User talk:Fnagaton/Binary prefixes

Binary prefixes

Recently a minority of editors have been replacing all occurrences of KB/MB/kilobyte/megabyte with binary prefixes (KiB/MiB/kibibyte/mebibyte) on computer related pages where those binary prefix terms are not used in the system documentation, not used in the sources and not generally accepted as the correct type to be used. To force binary prefixes into articles where there are no sources for that system using such prefixes is not being consistent within the scope of the article. Also to make those changes reduces the useful content of the article and increases confusion due to the differing terms used. The debate is here. Wikipedia_talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Binary_prefixes

If you are interested in seeing the guidelines get changed to avoid binary prefixes being forced onto articles and have any comments you would like me to consider then please add them below. Or if you want me to message you when the vote starts please add a note below. (Those that want to use binary prefixes in all articles do not comment here, go elsewhere. Any such edits by "binary prefix" zealots will be reverted as vandalism.) Fnagaton 22:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Please message me when the vote starts. I am not, in principle, against use of the Binary prefix in new systems. I am, however, very much against revisionism of well established customs during past eras of computing history. At a minimum, SI prefixes should ALWAYS be used on systems predating late 1998, when the Binary prefix movement was introduced. It is worth noting that in over 15 years the Binary prefix has still not taken hold and has only created the very market confusion that it attempts to circumvent.TopaTopa 23:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't like the binary prefixes when they override the original sources. Anything published prior to 2000, especially for amounts of memory of a few kB or a few MB, and discussions of historical machines or machines with word lengths not multiples of 8 bits should be left as per the original. Let me know when the vote happens, although on Wikipedia the fanatics nearly always win. --Wtshymanski 01:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this nonsense has to stop. No one used terms like "kibibytes" in 1985 and, frankly, nobody except a few standards absolutists use them today. Using the neologisms not only confuses readers but also contradicts all the original sources for most articles. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 23:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I originally changed the KiB to kB on the IBM 5150 article thinking that it was a typo. After reading up on it, I personally think that the kB/MB suffixes should be used, as that is what the original manufacturer (IBM) used in their documentation --Howard81 12:33am, 24 April 2007

I stumbled into that madness recently. This is ridiculous that a handful of editor try to revert a clear and consensual use in the industry and even in the public at large. Please feel free to contact me on any development on that matter I may miss. Shmget 20:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

User 71.197.28.33

I noticed the account for 71.197.28.33 was being used solely to revert your changes from MiB to MB, as seen [1]. Is this account a sock for Sareen? Maury 17:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes those edits are typical of the banned User:Sarenne. I noticed doing a Google for the IP shows it as being blocked as a Tor node. Fnagaton 19:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, I hadn't realized he/she had been banned! *phew* Maury 20:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the user was banned for edit warring where the edits are all on the same subject and then lots of anonymous Tor exit node edits that are almost identical to his edit style started appearing. You are also very welcome to use the "Attention" banner. :) Fnagaton 20:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Your edits at MOSNUM

I wonder whether you can find time to comment on my proposed overhaul on the talk page, which will be cooking for about two weeks. Tony 12:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the hint, I will review the proposal. Fnagaton 14:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

More changes to binary prefixes

There are more changes at the Manual of Style on binary prefixes. -- SWTPC6800 02:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Cheers for that, it had slipped under my radar. :) Fnagaton 08:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the cleanup. I am much better at research than writing. Could you look over my work on the history of binary prefixes Binary_prefix#History. The grammar could be improved in several places. -- SWTPC6800 01:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

You are very welcome. It will be a pleasure to read through your changes. I'm on a semi-Wikibreak at the moment though. Fnagaton talk to me/contributions 09:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

MOSNUM

Thanks for cleaning up after me. Tony 15:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't mention it. :) Fnagaton 16:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)