User talk:Sarenne

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

/Archive 1

Contents

[edit] Binary prefix changes in cited quotations

I don't personally have a problem with you changing binary prefixes in articles, but please refrain from doing so in quoted material. You'd be making the quote inaccurate by causing it to deviate from the source. Either that or do a <nowiki>[MiB]</nowiki> to indicate that it is changed from the original. —59.92.138.0 11:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I'll try to be more careful. Sarenne 12:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I don't see where I did that. Sarenne 12:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I am not a vandal

On page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:68.115.91.4&redirect=no you have accused me of being a vandal with a threat of being blocked on Wikipedia. It is you who keep undoing my edits.

Ref: articles on Pentium D and Core 2

MiB etc at NOT used by the manufacturer, Intel, on the pages you keep changing. Readers are going to be confused by the terminology and I don't think that is the intent of the Wikipedia.

Intel, IBM, Microsoft, Oracle, Dell, Gateway, Micron (and all the other memory manufacturers), Sun, etc; NONE of them use this terminology in their product descriptions, web pages or packaging.

I don't know who you are or why this is such a problem for you. But I don't think you own Wikipedia nor Intel. I don't know what right you have to threaten me either.

The COMMON usage is MB not MiB, KB not KiB etc. The COMMON usage.

It appears you are trying to use Wikipedia to engineer social change. Wikipedia is a place to learn about the world as it is; not as you would like it to be. You need a political forum for social change. And that's where you should hold this "dialog" over binary prefixes; NOT in Wikipedia.

Please STOP changing every edit I make; or it will be people like you who ruin Wikipedia for everyone.

68.115.91.4 17:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

You are acting against community consensus on the usage of these prefixes and borderline revert warring. That constitutes vandalism if you do not stop. This issue has been hotly debated many times and the endorsement of the IEC prefixes by the style guide on Wikipedia still stands. You should take your issue up there, not on individual pages. -- mattb @ 2007-02-28T17:35Z

It is NOT a requirement of the style guide for Wikipedia. Show me where it says that all articles MUST adhere to this RULE. You can't and you know it. You are using threats to get what YOU want and apparently have nothing else to do at that. It is you who should stop messing with others input and stop threatening the general user populace. Rman2000 17:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

From WP:MOSNUM#Avoiding confusion: "If a contributor changes an article's usage from kilo- etc. to kibi- etc. where the units are in fact binary, that change should be accepted." It's pretty cut and dry. If you have an issue with this policy, I encourage you to contribute to the lengthy discussion on the talk page I linked above. If you continue reverting articles against this consensus you may be blocked. This isn't a threat, it's just informing you of consensus and what will happen if you believe you can singlehandedly reject it. -- mattb @ 2007-02-28T17:48Z
I just want what is best for the encyclopedia. If you succeed in changing the manual of style (i.e. gathering a new consensus) be sure that I will stop reverting your edits about the prefixes. If you are not a vandal, and I'm sure you are not, just stop reverting against the current consensus and contribute to the discussion before making the changes. Sarenne 20:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
It is patently clear that this is NOT your goal. Your goal is to force a terminology change down the throats of the Wikipeida community. You change every occurence in the entire set and then hide behind the words in the MOS. If we traced every change of MB<>MiB back to it's origin, I would be clear that you wouldn't see MiB in even .01% of the articles. I don't know, nor do I care, how the MOS got its wording. What I do know is that Wikipedia stands ALONE in a sea of billions of technical articles that use MB, KB etc by trying to use KiB and MiB etc. You aren't interested in the best, you are personally intersted in seeing your terminology religion forced onto an entire community. You have found a platform for your beliefs in the wholesale changing of every MB, KB reference in a community that has no way or will to stop such censorship. If the inventors of Wikipedia let this happen, then it (WP) simply cannot be trusted to represent the "truth". 68.115.91.4 20:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference between "should be" and "must be" and I made the changes in good faith that Wikipedia is an open community and not "owned" by the MiB/KiB police. The references to vandalism and blocking are very much threats--there is no other way to read them. You don't like MB then take it up with the technical community at large...but you have NO right/rule to wholesale change every Wikipedia page to your own personal view of how things should be. Go write your own pages and use whatever obsure references you like. I really don't care. But you don't have a pulpit to look down on the Wikipedia community from and dictate the terminology in every technical article -- at least I don't think you do. Prove me wrong! Rman2000 19:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue with you here. I have linked you to the proper place to take up this discussion several times, and I will only respond further on the MOSNUM talk page. -- mattb @ 2007-02-28T20:40Z

I responded to 68.115's comment on the MOS talk page. — Omegatron 01:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summaries

Your edit summary link is broken. It should be WP:MOSNUM#Avoiding_confusion, not WP:MOSNUM#avoiding_confusion. Cheers --Pak21 15:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, though it seems to work fine with IE7. Anchors are supposed to be case-sensitive ?Sarenne 16:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Yep, a lot of internal linkage syntax is case-sensitive, although for common errors we usually try to create redirects, so that for example george washington redirects to George Washington. That's not possible with anchors though, so those have to be in the correct case. Also, you might want to consider archiving some old stuff from your talk, I can help you set up an archive if you'd like. There's also a bot that will archive threads that haven't had a response in so many days automatically. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 16:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I tried by myself, thx :) Sarenne 17:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
(post edit-conflict) Yes. See the HTML specification, section 12.2.1: "Comparisons between fragment identifiers and anchor names must be done by exact (case-sensitive) match." Cheers --Pak21 16:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, so the fact that a browser accepts the match is just a feature that is not required by the HTML standard. Sarenne 17:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Given the standard explicitly says that the match "must" be done by a case-sensitive match, I don't think it's unreasonable to say this is a bug, not a feature. --Pak21 17:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

The Working Man's Barnstar
For tireless contributions at the thankless (often very thankless) job of converting articles to use binary prefixes where appropriate, I award Sarenne the Working Man's Barnstar. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 20:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Binary prefixes

When speaking of machines built prior to 2000, and for quantities of memory less than a gigabyte, the original kilobyte and megabyte as used in the descriptive literature of the time should be left alone. The so-called binary prefixes add little descriptive power to the articles and are misleading since they did not exist at the time the various machines were built. --Wtshymanski 17:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

If you want to use the inacurrate prefixes or values, you can quote the descriptions of the time but if an article paraphrases them, then you should accept the usage of accurate prefixes. Binary prefixes add accuracy to the articles and accuracy is needed in an encyclopedia. If you want, you can specify that these prefixes (Ki, Mi, Gi, etc) were not used at the time but it's not very relevant in these articles. Sarenne 19:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
The MoS says the new binary prefixes aren't mandatory. The prefixes aren't accurate since they didn't exist during the entire lifecycle of the Model 100, for example. The binary prefixes are what's irrelevant. Please don't rewrite history to please the IEC. And it's particulary bad to change the prefix at one point only in an article; this is *very* distressing to the reader who wonders why the same commodity is being given in two different units. And you really should specify memory in "octets" to be consistent with the IEC, since bytes are various lengths depending on which historical machine you are dealing with (a PDP-10, say, or a PIC). --Wtshymanski 20:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Binary prefixes are not mandatory but when a contributor (e.g. me) uses them to make the article more accurate, this change should be accepted, so you are acting against current consensus.
Letters and english language did'nt exist during the prehistory, it doesn't make the article inaccurate.
Using "byte" instead of "octet" is not inconsistent with IEC, it is just not precise. If you want to change all 8-bit bytes to octet, I will not revert these changes, except if it's against consensus.Sarenne 20:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
If it is clear in 2007 that the original sources meant 32*1024 bytes when they said "32 kbytes" then it was clear in 1983 as well, proving the binary prefixes are unnecessary. I don't know how to pick and choose what parts of IEC resolutions to enforce. I think consitency with the original sources is superior, especially in cases for pre-2000 items and for amounts well below one gigabyte. Just because many people resolve to do a foolish thing, does not make the concensus any less foolish. --Wtshymanski 20:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
It is clear for me and maybe you that original sources meant 32*1024 bytes but if you want to be sure that it's clear for everybody, you should use accurate and unambiguous terms, even if it is inconsistent with sources. If you want to be consistent with sources, you can quote them and if you think the consensus is foolish, try to change it. Sarenne 20:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wii

Do you have any source they mean MiB? If not, stop reverting. TJ Spyke 23:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any source they mean 512,000,000 B ? If not, believe me, they mean 512 MiB. Flash memory chips don't have decimal capacities. Sarenne 23:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
My mistake for internal flash memory which is NAND memory, so I don't know if they mean 512000000 bytes or 512*1024*1024 B. Sarenne 23:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

As it is, since you don't know about the flash memory, mixing the article between MB and MiB creates a noticeable lack of consistency. You'll recall that consistency is pretty important when dealing with the MoS. (There are exceptions listed for binary prefixes, if the precise byte capacities between them is of importance, but that isn't the case here)
What's more, you've made the assumption that the 4k of internal memory for the wii remote is certainly 4096 bytes. However, the cited reference is just IGN's heresay, and they don't give sufficient information to make that qualification. Besides that, the wii remote article states that it is really 6kb (or KiB) of internal memory, with at least 4000 bytes useable for other applications. In that case, it would be the decimal expression (or the 6 KiB total), but not 4KiB.
Since we don't have enough information to make these distinctions, switching them to MiB or KiB is creating false precision. The only thing left is expressing the RAM. However, choosing to swap units for a single section of the article is, again, grossly inconsistent. Bladestorm 00:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok for the Wiimote memory if you want, except that http://wii.ign.com/articles/733/733464p7.html says Wiimote has 4096 bytes of memory so it was not my assumption and it wasn't false precision. For RAM, using binary prefixes is not inconsistent, it's just accurate. Sarenne 00:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Where does the ign article say 4096 bytes? It looks like 4KB to me, which would normally mean 4096 bytes, but not necessarily when it's a hearsay simplification of facts.
As for "more accurate". No. Less ambiguous? Perhaps. But certainly no more accurate.
Within the context of RAM, one MB=1024 KB. This isn't a matter of accuracy, but rather of fact.
The fact that some hard drive manufacturers started changing their interpretation of prefixes to misrepresent what they were offering to people is irrelevant. In this context, 1MB=1024KB=1MiB. That's identical accuracy.
What's inconsistent is switching back and forth between MiB and MB without a clear reasoning. If nothing else, it strongly implies that the internal flash memory is 512,000,000 bytes. Since we don't know either way, implying that isn't ideal. Bladestorm 00:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
It says 4k and k=1024 bytes... The source is apparently wrong because according to http://wiibrew.org/index.php?title=Wiimote#EEPROM_Memory wiimote has 4000 bytes for user data.
Within the context of RAM, MB means 1024 KB but MB=1000 kB is the standard, which is used in Wikipedia so it makes MB inaccurate for RAM. The clear reasonning is : if you mean 1000 kB, you write MB and if you mean 1024 KiB, you write MiB. You want to mean that the Wii has 512,000,000 bytes of internal memory storage and the Wiimote 4000 B of user data memory (which is probably true) ? Ok, so we write 512 MB and 4 kB, even if it's inaccurate. But for the RAM, it's 88, 64 and 3 MiB and there's no doubt about it so we write MiB. Sarenne 01:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Well now, don't overstate things. Within the scope of educated and technical people, MB=1000KB is not the standard. Go ask any network administrator, computer science professor, or even programmer how many kilobytes are in a megabyte, and they will not say 1000. Which you choose to express 1024 really is optional. Accuracy is not an issue. Ambiguity, yes, may be an issue, but certainly not accuracy. And, since the RAM would be the only place in the entire article to use that screwy prefix, it would be needlessly inconsistent.
One thing that might help is if you can find out conclusively precisely how many bytes of internal flash memory the system has is. If it's 512 MiB, then it may be worth changing everything (the flash and the ram), and simply listing the wiimote memory as 4000 bytes. However, until then, it's better to leave things stylistically consistent. Bladestorm 01:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Using MiB and MB in the same article is not at all inconsistent when dealing with binary and decimal capacities. We do it in lots of articles. If you find an article with the RAM expressed in MB, please tell me where. MiB for RAM is actually a matter of internal consistency within Wikipedia and a matter of accuracy in the article. I also think that we should specify that the 4000 bytes are the "user data" area of the memory of the Wiimote, not its non-volatile memory. Sarenne 01:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ZX Spectrum

I'm well aware of what the MoS says, and also that it is "only" a guideline and therefore doesn't have to be followed religiously in every article. Given that there was a discussion at Talk:ZX Spectrum where disagreement with your change was expressed, I feel you should not be reverting that change without any further discussion. --Pak21 12:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It has been further discussed in the talk page of WP:MOSNUM. Why are there guidelines if you can just revert edits that follows the guideline ? There should be a discussion before a change that is against MoS, not before an edit that follows the MoS. Your revert doesn't make any sense because 1) you started the discussion and you agree with my changes 2) only one contributor expressed a disagreement 3) It's against current MoS and 4) I waited 20 days before changing back to binary prefixes. What were you waiting for ? Sarenne 13:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Guidelines exist as a well... guide to how Wikipedia should function in the general case. There can, and will, be exceptions when guidelines are not followed. The only things that Wikipedia must abide by are the five pillars. At this point, it is basically irrelevant what my, or your, personal views on the subject are: there was disagreement with your change expressed by at least three editors (Frodet and Chris Cunningham on the talk page, and by Diceman who initially reverted your edit), so you should attempt to find consensus on this, not simply reinstate your change as you have done. --Pak21 13:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Frodet didn't express a disagreement. You should attempt a consensus before reverting a change that follows the MoS, not the opposite. I don't need to wait for a consensus to change decimal prefixes to binary prefixes because the MoS "allows" me to do it. One or two disagreements are not enough to make an exception. You need one consensus to make an exception to the MoS. Sarenne 13:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just a reminder

There are a few things you really should remember:

  • First, when in doubt, Ignore All Rules. When people make changes solely for the sake of change, then there needs to be exceptions. "MOS lets me do it" is just wikilawyering. Actual people, not policies, contribute to articles.
  • Yes, if there's a concensus against you, especially in a "either is acceptable" issue, then you should try for concensus.
  • Forcing moronic prefixes down people's throats is hardly better than trying to force one spelling of colour/color down people's throats.
  • Going into articles that predate KiB and MiB, and using those prefixes is illogical. The notation at the time was KB and MB. The notation at the time was entirely unambiguous.
  • You should really realize that, if people keep complaining about your changes, there just might be something wrong with them.

Just mull it over for a while, k? Bladestorm 14:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

No, the notation "at the time" was not at all unambiguous and that's why there are binary prefixes. And I don't see any consensus against me. Sarenne 14:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Realistically, a number of experienced editors have hinted to you one way or another that making these changes, and in particular the way you are making them, may not be ideal. The best editors on Wikipedia (a group which almost certainly does not include myself) are those who work hard to establish agreements with editors who disagree with them, rather than a hard and fast reliance on the current version of a guideline. When all is said and done, the issue of binary prefixes isn't the most important thing on Wikipedia, so I wonder if it would be worth you taking a small step back and considering how much this is worth. Cheers --Pak21 15:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I certainly don't consider editors who have the same debate on every talk pages involved in a global debate as the best. It creates inconsistency. MoS is here to avoid having this kind of debate over and over. Of course there can be exceptions but these exceptions should be discussed before reverting an edit that follows the MoS, not after. Sarenne 15:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
First off, just a reminder that MoS very intentionally only expresses a mild preference. You're once again implying that the alternate versions are 'wrong'. This is not so. And whenever you know that there are more people who disagree with you than agree with you on a specific issue, you really should discuss it before trying to enforce your version of an article. I really don't see why you even bother with a community effort if you aren't willing to cooperate with people.
And yes, at the time they were very much unambiguous. Your claim that they werent' is merely your own assertion.
Once more I have to say it, you seem to be making changes for the sake of change. The MoS suggestion of binary prefixes should certainly be considered for new articles, but it's grossly inappropriate to start revising every single old article. It never even implies that you should troll old articles. Bladestorm 16:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Addendum: Ignoring other people's concerns, and justifying edits by citing the fact that MoS may allow it is wikilawyering. Even if the MoS was stricter in your favour on the subject, it'd still be bad practice. The fact that it's very flexible makes it even more of a nuissance for you to keep bringing it up. Bladestorm 16:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
No i'm not implying that the alternate versions are 'wrong' (actually I think they are, but that's not the point). I meant that the MoS is the general rule and if you want to make an exception to the MoS by reverting an edit that follows this rule, you must discuss first and that's not what you are doing : you are discussing after having reverted, as if I was making an exception. If I thought that there were more people who disagree with me than agree with me, be sure I will never have made these edits. Please take a look at the talk pages of WP:MOSNUM.
And yes, at the time they (decimal prefixes) were very much ambiguous. Your claim that they weren't is merely your own assertion ;) Please take a look at this article and its talk page.
I'm making the changes to improve the accuracy and consistency of Wikipedia and avoid confusion for the reader. Read more carefully WP:MOSNUM because it's not a guideline only for new articles as you are implying. "If a contributor changes an article's usage from kilo- etc. to kibi- etc. where the units are in fact binary, that change should be accepted" is clear, isn't it ? Given that, I really don't see why it's "grossly inappropriate to start revising every single old article". Sarenne 16:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You're approaching vandalism.

Look, MiB vs MB is a preference. I'm not going to get too mad over that.
However, MIXING units when there isn't any source to do so is putting BAD information into articles.
I've already warned you in the wii article, and now you've tried that crap in the wii remote article.
You never listed a single bloody source to even suggest that the eeprom was 16KiB, but the total useable space was 6000bytes (as opposed to 6KiB). If you want to mix units, then you need to cite something directly confirming that the KB is being used in the decimal sense.
MoS does not permit you to put unsourced (and quite probably incorrect) information into articles. Cite it first.
This just goes to prove the suspicion that you're making changes for the sake of change, or possibly even editing to make a POINT.(I don't feel like linking it, you know what I meant by 'point', right?) Bladestorm 16:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong, I supplied the source. Now you can read the source if you want and stop making false accusations only because you don't like binary prefixes.Sarenne 16:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
You used KiB for the EEPROM, and KB for the 6kb. However, what source directly states that it's 6,000 bytes of useable space? Unless you cite that part, it's entirely unsourced. Bladestorm 17:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I used KiB for the EEPROM, but the "6 kB" was already there. Actually it seems that it's not exactly 6,000 bytes but 5,888 bytes : http://wiibrew.org/index.php?title=Wiimote. You can improve the article if you want by specifying 5,888 B if you think that it is relevant and the source is reliable. Sarenne 18:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


It appears that the during the edit war you are having on IBM PC someone changed the release date of the IBM PC from August 24 1981 to April 24 1981. This is obvious misinformation. Before I changed this I wanted to see what the edit war was about.

The reason for your edit war is the technically correct but uncommon unit for binary memory sizes, KiB. You claim that WP:MOSNUM gives you ultimate authority to make this edit.

"The use of the new binary prefix standards in the Wikipedia is not required, but is recommended… "

"If a contributor changes an article's usage from kilo- etc. to kibi- etc. where the units are in fact binary, that change should be accepted."

The problem is that you are not a contributor to any of the articles that you are trying to impose your editorial control. Your inflexible viewpoint will discourage others from adding useful content to Wikipedia. The contributors to these articles are begging you to stop. Listen to them. SWTPC6800 19:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I honestly don't see how a simple "i" could discourage others from adding useful content to Wikipedia...Sarenne 19:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/a/r/User_talk%7ESarenne_d591.html"