:Fnagaton converted them to KB. I reverted his edit and fixed the wrong case of the 'k'. Fnagaton promptly reverted my edits with his usual "rvv". This was clearly not vandalism. I would have talked to him directly but his talk page is semi-protected which makes a lot of sense because he would have removed my comment claiming either vandalism or harassment. --217.87.83.146 (talk) 21:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong, I am not the one who is edit warring, you are. I reverted your change and have issued you with a 3RR warning for your four edit warring reverts and I've given you a chance to show you respect the rules by allowing you the chance to undo your edit. My talk page is semi-protected because an anonymous IP user from your ISP who has a habit of editing on the topic of binary prefixes vandalised my talk page multiple times in the past. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] etc. Fnagaton 22:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Fnagaton, just apologize kindly and I'll ignore your behaviour this time. --217.87.83.146 (talk) 23:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The user 217.87.83.146 has been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours. It's clear who has been revert warring here. Fnagaton 00:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Follow current literature

T-bird, here is the first version you supported, right after I had revised it to address your concerns and you had made a few tweaks of your own. Please compare that to the current version. I don’t see much difference of any significance in the portion that directy addresses the IEC prefixes. What is it you would like to see changed to meet your approval? As I was proofing this post, I just now noticed the above posts. Is that horseshit what is driving you crazy at the moment? Greg L (talk) 01:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Greg, thanks for taking the trouble to drop by. The differences may all be subtle ones. I’m not sure because I find it hard to keep track of the latest version. The point about the uno is that by putting it alongside the IEC prefix you are tarring both with the same brush. In other words, the wording (last time I checked) gives the impression that the MiB is an equally pointless unit. To gain my support you need to make clear that the MiB does have a valuable role to play. I will be more specific about other concerns next time I visit MOSNUM.

The discussion on my Talk page does not bother me at all - if anything it amuses me that it attracts so much interest :-) Rather, my concern at MOSNUM is (mainly) about the frequency with which changes are made to the main page. I support the principle of WP:BRD, but for it to work you need to give consensus a chance during the R and D parts. It is the frequency of changes that are making this difficult. Like I said, it’s not my opinion that matters, but the consensus of a group. It’s not just about the green box either. The frequency of the changes makes it difficult for editors to monitor changes to other parts they are interested in. Picking out the one edit that interests them is like looking for a needle in a haystack.

You did a good job at Mac Pro, and I admire the effort and energy you put into your writing. There are times when the energy turns into passion. There's nothing wrong with that per se, but the passion comes across sometimes as confrontation. I guess you see it as the natural cut and thrust of lively debating, but not everyone sees it that way: On at least one occasion you have Jimp's subtle diplomacy to thank for avoiding an escalation.

Finally, the sheer size of the discussion thread at Talk can sometimes be a practical problem. I sometimes can’t load the page at all (which explains some of my quieter periods), and sometimes I can’t find the part that I want to edit because it’s too deeply hidden. There is a bot that is supposed to keep things neat and tidy by archiving threads older than 15 days, but if a single thread keeps growing and growing, the bot cannot accomplish its objective.

I hope this helps. Thunderbird2 (talk) 12:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• The quick pace of edits is due to the large number of editors who are involved in this. The large number of editors is by design: It’s there on MOSNUM to attract a wide audience. So I don’t think there is anything we can do about a rapid pace change given that at least twelve editors have been active on this. However, we can do something to make it clearer what is the version being discussed. There will now only be one place for the “current” version: the one on MOSNUM. Go take a look at it. Is it something that you would vote for now (after Tony1’s edits)? Link to Follow current literature

  Greg L (talk) 18:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I removed the bit about the uno. May I count on a Support if I press to a vote? Greg L (talk) 18:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

It certainly reads better without the uno, thanks. Regarding the remaining points, not yet spelled out (but related to promotion of non-SI units) I think it's better to address the details at MOSNUM rather than here, because it is a subject which others may have strong views on. I will make my views known there, but I need time to compose them first. Thunderbird2 (talk) 19:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I replied further here. Thunderbird2 (talk) 21:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you please update your vote on the greenbox now that FCL has been split into the redbox (and also vote on the redbox)? Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 14:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. I'll take a closer look. I'm not sure I'm ready to vote yet on the red box, but I'll update my green vote. Thunderbird2 (talk) 15:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 15:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Bondwell

Hello Thunderbird2! I've read your comments on Talk:Bondwell. Maybe you could look at this: User_talk:TimTomTom. This Fnagaton guy accused me of an "edit war" right away when he was the only one reverting and messing with my recent edits. The behavior of this guy are quite dubious, apparently his friend has nothing better to do than reverting edits on his behalf just after Fnagaton asked him to do so. Isn't he just trying to circumvent this so called "three revert rule"? --TimTomTom (talk) 14:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

He did not ask me to do anything. DavidPaulHamilton (talk) 14:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

You probably understand English well enough to realize that you're not telling the truth. Fnagaton wrote "If another editor comes along and puts the KB back again will you accept that edit?" [12] and then he informs you about someone reverting your edits: [13]. In reality, you have not really edited anything at all, you were just reverting edits. You're also acting like a sub-ordinate of Fnagaton. --TimTomTom (talk) 14:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

So he did not ask me to do anything and you are being uncivil. You are a new account making the same edits as the blocked user who also left messages on this talk page.DavidPaulHamilton (talk) 15:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Everything you write is a lie. The truth is, you're either Fnagaton or someone acting on his behalf. Your incompetence shows. --TimTomTom (talk) 15:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I've reported DavidPaulHamilton as a possible sockpuppet of Fnagaton. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fnagaton — Omegatron (talk) 22:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

You are being uncivil because you have no valid counter and that means your post is wrong.DavidPaulHamilton (talk) 00:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I used your style from these edits

To make these changes, I hope these make the prefixes used "unambiguous" enough? Personally I don't think it is ambiguous to use KB/MB/GB in this article because it does state plainly enough in the article text how most of the numbers are worked out using simple arithmatic before the prefixes are used. Fnagaton 00:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Frequent edit wars

You should report Fnagaton and his friends everytime they're edit warring and make sure you get some people to support your report. Otherwise they seem to have a white vest in front of clueless admins. --Multiplexor (talk) 18:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a witch hunt

I assure you I know neither User:Classicaio nor User:Wittiams. I have nothing to do with them. I, User:NotSarenne, was blocked under the false assumption of being a sockpuppet of User:Sarenne. I only picked the account name after repeatedly being accused of sockpuppetry by User:Fnagaton when I was making anonymous edits. I never used Tor. I never used multiple accounts. I don't know User:Sarenne at all. Since then I've noticed quite a few accounts getting blocked as "sockpuppet of User:NotSarenne". The truth is, a few of these were accounts that I created one after another - after getting blocked again to be precise. I wouldn't have created any other accounts but blocking the complete sub-network of my ISP leaves me with only a few options. Many of the blocked so-called sockpuppets, like the two above mentioned accounts, have nothing to do with me. I don't know who they are. Many of them were blocked for very little, things which clearly didn't justify indefinite blocks. Several other involved accounts behave exactly the same, if not worse, but they are not even admonished. The point isn't that it's unfair. The point is, this behaviour of the involved admins doesn't make any sense whatsoever. See also [[14]]. --202.120.139.211 (talk) 23:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Whoever you are, you can make things much easier for yourself by discussing and gaining consensus for your changes before you make them. It also helps if you develop a spread of interests. I understand also that so-called "single-purpose accounts" are not looked kindly upon. I am not familiar with the relevant policy, but I imagine there is one somewhere. In a nutshell, contribute to a range of subjects and, if you think an edit might be controversial:

• suggest the change and explain your reasoning
• participate in the discussion; if your arguments are reasonable, others will listen to you
• edit once consensus has formed

Thunderbird2 (talk) 16:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thunderbird2, do you have anything to contribute to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fnagaton? User:Shalom isn't even convinced that DavidPaulHamilton is a sock. To me, this is plain as day. — Omegatron (talk) 19:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in replying - I've been away for a few days, but I'll take a look at it now. I confess I am new to this procedure, and so am unsure what is expected. But if I can add something useful I will. Thunderbird2 (talk) 11:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I see that things have happened rather quickly over the last couple of days. I suppose it is too late to make a difference to the outcome now. For what it's worth, I find it interesting that this all night editing spree by User:DavidPaulHamilton took place immediately after you filed the original report:

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

this one is bizarre

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

Thunderbird2 (talk) 16:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

"This catus is the only catus that has a spieces that can be lite Purple."

That's supposed to convince us he's not a sock?  :) — Omegatron (talk) 23:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Greg L RFC

I guess ANI is not the right place. I've created Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Greg L. — Omegatron (talk) 01:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

binary binary binary binary

What do you think of this? Is your opinion similar? How do our opinions differ? — Omegatron (talk) 15:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look. May I edit it? Thunderbird2 (talk) 16:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Software

Hello Thunderbird2. You have been invited to join WikiProject Software, a WikiProject dedicated to improving the Software-related articles on Wikipedia. You received this invitation due to your interest in, or edits relating to or within the scope of the project. If you would like to join or just help out a bit, please visit the project page, and add your name to the list of project members. You may also wish to add {{User WikiProject Software}} to your userpage and {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Software/Announcement-u}} to the top of your talk page with the heading ==WikiProject Software Announcement==. If you know someone who might be interested, please pass this message onto others by pasting this code into their talk page {{Software invite|~~~~}} with the following heading == WikiProject Software ==. Thanks, Tyw7, Leading Innovations ‍ ‍‍ (Talk ● Contributions) 11:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Mediation

You need to list the involved parties (GregL, Headbomb, etc) and notify them of the mediation link on their talk pages. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

see Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-07-02_Romanians for a sample. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I have listed and notified the 7 named editors. I am curious to see what happens next. Thunderbird2 (talk) 15:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Narrow gauge railway

Thanks for reverting Narrow gauge railway. I was just about to do so myself, see the conversation on my talk page. The problem is that some templates accept spaces between value and unit ('3 ft' versus '3ft') as a redirect and others do not. The railway templates duplicate the convert templates, I have thought of changing them over, or at least asking the railway people if they would consider it themselves. Lightmouse (talk) 17:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

IEC Deprecation yet again

How and where would u like my comments on yr summary of the issue? Without pride in authorship I could update yr page, or put my comments on its talk page or ???? Tom94022 (talk) 01:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

MedCab check-in

Is Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-07-13 Manual of Style (dates and numbers) still needed? What's the current situation? Vassyana (talk) 18:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

TB2: I thought I would answer yr question to Doug here - Doug is bothered (rightfully so) by the at the BS that my answer to his question attracted. Fnagaton and GregL will not agree to mediation so under the rules the mediation request is closed. As I read the consensus guidelines, the next step might be a straw poll, but given their tactics I suspect Fr and DL will supress any such attempt. So, I think we should go to binding arbitration - yr thoughts?

BTW, I'm sorry it was my edit that lead to your 3RR suspension; from now on I will carefully watch for unwarranted reverts by those two and support an editor trying to have a dialog. It is particularly disappointing that the administrator did not follow up on your reference to F; clearly in that situation he was suppressing discussion while you were trying to keep it marked. You may have technically violated the rule but he sure violated the spirit. Tom94022 (talk) 15:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tom. There's no need to apologise. The facts are that I reverted 3 times and Fnagaton 5 times. I've been reading through Fnagaton's recent contributions and they make interesting reading. In his 3RR report he claims I made 5 reverts, which is pure fiction, but they believed him. Worse than that he claims that this warning was directed at me, giving the false impression that I had been warned previously (the comment is directed to an anonymous editor with whom Fnagaton was holding a discussion on my talk page). The blocking admin fell for it hook, line and sinker. And there's more. He has twice claimed that I operate a sockpuppet:

• here, biting a newcomer
• and here ... you'll like this one :).

There's a discussion going on here about the block that you might want to read. I don't think it will lead anywhere because they are looking only at my actions, not Fnagaton's, and seem to see nothing unfair in that. Thunderbird2 (talk) 17:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Now I'm Your Sock Puppet

see Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Thunderbird2. Do you believe this guy? There must be something we can do to end this rain of terror. Tom94022 (talk) 20:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Thunderbird2‎

Self-explanatory.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 14:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

SPA

That phrase was a conscious effort to get them to listen to what I was saying; it does not seem to have been particularly successful. You do write continually on this point; you have the right to ask once for a clarification of principle. The corollary of this is accepting the answer when given. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The way I see it is that I try to focus on one thing at a time until it is resolved. This is not yet resolved, and as a consequence of that I can imagine I might give the impression of being single-minded. If you look at my edit history you will see that I have made contributions to many articles that have nothing to do with this subject (a few examples are decibel, knot, nautical mile and underwater acoustics). What I would like to see is the problem discussed openly (and civilly) and a consensus reached. What is wrong with that? It seems to me that the reason why this problem goes on and on without resolution is that one or two editors do their utmost to stifle debate. I respond by making it clear that consensus has not been reached, and the result is an unhealthy stalemate. If you have any suggestions for resolving the stalemate I am all ears. I would dearly love to move on to something more fruitful :-/

I should clarify further that my objective is not to force my preference on others, but to achieve a wording that has consensus. It is the principle of consensus that I feel has not been upheld, which is why I feel strongly about it, and why I am prepared to continuing arguing the case. Thunderbird2 (talk) 19:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive493#request for comment

Hi, you can see it here and here. —Quilbert (talk) 17:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Stop violating correct prodecure

Your edit here violates correct procedure because the project page and the talk page are archived. You are incorrect to say in your edit comment "it says clearly on the article page that further discussion should take place on the talk page" and then edit the archived talk because actually the project page and the talk page archive templates clearly state " Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.". Note the "current talk page" actually links to "Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment" and not the talk page you edited. Also note the RfC you keep on trying to edit is closed and archived this means that you must stop editing it, it does not mean that you can continue to keep it open forever by editing it every couple of months. It is closed and archived so do not continue to violate correct procedure by continuing to edit any of the pages. You have been reverted.Fnagaton 04:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Fnaghton is correct here, T-bird. You need to stop doing that, as there will be repercussions if you are not willing to calm down and listen to what folk are saying. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest Arcayne. It is not true that I have edited an archived page. In both occasions that Fnagaton refers to, he archived the page after I edited them and then claimed that I had edited an archived page. In any event, it may well be that out of ignorance I have not followed correct procedure, and to that extent he would be correct. What is the correct procedure to follow to request the case be reopened? Thunderbird2 (talk) 17:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

If the discussion had already been closed, it would appear helpful to engage with the closing admin, and get their reasoning for closure. If they choose not to respond to you in a timely fashion, find an admin whose intellect and common sense grab you and ask for their advice (which might be to start a new RfC, linking it to the old one). Protocol here can be a pain, but it is worth learning, as it will save your bacon more often than not. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I see. That sounds like it might be a long process, but I will consider it. Thank you for your advice. Thunderbird2 (talk) 17:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Piece of advice

Hi, I don’t mean to be presumptuous here or something, but have you ever considered that your life might be more fun if you just leaned back and stopped caring about this baleful debate, at least for a while? I can understand your disappointment about the fact that the way you and I and then some might consider most logical wouldn’t be accepted by a majority, and that your arguments are unilaterally declared “weak” and therefore invalid. I have fought the same struggle at times – on dewiki we are a rather bigger group in favour of IEC prefixes, but still we have no stand. But I have found it helpful to retract your commitment once you realize that it’s unlikely you will convince anyone. At the point where a debate becomes ad hominem, it has already gone too far. The RfC flood here shows that this one has gone way too far … I see no chance for IEC prefixes to be accepted at this time. So if you decided to just give up on it for now, the whole atmosphere might relax a lot, there will be more free capacities for actual productiveness, and, who knows – maybe you once make friends with your present nemeses again one time. In hope for a peaceful resolution —Quilbert (talk) 02:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello Quilbert, thanks for dropping by. I appreciate your advice, but you misinterpret my position slightly. My complaint is not that IEC prefixes are not used (that would be a perfectly legitimate position for MOSNUM to adopt), but that the consensus to not deprecate them is ignored by a small but vocal minority. It is this disregard for consensus that I feel strongly about, as it seems to go against everything that WP stands for. Thunderbird2 (talk) 17:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Bioacoustics, again

User Bmcclure (the one that added those mysterious references to the article on SONAR) finally dropped by and posted a comment about using the term 'bioacoustics' for biomass assessment. Take a look and tell us what you think. Thanks, Yerpo (talk) 07:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello Yerpo. Thanks for pointing this out to me. I have replied on the talk page. Season's Greetings Thunderbird2 (talk) 16:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

talkback

Hello, Thunderbird2. You have new messages at Theseeker4's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

tendentious editing and forum shopping

Hi. I've warned Greg L about civility. However, you seem to be straying into tendentious editing and forum shopping, given your posts at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/IEC and Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. Although incivility isn't allowed here, if one keeps after a take on something even after consensus has spun up otherwise, the kerfluffle might stir up some mistaken incivility. Truth be told, I agree with you that XiB notation is very helpful and I wish the world would take it on, but the world hasn't done this yet and Wikipedia deals with stuff like this mostly through editor consensus. Please take this as a warning that your edits seem to be straying into disruption: You won't get very far here if you keep it up. Please think about this. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 11:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Gwen I really think you are mischaracterizing T2's efforts. You are now the 12^th or 13^th editor that believes that XiB notation is very helpful and I suspect you would agree it should not be deprecated. What is going on here is that three editors who have a passion against XiB notation are suppressing any and all discussion. T2s editing, while in favor of XiB notation, has been relatively unbiased and civil compared to the abuse heaped upon him and other editors who would like a discussion and see what is the real consensus. The few forums in which he has raised these issues seem to me to be more attempting to get a discussion going rather than forum shopping. Rather than being tendentious, he is being tenacious in trying to get a discussion going! Since you are new to this issue, why don't you try to get a civil discussion going in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/IEC and see what results you get. FWIW, when I tried the same I got accused of being T2s sock puppet by two of the three deprecation advocates. Tom94022 (talk) 17:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

To Gwen Gale: What you see as "tendentious editing" (undesirable), I see as an attempt to restore consensus (desirable). I completely agree with the need to respect consensus, and that is precisely the reason I feel strongly about this. I sense in your post a wish to address the problem, so have a suggestion for you: If you are willing, I will describe to you the key events that led us to the situation we are now in. Then, if at the end I have failed to convince you that the present MOSNUM contains a statement for which no consensus exists, I undertake to drop the subject. What I ask of you in return is that, if I have convinced you that there is a problem in need of attention, that you help me bring it the attention of whatever forum you advise, and in whatever manner you consider appropriate. Think about it. Thanks, Thunderbird2 (talk) 17:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Since you're asking, I think you should drop this for at least six months, maybe a year. I see no hint or hope of consensus for what you want to happen. After six months or a year, if reliable sources show more folks have taken to the IEC's XiB standard (meaning it has become both more widely seen and understood), maybe you'll be able to gather a consensus for some tweaking of the MoS. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which only echoes the world, it's not meant as a way to shove your notions or mine or anyone else's into the world, that's what books and articles and blogs are for and very worthily so. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

This is not about the notions of one editor or another, but about consensus. I thought that MOSNUM (and other pages like it) were supposed to reflect the consensus of wikipedia editors. Are you suggesting that I should stop trying to achieve that? Thunderbird2 (talk) 18:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Why would I say you shouldn't edit through consensus? Gwen Gale (talk) 18:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. We seem to talking at cross-purposes, so I'll ask the same question in a different way: If a part of MOS or MOSNUM had been placed without establishing consensus, should that part stay or should it be removed? Thunderbird2 (talk)!

As I've said, although one editor has said otherwise, I've seen no hint of any consensus for what you want to do. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

What I want is for MOSNUM to reflect consensus based on civil discussion. Are you seriously suggesting there is no consensus for civil discussion? Or did you think I am asking for something different? Thunderbird2 (talk) 11:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I've just noticed this post in your talk page. I am very much in favour of mediation, as I believe it would lead to the civil discussion that I seek. Do you think it is possible to breathe new life into this mediation request? Thunderbird2 (talk) 13:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you truly think reliable sources show this notation is widely used and understood among computer users (not programmers and hardware folks)? Gwen Gale (talk) 13:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

No. I have never claimed that. But it's only one side of the coin. I thought that the whole point of consensus is that it happens after looking at both sides. Thunderbird2 (talk) 13:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Then I see no need for now to sway what the MoS has to say about it, anything further would be pointy, though I'm still open to your thoughts. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Gwen, I am not sure the relevance of your question - does it matter whether the notation is "widely used ..." or not?

There is a very reliable source that established this notation, the IEC. Everyone in this dispute agrees that the current notation is ambiguous and has caused confusion, particularly with the non-technical reader but even amongst technically competent readers - quick, without looking it up are DVD GB's 10⁹ or 2³⁰ bytes. BTW, this superscript notation is one of the recommended disambiguation methods, do you think the normal Wikipedia reader would have understand it. BTW, I asked a number of college graduates, sometimes readers of Wikipedia to explain kilo and mega to me - they couldn't. So I suggest your question should be

"Is there a reliable source for the use of Binary IEC Prefixes for disambiguation?"

and I suggest the answer is yes. Are you aware that a group of editors voted 11-0 to NOT deprecate IEC Binary prefixes about 2 months before a different group of 7 (T2 only common editor) did exactly that? Since then two of the deprecation advocates have suppressed all possible discussion including tactics such as a RfC on T2 and an allegation of Sock Puppet against me. I think if discussion were opened you would find a number of editors who would support the use of IEC, after all WP:pointy says: "Discussion is the preferred means for demonstrating problems with policies or the way they are implemented." Right now there is no discussion. Tom94022 (talk) 22:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

If a notation system isn't widely used or recognized by likely readers of Wikipedia it shouldn't be shoved into articles by the MoS. If college graduates can't tell you the difference between kilo and mega, they should ask for refunds on their tuitions (they won't get them, since much of their education was a bait and switch to begin with but that's another tale), then look up the Wikipedia articles on those topics. As for XiB, it's a standard which hasn't caught on widely in any way, but Wikipedia has articles about the notation for those readers who happen to stumble across it. Lots of proposed standards don't "take" or otherwise need a long time to wend into use, either way, this is one of them. Run an RfC on the talk page if y'all like, but think about waiting six months to see what happens in the wide world. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding "Is there a reliable source for the use of Binary IEC Prefixes for disambiguation?" the IEC might be "a source" but that source is not a reliable source accepted by Wikipedia since there are very few other sources to support the IEC and there a huge number of reliable sources showing other uses. So the answer is no there isn't a reliable source for the use of binary IEC prefixes. I don't see any sign of this claimed 11-0 vote that would stop the current MoS being used. I do see there has been a lot of discussion on this subject and pointy editing by a couple of people does not mean there is a problem with the current MoS text. Regarding superscript notation, it is easy to understand and the point about using it is that with 2³⁰ it is easy to see the system intended is the power of two system (binary) and with 10⁹ the system intended is ten based (decimal). The other point is that anyone with a small amount of mathematical knowledge knows how to convert 2³⁰ into a number if they really want to. But ask someone who doesn't know about MiB to convert 2MiB into a number of bytes and they have much less chance because the notation system is not widely used. Also the superscript notation is one of the more widely used methods by reliable sources which is good enough reason to include it as a method for disambiguation. Another common method is for hard drive and chip manufacturers to write the number of bytes and I see that method is also mentioned in MoS. I agree with Gwen Gale that waiting six months or a year is a good idea because anything further would be pointy. WorkingBeaver (talk) 02:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The 11-0 vote is here. (You can ignore the vote cast by Fnagaton's puppet). I agree with both Gwen Gale and WorkingBeaver that disambiguation with exact numbers of bytes is an acceptable disambiguation method, but I challenge the assertion that it is the most widely used. In my experience, reliable sources that wish to make unambiguous statements about computer memory usually use MiB.[26] [27][28][29] Thunderbird2 (talk) 17:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

According to the archives that 11-0 vote was held in April last year. Then there was a large debate in May. There was also this more recent debate. In the May debate the votes in Archive_B9 were actually discussed and rejected because votes are less weighty than debate on a subject. Reading about consensus it says opinions have more weight than just a vote so this is sensible. You were part of these debates about the votes in Archive_B9. I think to reference a vote when it is known there is more recent debate that rejects that vote is an example of this pointy behaviour Gwen Gale has been warning about. You can challenge the assertion but being able to find a small number of references that use MiB does not change the conclusion that MiB is not often used so "when a notation system isn't widely used or recognized by likely readers of Wikipedia it shouldn't be shoved into articles by the MoS". The obvious weight of evidence, debate and consensus against what you want to happen is why Gwen Gale advises you should wait and not be pointy. I think given the very obvious minor use of IEC's XiB standard you should wait at least a year before even starting to write on this subject again. Then give serious thought about if the world has started to reflect what you want. If you do not stop and think then it is likely your notions will be rejected again as they have been now and you will likely face more warnings about pointy behaviour. Here is an idea, in a years time before you want to write on this subject again ask Gwen Gale or myself if we think the world has changed towards supporting your notions, if we agree you can open this debate again. If we both say no then avoid pointy editing and wait for longer. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which only echoes the world and is not a platform for you to shove your notions into the world, Gwen Gale's wise words chosen to reflect what I think. WorkingBeaver (talk) 00:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that some of the points you make are not supported in the history of this debate.

1. There was a substantial debate in the several months leading up to the April vote - I participated along with a dozen or so editors. With a clear 11-0 consensus I stopped watching the page assuming the issue was resolved. A different set of editors then chose to ignore the existing consensus, restarted the debate and two or three months later overruled the prior set of editors with only one of the original 11 participating (ignoring of course, Fnagaton's apparent participation as David Paul Hamilton).
2. Nothing is being "shoved into article by MoS" - an internationally recognized unambiguous notation system usage is being precluded by an MoS policy manipulated by a small group of editors.
3. The argument that XiB shouldn't be used because "when a notation system isn't widely used or recognized ..." is sort of like saying an obscure word in dictionary can't be used. Censorship, which is what this is should be offensive to all Wikipedia editors

Tom94022 (talk) 19:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

You can more or less remove what you like from your talk page, but calling these edits harassment is not on, they're not taken as harassment on en.Wikipedia and calling them such could be seen as uncivil, maybe even as a personal attack. Please have a look at WP:HARASS to understand what the term means here and please be careful about calling good faith edits harassment, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I was trying to remove the false accusations of lying from my page (which is harassment in my opinion) and ended up removing the wrong thing in error. I will now restore the latest version of the page without these accusations. Thunderbird2 (talk) 17:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I have now restored the page as best I could. Regarding Fnagaton's activities, he has repeatedly accused me of dishonesty, lying and vandalism, and of having more than half a dozen sock-puppets, always without foundation. In what sense is that not harassment? Thunderbird2 (talk) 17:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

What one may think of as "getting to the pith" of an edit history may, to others with another PoV, be taken as lying. I fall into this now and then myself, reading something and saying to myself, "They're lying!" but then thinking, "This is nettlesome, but to them, it may be heavy spin, but it's not a lie, because to them, their spin is the truth." Hence, I can't recall ever calling someone a liar on-wiki (come to think of it, it's unlikely I'd call someone a liar to their face, either, even if they were lying, it's not worth it). You likely An editor shouldn't call another editor a liar, though. Rather, show the diff, say it doesn't agree with what they say and leave it at that. As for the sockpuppetry claims, say you want either a CU or no more words. Lastly, you can remove anything you want from your talk page (but for declined unblock request templates, only so you know), though many editors find it much more helpful if you don't remove stuff, other than to a clickable archive. I was only talking about what you put in the edit summary. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Like you say, calling someone a liar is provocative. Like you I have never done so (here on WP I mean) and for the same reasons. Much better to say "you seem to have made a mistake". In fact to do otherwise is a clear breach of WP:AGF, and to do so repeatedly becomes harassment. Thunderbird2 (talk) 18:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm Elizabeth II, by the way. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

To Elizabeth II: Thank you for your help in cleaning up my page. I confess though that I see little point in continuing editing on Wikipedia. I have contributed to en.wp and its sisterprojects[30][31] for nearly two years now. I am not prepared to continue to do so while other editors are able to accuse me of lying, dishonesty, disruption, sockpuppetry and vandalism, always without foundation and always with impunity. Can you think of a single good reason why I should continue? Thunderbird2 (talk) 19:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes! If you need to take a break, do it, but you can always find nooks here where you're needed. Keep in mind, it's only a website ;) Gwen Gale (talk) 19:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Gwen Gale (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Yes, it's only a website. What bothers me is that it's one that sets up consensus as an ideal, and then permits it to be trampled on. User:Omegatron was hounded by User:Greg_L and User:Fnagaton until he finally left in desperation. Now it's my turn. You cookie is kind but not enough to persuade me to stay. Before I go I'd just like to clarify one thing: you seem to be under the impression I was campaigning for MOSNUM to support use of IEC prefixes, but that is not my intention. It is true that I would support such a change, but I am realistic enough to see there is probably no consensus for that. The reason I say "probably" is because it has never been discussed in a civil manner, so it is impossible to tell what consensus might be if it were to be discussed. What I was campaigning for was for such a civil discussion to take place, but whenever a discussion started (and there have been at least 3 different intents, by 3 different editors: Thunderbird2, Omegatron and User:Quilbert), it was trampled on by a group of three editors working together (Fnagaton, Greg_L and User:Headbomb). That is not consensus and it never will be. This is my last edit. Thank you and Good bye. Thunderbird2 (talk) 19:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Removing comments you don't like [32] [33] and attacking others by misrepresenting them is not civil behaviour. You admit there is no consensus for such a change. You forward this idea that consensus has to meet your ideal of a "civil" discussion but your comments show you are responsible for most of the incivility. WorkingBeaver (talk) 22:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

everybody please read this carefully

Thunderbird can remove from this talk page any post he wishes to remove. That is Wikipedia policy. The only exceptions to this policy are more or less meaningless as to what's been going on here. Yes, most editors, along with myself, would mostly rather talk page posts weren't pruned off by their owners, but by community consensus it's allowed and there are reasons for this. Edits removed from a page stay in the edit history. When an editor removes a post, the community consensus is that this is an acknowledgement that the post has been read.

Anyway this is a warning, which has nothing to do with any disagreements or claims anyone has been making. This is Thunderbird's talk page. If Thunderbird removes a post and another editor puts it back, that editor may be either warned or blocked.

Thunderbird, if you remove a post, please don't call it harassment. If you do, you may get a civility or personal attack warning. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Ahhhhhh I see but to me it did not make sense to post a reply to a comment when the section for that comment has been removed with "rm harass" so I restored the history of comments before adding my reply to give it context. WorkingBeaver (talk) 02:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

No worries at all about what's gone by, only sayin'. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

AfD of JEDEC memory standards

Hello,

You haven't edited the article in question, but since you are or have been actively involved in the IEC prefix discussion (sorry to remind you of it if you, like me, got tired of the uncivil discussion and wanted to have nothing to do with the issue anymore), I invite you to consider the nomination for deletion of the article JEDEC memory standards, which I believe can fairly be said to have been created only as a hammer for the discussion.

I beg you to try to keep your sentiments about the actual IEC prefix on Wikipedia question out of the deletion discussion and consider the merits of the deletion proposal, namely, notability in the Wikipedia sense (WP:N), regardless of which units you believe Wikipedia should use.

The deletion discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JEDEC memory standards. --SLi (talk) 22:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Templates for deletion nomination of Template:Computer Storage Volumes

Template:Computer Storage Volumes has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --Cybercobra (talk) 01:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

FYI RDP of various materials

FYI, I replied to your post [[34]]. Hunterd is back! 09:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Appreciate yr continuing this tracking. Perhaps one day the ban will be revisited Tom94022 (talk) 00:34, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 16:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)