User talk:Mahjongg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User talk:Mahjongg/Archive 1

Contents

[edit] Binary prefixes

The last consensus is here : WP:MOSNUM. If you think it doesn't reflect a consensus, then discuss it there but stop removing binary prefixes because you think it's wrong. Sarenne 11:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You must be kidding, you are the pot that says the kettle is black! The discussion about this is actually held here Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers), and there is absolutely no consensus to be found there! You are seen by many as the taliban of the KiB notation. You even have been blocked because of your vandalism. Consensus, don't make me laugh! Untill an actual consensus is found DO NOT VANDALISE RETRO_COMPUTING PAGES! because YOU think you must! Mahjongg 11:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I said Last consensus. There's no consensus to change the MoS. If there were a consensus to change it, it would have been changed. I've never been blocked for vandalism, stop making false accusations and please read what the MoS says now : WP:MOSNUM#Avoiding confusion. Sarenne 11:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
And what does it say above the MoS entry about this subject. "The following section's wording or inclusion in this policy/guideline is disputed. Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page.", so again, this NOT undisputed, however much you want it to be undisputed. I talk with several knowledgable people about this and they all think the stand you take is ridiculous. You KNOW you have been blocked, its on your own talk page, "not for vandalism" you say. But wat is a "WP:3RR violation" other than vandalism!Mahjongg 11:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Nobody said it was undisputed. You have to stop putting words in my mouth. A disputed guideline doesn't cease to exist. If you think that someone who violates 3RR is a vandal you obviously don't understand what is vandalism in Wikipedia. See WP:vandalism#What vandalism is not. Sarenne 11:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I do know how to spot vandalism, I personally reverted hundreds of vandalism's here. The person(s) who decided to block you obviously also thought that repeatedly reverting pages to your viewpoint also amounted to vandalism, why else would a edit block be needed. If i't NOT undisputed what you do, then why try to edit pages -not written by you- to suit your viewpoint, instead of the person(s) wrote the articles in the first place. A mayor principle behind wikipedia is that "common usage" dictates what should be used in an article, and using the MiB notation is NOT a common usage (yet)! For example here [1] is a link to a article that documents this. Mahjongg 12:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Because you said violating 3RR was vandalism, you obviously don't know how to spot vandalism. If you take a look at my block you will see it was reverts of my own comments. The person who first writes an article has no particular right about it. You saying that ""common usage" dictates what should be used in an article" is just not true. You want the MoS to reflect the "common usage" ? then express your POV there to change the guideline and stop reverting what you don't like. You cannot say that WP:MOSNUM is my viewpoint. It is still recommended to use binary prefixes and thus your reverts are not correct. Sarenne 12:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Mahjongg you are correct the user Sarenne does not have the support of consensus to make those binary prefix changes (as demonstrated by the most recent vote) and also those binary prefix terms are not used in the article sources. I see you've opposed the current MOSNUM talk vote, however I'd like to point out at this stage that I think the proposed text is a vast improvement over the current MOSNUM guideline. The propsed text intends to remove the sole use of binary prefixes from articles and would have the effect of reverting all of Sarenne's changes in favour of a disambiguation style compromise. So even though I come from the side that is opposed to using binary prefixes in these articles I do support the proposed text because it is a better compromise than the current guideline. Fnagaton 12:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, now you need a new guideline to revert my changes ? Sarenne 12:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
No, it's a matter of proving to you that you are wrong in no uncertain terms, the consensus is currently against your changes. Fnagaton 12:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
That's not true. As always, you present your POV as facts. Sarenne 12:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
What I wrote is true, the vote totals at the time of writing (i.e. consensus) prove you wrong. [2] Fnagaton 12:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
As always, "You're wrong, I'm right". Do you even realize that I didn't vote, for example ? and that the "vote" was about changing the guideline, not removing it ? and that you've changed the wording of the proposal ? Do you even know what is consensus ? You think it's the majority of a binary vote ? Sarenne 12:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I am correct and you cannot logically dispute the facts and I note your failure to disprove what I wrote. I do however note your attempts to misrepresent what I have written and that gives another example of your bad behaviour. Your "questions" are irrelevant ad hominem or red herrings. If you don't vote then that it not my fault. Fnagaton 13:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, I see you don't like answering questions about your claims. I logically dispute those. Don't tell me what I can't "logically" do and please be WP:CIVIL.Sarenne 13:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
No you are incorrect, I don't mind answering relevant reasonable questions. However when the questions are irrelevant repeats ad nausium such as yours are and when you demonstrate bad behaviour for which you got 3RR blocked then you are in the wrong. I'm done with your attempts to push your misrepresentation. Your disruption of these articles and this talk page is yet another example of your bad behaviour and I'm not going to let it continue. This ends now, this topic is now closed. You'll get no more replies from me and do not attempt to reply to me in future. Fnagaton 13:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
It's a shame you cannot remove the discussion here, right ? Sarenne 13:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I could, but I don't think Fnagaton would want that at all. But please stop this discussion here, get a life! Mahjongg 14:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
You think correctly Mahjongg. It's another great example of bad behaviour by the user. :) Peace brother! Fnagaton 14:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, right, "bad behaviour" is obviously asking questions about your allegedly facts, not at all removing embarrassing questions from talk page. I'm done here. Sarenne 14:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
There is nothing "embarrasing" here to see that I should want to remove. Mahjongg 16:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Vandalism (as used in this context) is disruptive editing. Which clearly discibes your actions. And that using KiB in all cases, (or at all) is wrong is not just my viewpoint, as you seem to imply. An example is User:Crotalus horridus who's reverts first brought my attention to your disruptive edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahjongg (talk • contribs)
You cannot say that following a guideline is disruptive. What is disruptive is your (and my) reverts, not my initial edit. Sarenne 12:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
following a "guidline" religiously while it is still debated, and where there is no consensus over, is disruptive. It's NOT your "initial edit"! The "Initial edit" is the edit of the person who wrote "kB" in the first place! When he wanted to write "KiB" he would have done so in the first place! You are the one who tries to change his meaning, not the other way around!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahjongg (talk • contribs)
It doesn't change anything about the meaning and please take a look at WP:OWN. Sarenne 13:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I did not say anything about "ownership", but you act as if you do. I simply pointed out that the original writer who started the article used the kB notation, while you reverted that to the use of KiB. But you act as if that was not the case at all, and all the reverts were to something you started originally. It's simply morally dishonest to do that. Also, If you cannot conceive that changing an old "name" for 1024 Bytes, to something that is not in -any- of the older literature is confusing and just p-lain WRONG, then you simply lack imagination! For an example ad-absurbitum, lets try a little thought experiment; and please try to convince to the world that you think "Abrahaim" should be equivalent to the biblical name "Abraham", because some people thought it was necessary to distinguish it from other non biblical "abraham's", and that from now on we should use "Abrahaim" when we mean "Abraham in a biblical sense". It's not a surprise that the terminology kiB is NOT in common use today, even after half a decade of lobbying! Mahjongg 14:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
You pointed out something that is off-topic, I don't care about what the original writer did (because of WP:OWN), I care about the article. I changed SI symbols used in a binary sense to IEC symbols because I think it improves the encyclopedia and because it is currently what is recommended. You seem to have reverted my edit only because it's not common usage or because it's not what the original editor wanted. This is not a valid reason until you succeed in changing the guideline. You cannot just ignore a guideline because it is disputed or because you think it is not "common usage". But now the little edit war seem to be over so the case is closed here :) Sarenne 14:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
You don't care about the article, you only care about your obsession. I agree about only two things you said, and that is that the edit war for MSX is over (at least I won't continue with it for the moment), and that this discussion is now closed here (but will continue at the talk page of WT:MOSNUM). Mahjongg 15:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


I did, (just now) express my point of view at the talk page of WT:MOSNUM. So if you have anything more to say, you can do it there NOT HERE!. Note that I stopped the edit war you started. Depending on the real consensus someone else will probably step in and revert it back to what it was (or maybe another person disgrunted by your actions will do it), or if a consensus is reached to use the MiB notation under all circumstances I will put up with it. In any case, I won't continue your childish edit war. Mahjongg 12:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Fnagaton, Okay, perhaps I will review my POV there. I have nothing against using KiB where it's prudent to do so. Mahjongg 12:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Fnagaton, Okay, I changed my vote to "support".
I'm glad to have helped. :) Fnagaton 12:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm trying to, but somehow my edit did not register, will try again untill it works... Mahjongg 12:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay, i now see my edit -did- register, perhaps the server was slow to update due to the many edits :-). Mahjongg 12:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 :) PS. I apologise for Sarenne's dispruptive edits to your talk page, it's not the first time it's happened. I've notified the user that they must not reply to me anymore, hopefully that will be good enough warning to stop. Fnagaton 13:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Again ? You said that you'll stop edit warring and 10 minutes after you engage another one with the articleList of home computers by video hardware ? Sarenne 15:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I said I would not continue the edit warring at MSX by simply reverting your changes.

I did not do this to provoke you! This is not "restarting the revert war", because I did not simply revert your edit at List of home computers by video hardware! Instead I added an explanation at the start of the article, that explains that "it uses the old kB convention instead of the new KiB convention", and why. So I did exactly what is now voted for, and where the seems to be a big majority for, at WT:MOSNUM. See it as an example of how this conflict can be resolved, nothing more. Again I am perfectly aware that at the moment the WP:MOSNUM says that the "recommended" action is to use KiB, but it is "recommended", not obligatory in any and all situations. The only point I ever made is that using the KiB notation mindlessly is not a good idea. And there are very good reasons why -sometimes- it is better to use the older notation, and these reasons were not realised during earlier discussions that lead to the -current- consensus. I expect the consensus to be modified accordingly, so I just ask you not to be fundamenalistic in your edits.Mahjongg 16:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You could have the exact same speech about every single occurence of "KiB" or "MiB" so that's not a valid reason IMHO. The MoS encourages consistency over the encyclopedia, not exceptions. You mixed kB, KB, K, Mb in the same article and even with your explanation at the top I don't see how it's improving the article. I'm just asking you to wait for a new consensus before making these kind of edits. If there's a "big majority" as you said, it shouldn't be long before the guideline is actually changed, right ? You cannot wait until then ?Sarenne 16:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
No, I could NOT have the same speech about every single occurence of "KiB" or "MiB"'s. If you think that you still don't get why I want an exception, or at least an explanation, for articles about older systems. It's NOT that using the notation KiB in itself is a problem but that by using it "kB" gains a new meaning! And I totally agree that KiB is a solution to a problem. You just have to be careful when using it, so that you do not cause a -new- problem.
Image the following scenario, if you will. In ten years time when (maybe, I actually doubt it will happen) everybody is using the "KiB" ("MiB" etc) notation and everybody is therefore is trained to understand that when they encounter the "kB" notation, the meaning is "1000". Even the WP article about an "antique" TRS-80 computer uses the "KiB" notation, and does it without any reference that the historical notation for 1024 in the past was kB, not KiB. Curiously about this strange TRS-80 system they look for, and find, a book about this computer, and they see it used "48kB", funny they think, "I thought they used a binary notation for memory size, but they seem not to be, this TRS-80 seemed to have 48000 bytes of memory". If that is not confusing to the reader I don't know what is. You see, by ignoring the historical meaning of kB you open the possibility for all kinds of confusions. -Thats- why I want to mention the historical fact that in the past kB meant 1024, NOT 1000! Another reason is so that the data given in the article is "compatible" with older information sources.
Incidentally, I do agree that "my" List of home computers by video hardware article could use a cleanup, but note that I actually used the notation 'K' (as in 2K, 4K etc) in the table on purpose, to save some room. And yes, I could have waited to make this changes until consensus was reached, just as you could have waited to make the edits you did! Please note I am -only- worried about articles about old systems that have a long history and a lot of external older information that has always used the "kB", (or "K", or KB, there never has been a real consensus about the spelling) I am not at all disagreeing that in -most- cases using KiB is the best solution. We will see what happens. Mahjongg 22:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
You can add information about the old documentation (though I don't think it is relevant in an article that is not about the computer's manual or documentation) but it shouldn't take the place of the important information : the capacity of the memory/disk... I will not oppose to something like "32 KiB (referred as "32 kB" in the manual)" but in that case, you are adding information.
The current guideline is disputed since 2005... so what should I wait for ? You should wait because the current guideline recommends the use of binary prefixes when binary capacities are used. Sarenne 22:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
You are comparing apples and oranges here, the dispute you are talking about is not the same one I am talking about. Your dispute, whether or not WP should take the step to implement the new IEC notation has been disputed for a long time, I agree. Only recently you (and others) have started to implement the decision made in the current guideline. But as is often the case when implementing something designed on paper, the decision to do so has met some snags in the form of consequences you did not thought off, or underestimated, when designing the current guideline. So problems have arisen, and now a -new- dispute about these problems has started.
Its about this latter dispute, as is discussed in Wikipedia Talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Proposed_new_guideline_for_binary_prefixes that I am talking. All indications are that the consensus for this latter dispute are NOT in your favor, and that should mean that the current guideline as given on WT:MOSNUM should soon change.
And somehow I don't think that will take two years, as I see growing discontent about how the current guideline is implemented.
Mahjongg 23:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
These are the exact same disputes. It is the exact same dispute that took place in 2005, with the exact same arguments (your argument about "historical accuracy" included). The proposal you are talking about is a compromise to solve the dispute, not another dispute. If you think that the guideline will soon change then you can wait and respect the current guideline. Sarenne 23:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
A different dispute/A discussion to change the current guideline, what's the difference? you are just hiding behind semantics here! There -are- new insights and they came about by WP editors who never heard of the earlier discussions but only became aware of their consequences when you started editing articles they cared about, and this triggered a new round of discussions, with new arguments!
I -am- waiting for the new changes in the guideline, just as -you- should! Mahjongg 00:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
No, I don't have to because the current guideline is against you, not me. (and I've not seen new arguments since 2005)Sarenne 00:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Sigh, this is a senseless discussion, I -am- waiting for the new changes in the guideline! I am not using your contributions page [3] to revert all the edit you make, or do anything else as stupid as that, am I ? But I just think -you- should -also- wait, or at least be a bit more careful with your edits, until the new guidelines are accepted ! P.S. please do not interpret this remark as a threat, that is NOT my intention. This was my last entry here, whatever you say next, lets just agree to disagreeMahjongg 00:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paranoid ?

Yes, you are... my "User contributions page" will not be deleted. You will be able to revert all binary prefixes, don't worry about that. Sarenne 16:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

If you did not want your user page to be deleted, then why did you put up the request for speedy deletion, and why did you clear your talk page? That did not make any sense, especially because you did not give any reason to do so.
Actually I don't care either way whether or not all of your edits are reverted, or only some info is added to prevent confusion between Kb=1024 and Kb=1000 , and as you should have noticed, I am not one of those people who reverts your every edit (as many others do, I saw that almost none of your later edits survived), so you should be aware that I am not -that- keen on reverting your edits as you seem to think. Mahjongg 18:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I did want my user page to be deleted. Only my recent edits were reverted, there are hundreds of articles remaining. I only came here to discuss your reverts, even if, according to Fnagaton's lies, I'm not willing to discuss... and even if they were not blind reverts like Fnagaton's or Crotalus'.Sarenne 18:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I can now see that your whole user account has been removed, but somehow the contribution page is still there, and that is something I certainly had not expected. So I have to conclude that my suspicion has been unfounded, I grant you that. Still, I can't imagine -why- you wanted your user and talk page to be deleted. In any case i wish you the best... Mahjongg 18:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you :) Sarenne 18:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Please do not characterise as vandalism

I notice that you tagged this edit as "rvv" (i.e. "revert vandalism").

There is no indication that the user was vandalising. You're entitled to your opinion on the "KB"/"KiB" holy war (and to revert the changes), but please do not throw unfounded accusations against those on the other side of the disagreement (unless they are clearly acting in bad faith). Posting misleading accusations in edit summaries is not acceptable conduct. Fourohfour 13:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Having looked into this further, it appears that there were issues with that user. However, it is still unclear whether he/she was acting in bad faith at the time, and a more informative summary would be useful (not all of us are- or should have to be- clued in to the details of a dispute occurring elsewhere). Fourohfour 14:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, this was a fluke though, I always mention WP:MOSNUM. Mahjongg 18:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Binary prefixes

Sorry about late response. I see that you did change the prefixes anyway. See, I do "date back" to the time when these computers were "brand new" and was quite happy using "KB". In fact, schools even had trick questions asking how many "B" are in a "KB" - the only correct answer being 1024.

However, as time went by, people really started messing those up. While kilobytes themselves really weren't affected directly, they were when part of transfer rates - "is it thousands of bytes or kilobytes per second?". Megabytes were a problem since they essentially appeared - hard drive manufacturers treating them as decimal (to be able to show greater capacities), not to mention the famous 1.44 MB floppy.

My goal is to be very precise in articles I write. What was used as a prefix at the time really didn't matter, especially because, in this case, they actually might have even used cyrillic form of the unit so "using the original style" really doesn't apply. "KiB" is unambiguous, although, I do admit, perhaps confusing to some people as it is not widely accepted yet. However, it was also linked properly (after your change it points to a disambiguation link, not the "kibibyte", to which it should point in any case, whatever the acronim is used, as "Kilobyte" article keeps ambiguity open and does not specify really what was meant).

As such, I would actually appreciate if you return the binary prefixes as they are more correct and unambiguous. These are not quotes but today's articles of, concidentally, past computers. I will not make changes myself, but at least the links should be corrected to not point to disambiguation articles (and not to "kilobyte" article either) but to "Kibibyte".


My suggestion is - for Wikipedia (I have to put it somewhere) that we come up with appropriate templates for those units. If you follow the link to Serbian language Wikipedia for some of those computers, you will notice that instead of KB, a template Template:Kibibyte (Cyrillic equivalent) is used. It displays as "KiB" but the tooltip actually contains the name and automatically links to what it should. I actually recommed that the tooltip is further expanded to contain actual size as well. That way if all articles are standardized, we will no longer need to change articles themselves to fix those issues but only update templates as needed.

Regards, --Aleksandar Šušnjar 03:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Aleksandar.
Although I do understand your point of view I still cannot agree! The ambiguousness of KB you paint is purely theoretical, and in practice not a problem at all!
That a kilobaud is not 1024 bytes per second is well known, and from the context it's always clear that "kilobyte per second" means 1000 bytes per second.
Similarly in hard-disk manufacturing the term kilobyte is not used at all! Because it's simply a too small a measurement for hard disks.
I have nothing against using the binary prefixes for gigabytes, terabytes, of even megabytes, but changing the definition of KB to 1000 bytes is simply too big a price to pay for the theoretical advantage of doing so .
My alternative solution would be to always keep using the KB notation (especially) in articles about older computer systems, such as the Commodore 64 (with 64KB) and all other older systems like them.
But in the theoretical case that wikipedia really would adopt the KiB notation for 1024 Bytes, (and by doing so consequently changes the KB notation to mean 1000 Bytes) that then, (and only then) I would want to suggest to the Wikipedia community to advise Wikipedia editors to _STILL_ use the KB notation in those articles, but to display a warning banner of some kind, (something like the userboxes on my user page) on top of the page, in which it clearly states that the article "uses KB in the historical sense". regards, Mahjongg 10:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, you are wrong about "kilobyte per second". It is ambiguous. Same with "kilobits". "Kilobauds" are entirely different - do not confuse them with "kilobits" - a single baud can contain multiple bits, including non-integer value.
I -know-, the difference between kilobaud and kilo bits per seconds, I designed modems for god's sake. A "baud" is a "signal change", and in one "signal change" multiple bits can (and are) encoded! So that the use of kilobaud -can- be ambiguous in some cases is obvious to me, but it was never my point to claim that confusion with -this particular problem- is impossible! Take the general user however, and he could give a hoot about the technical incorrectness of using baud for bits per second. These people normally use kilobaud and KBPS as if they are exchangeable terms! I agree that this is a "problem" of sorts, but it's simply not the problem we are adressing here.

What "normal users" generally -do- know, (and -that- is my point) is that the KB=1024 rule generally does -not- apply to modems! Not that this is much of a deal, because fact is that this "problem" already is disappearing, even without trying to enforce the KiB notation. Because modems are rarely used anymore these day's, and if they do they all use the same transfer speed now. And the KB notation being a problem when describing hard disk capacity?! When was the last time you heard the capacity of a hard disk being expressed in kilobytes?

What I wanted to make clear to you is something different altogether!! And that is that normally the -context itself- gives enough clues to know when the KB=1024 Bytes rule might NOT be used in the KB=1024 sense. That goes for modems, but it also goes for hard disks and many other situations. The -context- will tell you whether the normal KB=1024 rule might not apply. Modems and hard disks are -exceptions to a rule- and they even they are exceptions that are less and less important. By the way, don't try to make this into an argument that "this proves that an encyclopedia should use the correct terminology, and therefore we should use the KiB notation", because of course Wikipedia correctly explains and uses the kilobaud notation, but the difference between using "KiB" and "kilobaud" is that "kilobaud" IS (and always was) "established use", and KiB is not!

You are also wrong in the other case. Articles are not written as if they are themselves written at the time the computer was made. They are for current public. You seem to be trying to enforce your point of view, with your personal understanding of what these units mean, ignoring the uses that you have not been faced with personally. I just plain disagree with that and will ask you to personally follow the style guide you refer to yourself and return what used to be in the articles. While you can honour the past like I do (that is why I did create all these articles) you do not enforce it on the present. --Aleksandar Šušnjar 12:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

No the articles are not "written as if they themselves are written in the period at the time the computer was made", of course not , any fool can see that, and I never claimed they were! But they -do- (should) use the same terminology as the original documents!
To now try to re-define the notation of KB to mean something completely different from what is in those old (and even new) books is -wrong and confusing-! Imagine a kid that might get his first information about these systems (C64 etc) from wikipedia, and that Wikipedia would train him to think that KB meant 1000 Bytes, and that he then would go to the library and find a book about the subject, only to be confused because the book uses KB (unknown to him of course in the 1024 bytes sense), but the numbers simply do not add up! Imagine his confusion then...
Training people that KB means 1000 is simply criminally insane in my opinion!
even though I very strongly feel this, I will still refrain from changing articles, such as yours, where the first mayor contributor uses the KiB notation!
However, I -will- change back articles where someone changed the original KB's to KiB, Kibibyte or other such nonsense! In that case I follow what you call "the style guide", but which is more exact WP:MOSNUM, to the letter, "stay with established usage, and follow the lead of the first major contributor to the article"!
This is something -you- clearly do not!
You are the "first major contributor" of a very small number of retro-computing articles, (I agree, thats why I try not to touch them) but -you- "do not stay with established usage"! Because using KiB is -NOT- established usage!
There are some persons here who seem to think (and hope) that if they can sway Wikipedia the world will then follow, but Wikipedia will -NOT- be used as a tool for that! And even in the improbable case that Wikipedia would change to using binary prefixes, I can predict you that the world will still not follow! Just as they have not the last six years or so. So just give up already!
Being "precise" is generally applaudable, I agree, but not to any price!
At least -I'm- not going to change my mind about this, and so is the majority of Wikipedia editors not going to, lets just agree we disagree, and have no hard feelings about it. With best regards, Mahjongg 15:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I do value your opinion. This is why I stated that I am really unhappy with either single approach and would prefer a template. That template can carry a short piece of information - including disambiguation. Whatever is shown in there, it should point to "Kibibyte" as in that context it is most definitely not ambiguous by any measure and "Kilobyte" is.

We have to learn to live in the present and not in the past. These articles do not quote specifications. In that case I would agree with you 100% and include it as is - this is also in sync with WP:MOSNUM. In some cases I would even go further and include the image of such specis if it is available. At the same time, I repeat, I am sure that you don't expect those to appear in there, do you?

Instead of continuing to disagree and take separate paths, I think we should really try to find a true solution. Again, I think that whatever that solution is, it should be resolved as a template. Take the following example:

  • A separate template is created for each unit and historical context. For example, "KB" is to be shown, but it should really mean 1024 bytes (or 1000 bytes). For example {{KB-bin}} and {{KB-dec}} or {{KB2}} and {{KB10}}. {{KiB}} does not need disambiguation information.
  • A separate article is created for each one of those, linking to "Kilobyte" and "Kibibyte" articles after specifying really which kind that one is. For example "Kilobyte (1000 bytes)" and "Kilobyte (1024 bytes)" or "Binary Kilobyte" and "Decimal Kilobyte".
  • The template could actually (possibly) be parameterizable to actually include the value. In that case the tooltip could actually also include exact number of bytes as well. We could have a parameter that may cause the template to expand this data in-line and not just show it in a tooltip.
  • Same is applied to other units.

Should this be done, I actually would start agreeing with you 100%. I would use a {{KB-bin}} template for these articles. They would appear as "KB", but would provide an explanatory tooltip and link to "Binary Kilobyte". In cases that use "KB" as 1000 bytes (and there are such cases), they would use the other link. This eliminates ambiguity, is precise in every way, does not confuse anyone and will let Wikipedia community easily maintain (change) those templates and associated standards. Should anything change, they can easily just change templates and that will affect all the articles. Trivial!

--Aleksandar Šušnjar 03:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, although I have to see it work in practice. I am also a bit worried with template solutions, (or with solutions that use the "my preferences" settings to show a "preference for either KB or KiB") that a whole new revert war will commence over the content of the templates, or default settings of "preferences".
But I am all in for any solution that introduces the new notation while at the same time avoids the problem of re-defining KB to 1000, or that forces the new "KiB" notation without any explanation that in other sources the "KB" notation means the same thing.
By the way, its a bit strange for you to say "that in some cases, for those computers, it actually did not say "KB" but "КБ" or "кб" or "килоречи". ". In the Russian Wikipedia of course they can use "КБ" or"кб" or "килоречи", but I don't expect to see it in the English version, so it's not a real argument to say that "КБ" etc is sometimes used to. I take the Chinese might have another notation too, but that fact is irrelevant to this discussion.
Let me be clear that I have nothing against trying to introduce new notations to resolve the "kilobyte" disambiguation, but -this- solution is brain dead in the sense that it will re-define the meaning of KB from 1024 bytes to 1000 bytes! A much better solution would have been to define new notations for -both- binary and decimal "kilo's", and leave the old notations unchanged.
What they -should- have done would be to define "KiB" as "binary kilo's", and invent another term "KeB" (for example) for "decimal kilo's", and leave "KB" alone.
If they had done -that- no new problem would have arisen, and I would have been all for it to introduce it here.
Mahjongg 10:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

First let me explain why I mentioned "килоречи" - not because of the language, but because you appear to recommend whatever was originally specified. I am myself against that - I prefer standardized set of units. The only true standard we truly have is SI. It has been designed for consistency at it is also the source of the definition for multipliers. Here there are few problems:

  • Original "thousand" prefix is lowercase "k", not uppercase. However, first computers only "yelled in uppercase".
  • Uppercase "K" actually stands for "Kelvin" - not a multiplier. Hence, kK is 1000 Kelvins.
  • SI specifies that uppercase "B" stands for "Bell". Hence, "KB" is, according to a system that was authoritative both then and now, actually "Kelvin Bells". You can take that as anything you like if it makes sense to you. "kB" would be kilo-Bells, just like "dB" is deci-Bells.
  • For some time it was more or less understood that, in the computer world, one uses binary meanings and binary prefixes. Furthermore, it did not make much of a difference - 32 binary kilobytes is still 32.something decimal kilobytes and that was quite a memory at the time. Problems begin at 42 binary kilobytes - that is by all means 43 decimal kilobytes. Problems also got greater when computers stepped out of their boxes and started to be used in the real world. How many kilobytes does one need to sample one second of 16-bit stereo audio at some sampling rate f such as 44.1 kHz? Would it be 4 bytes * f? For example 4 bytes * 44.1 kHz = 176.4 k*bytes*Hz = 176.4 k*bytes/s? Is that "k" in 176.4 kb/s decimal or binary? Whether you agree or disagree, you see the point. We need consistent units to work this out consistently. Having same prefix mean one thing here and another thing there just plain does not work.
  • You talk about modifying decimal prefix from "K" to something like "Ke". Aside from the fact that it actually means "Kelvin electron", you just can immediatelly forget about it. Why? Because it is not the rest of the world who caused this - it is us - the "ancient computer guys". We can't go and say - "Hey, 0.0...01% of us made a mistake and we used your prefix wrongly, you should all now change to correct our mistake".
  • You talk about this being confusing. Well, what is confusing is what previous generations (including mine) caused. You yourself point out that "if this is in that context" then it means that, if it is in another then it means another thing, etc. "All you have to know" is to understand the context and which meaning was used in it. Frankly, that does not work. How many Gallons do you need to fill a 100 liter container? Do you know the context? Of course you don't. Is it US or UK Gallons? How many miles are there from London to New York (shortest route)? Should these miles be nautical or land? Most people who use miles think in land miles and would be surprised with nautical ones. How many gallons of fuel does [pick-some] airplane need to fly 100 miles? "Normal people" don't need to know the details if everything is nice and consistent. They should not suffer. Ultimately, not even your contexts work. Why? Because there were modems that used decimal and others that used binary expression of their speed and were made for that exactly. There were hard drives that used this and that. There were mixtures. There were decimal computers also, you know... and for them, a "k" multiplier is right on the thousand! How about hard drives? What does a "MB" mean? Does a common person understand the difference between a mechanical and solid state hard drive? You will be able to copy one to another but not vice versa. Of course, it also depends on what manufacturers wanted to present. So you can't even talk about one common meaning. There was no such thing for quite a while, then it kind of standardized for some time until it became apparent that it was wrong.

As such, I believe that templates are the only correct way to start solving the problem. At least article source will be consistent until this is finalized. But one thing is pretty sure. Maybe it is not "KiB" but it is definitely not going to be "KB"... --Aleksandar Šušnjar 16:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

My (this time short) answer, all your examples and "reasons" are contrived, and the "world" (not a tiny minority as you imply) has decided that KB means "Kilobyte" as in 1024 bytes, except in a very few cases. If you want to be such a purist that -you- cant't live with that fine, but just dont bother the rest of the world with that. Mahjongg 10:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of List of mailing lists

I've nominated List of mailing lists, an article you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that List of mailing lists satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion; I have explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of mailing lists and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of List of mailing lists during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Versageek 14:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I plead "no contest" :-). It was more trouble than it was worth, and never came of the ground anyway. So please go ahead and delete it.

[edit] XGameStation

[edit] AfD nomination of XGameStation

An article that you have been involved in editing, XGameStation, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XGameStation. Thank you. -- ~ JohnnyMrNinja {talk} 16:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SAM Coupé binary prefixes

It looks like someone else is trying to force binary prefixes into another old computer system article that you edited a while back. Fnagaton 13:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have had earlier experience with him when he did the same to the Didaktik spectrum clone, and after my reversal a sockpuppet of sarenne undid my reversal, but eventually the page was fixed and has remained so until now. I have placed the SAM Coupé on my watchlist. Mahjongg 16:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the advice, I've also added Didaktik to my watchlist. Fnagaton 20:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
PS. Thanks for tidying up the typo in my edit. Kilibytes indeed. ;) Fnagaton 22:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Rationale for speedy deletion of Image:Xbox360 scratch.PNG

Thanks for the speedy and detailed reply. I'd like to clear up a couple of misunderstandings. First, I didn't add the WP:NFCC#10c dispute tag - that was done by our resident pestering robot, and it is a minor concern. Second, although VARA is a public broadcaster, the content it produces is protected by copyright[4], so it is not in the public domain. Whether the screencap of the scratched disk is replaceable is a separate issue. You claim that it is not replaceable by any other image of a scratched disc, but the article itself indicates that the scratched discs produced during VARA's testing were ordinary game discs damaged by the X360's drive mechanism. That is, side by side, there's nothing special which would differentiate between VARA's footage of a scratched disc and a potential free alternative photo of a similarly damaged disc. There's simply no reason to make a fair use claim on even a frame of the footage when any Wikipedian with an X360 and a disc could create a potentially superior alternative. (As an aside, this has happened to me, the 360 ate my copy of Perfect Dark Zero when I was playing the last level :( ) Regards, ˉˉanetode╦╩ 17:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I think I understand your approach, but I must disagree on one point. While your claim for using this picture in a section on VARA's investigation certainly satisfies U.S. fair use law, I don't think it complies with the strict approach prescribed by the first criterion of NFCC. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 13:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Binary prefix changes

Just a friendly warning to be on your guard for an "anonymous" IP hopping editor who is trying to force binary prefix changes into computer related articles, again. Due to the way the user edits articles, comments them and refers to old events from the previous binary prefix shenanigans current consensus is that this user is actually banned Sarenne. Please see my talk page for more information. Fnagaton 12:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning Fnagnaton, I still have watch pages on many of there articles. Ill keep on the lookout. It's crazy he is still at it though... Mahjongg 12:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Fnagaton, nobody is "IP hopping". That's just the effect of having a dynamically-assigned IP address in contrast to a static one. You make it look as if this was done on purpose to avoid a ban or disguise edits. It is not surprising that someone who cares about the IEC standard prefixes would modify the same as articles as another who cares about this. Your use of the term "binary prefix shenanigans" violates WP:NPA and WP:NPOV at the same time. Next, there is no consensus that I am Sarenne and, in fact, I've told you and your friends that I am not and have nothing to do with this user. You're supposed to back up your claims with facts before accuse someone of something especially if you do it repeatedly. Mahjongg, yes, that would probably be crazy and in fact "he" is not me. Often the most-likely (not most comfortable) explanation is the correct one. --NotSarenne 18:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
By your own admission "You're not going to ban me this way because it's child's play to circumvent such a silly ban.". You write comments like Sarenne, you edit like Sarenne, you use the same ISP as Sarenne and you attack the same editors who got Sarenne banned. Fnagaton 19:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, you threatened to ban me first. I'd say we're even. --NotSarenne 20:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually no you're wrong because I warned you for making personal attacks against someone else. Fnagaton 20:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Stating my opinion and especially my disappointment with the hostile bullying (false accusations, arbitrary reverts) is not exactly the same as a personal attack. Also you just wanted and still want to get rid of me based on your false assumption that I was User:Sarenne. --NotSarenne 20:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
You did not do that, you attacked editors who reverted you when following policy. Your editing record demonstrates you are at fault here. I have told you before to not harass me and other editors yet you continue to do so. Fnagaton 21:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Would you, please, provide some evidence? Where am I harassing you? I'm arguing with you and disagree with you. Is that harassment? I believe if you are free to publish comments about what I'm doing or what you think of me, I may very well add my 2 cents to that. That isn't harassment by definition nor is it stalking which I have been accused of by you, too. --NotSarenne 21:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
The evidence is in the link I supplied above. You are not just disagreeing, you are making untrue accusations and writing personal attacks not just against me but also against other editors. I have warned you to stop this harassment and stalking behaviour, so stop now. Fnagaton 21:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
From my perspective, you are constantly attacking me personally and you've even started a log about me. If one of us is a stalker that's certainly not me. You also wrote that I'm adding "bogus warnings to other editors talk pages". The single warning (not in the threatening sense, by the way) I wrote, isn't bogus at all. You actually added warnings about me to several of your friends' talk pages where you also repeated the false accusation against me. --NotSarenne 21:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
You are wrong because you started with the attacks and your untrue accusations when you got reverted. I am actually logging your personal attacks and actions because of your previous personal attacks against me and others. I have qarned you on your talk page to not make any more replies to me. Stop, now. Fnagaton 21:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
NotSarenne, do not mistake vigilance against disruptive editing for "stalking". Fnagton is following every allowed guideline for reporting what he is, and is certainly not a novice in that regards. You've also put warnings in both user and entry talk pages, both blatant and within other text, which is is all logged and cannot be denied. --Marty Goldberg 21:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, this is a nice little fight on my front porch so to say. Let me be clear, I do not actually care whether "NotSarenne" actually is a sockpuppet of Sarenne. I only care about NotSarenne's behavior and edits. If he really behaves like Sarenne did then he probably will be banned for the same reason Sarenne was banned, but if NotSarenne behaves reasonably (i.e. does not starts revert wars etc) then I do not see by he should be called a sockpuppet and therefore be banned. After all "the tree is recognizable by the fruit it bears" (not that I care so much about the Bible, but this passage seems to fit the bill).

To NotSarenne I can only say that the matter has already be decided in a long fight here at talk:MOSNUM, and that his chances of "winning" this debate are nil. Just look at the latest development here [5] and read the comments there and you will realize that you are fighting a lost fight. Mahjongg 12:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

NotSarenne has been banned for being a sock puppet of Sarenne. Fnagaton 18:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the update, however I followed the proceedings and was already aware of (Not)Sarenne's demise. Thanks anyway. Mahjongg 11:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
A small update regarding this problem user. Since the user has come back multiple times, most recently vandalising the current Binary Prefix proposal vote, I have started an abuse report so if you spot any other attempts to vandalise that looks like it is from Sarenne you are free to add the IPs. Fnagaton 22:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:800px-Gos1.0.1desktop.gif

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:800px-Gos1.0.1desktop.gif. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 16:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

fair use rationale provided as screenshot of a BSD licensed product. Mahjongg 16:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright problems

Hello. Concerning your contribution, People's Computer Company, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material without the permission of the author. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.digibarn.com/collections/newsletters/peoples-computer/index.html. As a copyright violation, People's Computer Company appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. People's Computer Company has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. For text material, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source, provided that it is credible.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

  • If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at Talk:People's Computer Company and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
  • If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:People's Computer Company with a link to where we can find that note.
  • If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:People's Computer Company.

However, for text content, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. —Caesura(t) 17:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern, but this was a "first draft". I will rewrite the text so that no trace of the original wording will remain, then I will remove the tag. Mahjongg 17:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Terrific. Thanks! :-) —Caesura(t) 18:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Bitte sehr :-) Mahjongg 18:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] RROD

Fixing the heatsinks on the XBOX 360 is a real way to fix the RROD. EVERYBODY who owns an XBOX 360 knows this, obviously, except you. I myself fixed my XBOX 360's RROD using 3 pennys stacked and wrapped in electrical tape. Then, placing it in a certain spot, lifting the heatsink, it allowed more room. It's the easiest fix ever and your denial of it on the XBOX 360 talk page was just plain....well for a lack of better words....retarded. Know your facts pal. I'm an XBOX 360 case modder. 69.156.176.163 (talk) 08:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you are blabbering about a "denial of it on the XBOX 360 talk page". I have written no such thing. But for the record, I have seen many times that references to the "towel trick" (as its is commonly known) were placed in the Xbox 360 articles, to be immediately removed by other editors than myself because all these editors realise that:
1) It is a dangerous kludge that will also void your warranty
2) It might break your Xbox 360 altogether (there is no guarantee that the melted solder will not make shorts, or the overheating will burn up other components such as electrolytic capacitors)
3) There is no guarantee that it will work, and if it doesn't you can't claim your warranty anymore.
4) There is no need to fix it yourself, because Microsoft has an extended warranty for this problem, and will fix it for free for you without risks
5) Wikipedia has a policy not to allow these kinds of things in its articles
Mahjongg (talk) 17:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Happy new year :)

Happy new year old chap. :) And now onto business I'm afraid. It looks like someone is trying to get one form of units (SI this time) used in MOSNUM. As I'm sure you can see this may have implications for binary prefixes. If you have time please read my contribution (and previous edits) on the subject. I've tried to put forward the idea that units in articles should take their hint from the reliable sources relevant to the article and not what a standards body says and also that Wikipedia is descriptive not prescriptive. Fnagaton 17:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Fnagaton, and a happy new year to you too. Mahjongg (talk) 18:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] PC

Common usage of the term PC needs to be discussed in the Etymology section. Alatari (talk) 00:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes perhaps we need a Etimology section in the article, perhaps we also should have seperate articles for "personal computer" and "PC", as a PC is a personal computer, but not all personal computers are PC's. Some people seem to think the two terms are interchangable, but they are not! Personal Computer is a term with a history. I see a small revert war brewing over this issue. Mahjongg (talk) 11:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:GOS Rocket desktop.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:GOS Rocket desktop.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 22:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BASIC and OS X

i saw your userboxes and i have a question. how to program in BASIC using OS X? my sister wants to learn BASIC and i dont know how to do that.. Help me please.. Σαι ( Talk) 14:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

Two dont make sense including

"In February 2008 an examination of 1040 "

But

"Xbox 360 Red Lights are known as a hardware faulty."

Yours had two, ", which does not need to be included. NimiTize 19:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

"In February 2008 an examination of 1040 ", dosent make sense. NimiTize 20:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying you have to remove anything, just in my opinon I think it souldent be added. NimiTize 21:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes? NimiTize 21:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Happy First Day of Spring!

Happy First Day of Spring!

[edit] AfD nomination of Apt:foo

I have nominated Apt:foo, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apt:foo. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. →AzaToth 22:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Note re: apt:foo

Greetings, This is just a note to inform you that your article on apt:foo has been slightly modified and included in an external project in response to it's recent afd. If you wish your article not to be included, please leave a note on my user talk page and I will remove it. Please note that docdroppers.org is separate and not a part of Wikipedia. I wish you the best of luck keeping your article on Wikipedia :)Miserablyeverafter (talk) 17:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:GOS Rocket desktop.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:GOS Rocket desktop.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. NotifyBot (talk) 14:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The image was replaced with a verion of a newer release of gOS, I re-added the image to the article.Mahjongg (talk) 15:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New MOSNUM policy to address more than just binary prefixes

Mahjongg, since you are an early opponent of Sarenne, and since you voted on a proposal to no longer routinely use the IEC prefixes (kibibytes & KiB), I thought you’d be interested to know that the best we could muster at this time is a more general principal here on MOSNUM. I’m sorry I couldn’t deliver anything better at the moment. However, I hope you will agree that it speaks to the basic principal underlying that whole debate. Greg L (talk) 03:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, the real world will decide what happens with IEC prefixes, my guess is they will quietly wither away whatever we say or do on wikipedia, so I had given up on this discussion, as long as my own articles were not vandalised, as Sarenne did. Well see what happens next. Thanks again. Mahjongg (talk) 10:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Just one webpage sums it all up nicely: [6] Mahjongg (talk) 19:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wageslave (talk · contribs)

Greetings. As you no doubt have noticed, a user by the name of Wageslave has recently been maliciously editing PlayStation, Nintendo, and Apple related articles on Wikipedia. I have almost had enough of this behaviour, and if it continues I will not hesitate to initiate an RFC about him. Here, I have compiled a short report on his POV edits since he joined. This report will be used as a basis for a future RFC, should he continue his behaviour - though I hope the very existence of this draft convinces him to stop. If you have anything to add to the draft, do not hesitate to add it. Thank you.

Regards, Frvernchanezzz (talk) 06:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, perhaps there is still justice in this world... I noted that Wageslave also made nonNPOV edits in other game systems related articles, especially after I found out he simply copied the "xbox 360 technical problems" article to "Playstation 3 technical problems", and even to "WII technical problems" articles, he even had the nerve to claim "Since its release the Playstation 3 has gained a reputation for its poor reliability and technical problems, including occurrences of total failure, where the unit becomes completely unusable.", and even "Since its release the WII has gained a reputation for its poor reliability and technical problems, including occurrences of total failure, where the unit becomes completely unusable.", probably in an attempt to "proof" that the Xbox 360 was not "worse" than these two systems, or at least to put up a smokescreen. Or perhaps it was just purely a move done out of frustration, who knows. But the nerve to do such a thing simply blew my mind, but even that did not make me aware of the blatancy of what he has been doing the last few years, as you now have shown to the world.
I mostly knew him as the person who tried to demolish the article xbox 360 technical problems using the "bleed it to death with a thousand cuts" method he seemed to have developed. He is relentlessly searching for -any- excuse he can think up to nibble away at the article he seems to have a deep hatred for, and indeed I have often wondered which master he is a "wageslave" for. I surely hope that there is a future in which I can stop fighting his vandalising edits, but I know there are many more people who hate the article and delete parts of it, but at least they are not as sneaky about it as he is, nor as persistent. By the way, i do not object to impartial criticism of the article, it deserves just as much scrutiny as any other article, and perhaps more than some, I just think wageslave is not this "impartial critic". Also, let me be clear that I do not "hate" him, I think he really has convinced himself that he is in the right about what he does, but that just makes him more troublesome. Mahjongg (talk) 10:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Straw poll vote on binary prefixes

I note that you voted on a proposed MOSNUM policy for Wikipedia to use the common binary prefixes like “kilobit” rather than the IEC prefixes (“kibibit”). Since you took an interest in the issue at that time, I thought it proper to let you know that the proposal has since morphed into a broader policy (MOSNUM #Follow current literature). A straw poll on whether the basic principle underlying that policy is sound is currently ongoing here at Talk MOSNUM #Straw poll. I hope you read the policy and vote as you see fit. Hope to see you there. Greg L (talk) 21:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Thanks Mahjongg for so quickly weighing in to state your opinion on the matter. I think Wikipedia will come across as a more professional, mainstream encyclopedia after the details have been worked out. Your vote was a big, big help in making this a reality. Greg L (talk) 00:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I am just glad I could help bringing some common sense to this discussion which seems to drag on and on by some zealots who want to impose their silly and nonsensical idea. Wikipedia is not a soapbox to advertise an uncommon idea, it should be a reflection of the real world. I hope I helped so that this pointless fight will finally be over, and common sense prevails over fanaticism. p.s. the only reason that I did not visit the talk page more regularly was that I'm just sick of the endless lack of progress to make an end to this silliness, otherwise I would have cast my vote earlier, so thanks for the hint! Mahjongg (talk) 14:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks Mahjongg. I appreciate your voting your conscience. There is another (and probably final) vote going on here at MOSNUM #Figure of merit. Greg L (talk) 21:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] wageslave RFC page

Hi. I have expanded my proposal slightly, please can you review this expansion, and if you still agree, please remove your previous "agree" and put it below the expaned bit, and if you don't, please explain. Thankyou :) Chocobogamer (talk) 12:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Minimig

I was just recommended Minimig by a friend who was into the Amiga scene may years ago. It was a pleasant surprise to see your interest in the same topic! :) Fnagaton 13:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

ah, another proof we are quite like minded!
I still have my Amiga 500, which was my favorite home computer that I brought to many a Hobby Computer Club meeting! Now I also have a few other Amiga's as part of my home computer collection, which is quite large. I have about a hundred different systems stored in a small room. Unfortunately I do not have the time to do much with my collection. Mahjongg (talk) 14:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I liked the Amiga a lot. However my first love is always going to be my Commodore 64, the way the hardware in the machine could be forced to do amazing things really appeals to my brain. :) Fnagaton 22:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I admired the chip design VIC-II of the C64, and it's SID chip, the things that gave it the ability to do these amazing things you speak of, but I also loathed other aspects of it, like the brain-dead 12K Microsoft BASIC lifted unchanged from the original PET lacking any support for the amazing hardware (peek and poke galore!) whole generations never learned to appreciate the fun of programming because of it, and the way it floppy disk drive was interfaced (A fast floppy disk connected through a slow serial interface, barely faster than the cassette deck?!) and interacted with its BASIC (Open #$,8,4, or was it open $#&,4,8 or something?), and the ugly brown "breadbox" design. The C64 is one of the very few systems I do not (want to) have, I do have a PET, and for example a plus-4 though. Also I did not care much for the company, especially not Jack Tramiel (who later went to Atari) and the way he treated Chuck Peddle, who I admired. One reason, (the other being the deep technical inferiority compared to the Amiga) why I did not like the Atari-ST is because it was Tramiels creation, and he even had the nerve to call the OS after himself, even though it was just a version of GEM. Frankly I thought the ST was a rip-off job.  :-) Mahjongg (talk) 23:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Have you got a Commodore 65 in your colection? Now that is, IMHO, a beautiful looking machine. When I took one apart I compared the design with the early generation C64 boards and the 65 is far ahead of any of the 64 boards. Fnagaton 23:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Whoa, looks like a Commodore 128 in overdrive crossed with an Amiga, Never even heard of the beast, let alone seen one, not to speak of owning one. This one I would like to add to my collection though (one can only hope). Mahjongg (talk) 23:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep on hunting and good luck. I've picked up a couple over the years. One was sold to me as not working and needed some TLC to bring it back to life. This forum is a good place to lurk and maybe find one being sold. There were two that got sold on Ebay recently as well. Fnagaton 13:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Greenbox

GThere's been a Complete rewrite of section 4 (greenbox) of the MOSNUM in the last few days. Could you give feedback and vote?

While your at it, check out the bluebox and purplebox proposals.

Thanks. Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 02:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] gOS Linux based devices

Dear friend, you are taking categorising to a pretty extreme. I myself understand categories as something that should also help find content. gOS is related with LBD and therefore I think it could be categorised so. FYI, Ubuntu Mobile and Embedded Edition sits in LBD too.--Kozuch (talk) 10:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Sigh, look at the category page itself, and you will notice that gOS would not belong there, its a category of DEVICES not of SOFTWARES, or as the page itself says "Linux based devices or Linux devices are computer appliances that are powered by Linux operating system". gOS simply does not belong in the category anymore than Ubuntu Mobile and Embedded Edition, which by the way you yourself put there! It seems no one else seems to have this interpretation of what the category should contain, because lets face it, the category is about devices, and a device is something you can hold in your hand, its NOT the software running on the device. Yes, categories are there to help find content, but this is simply obscuring the valid data there with invalid content. Ill copy this text from my home page to the talk page where it belongs.... Mahjongg (talk) 11:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)