User talk:Dfmclean
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Baltimore Meetup
I was thinking about it, though I was to get a gauge on how many people might be interested to start. Wildthing61476 15:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] BE vs. AE
I'm sorry, you're right. "Cancelled" is the chiefly British version. I come from a part of the US that taught me some "chiefly British" things (I spell it grey, for example) and that, coupled with some insomnia, caused the mistake. Here's the difference shown...I'll change it over to canceled right away. JHMM13(Disc) 17:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:ReturnNathanBrazilSmall.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:ReturnNathanBrazilSmall.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 20:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia meetup
As someone who may live or work near Washington D.C., you may be interested - if you've not heard already - about the meetup scheduled for Saturday, May 17th, at Union Station. For details, please see Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 4.
You are receiving this automated message because your userpage appears in Category:Wikipedians in Maryland. Melon‑Bot (STOP!) 18:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] MB vs MiB
Unfortunately, Thunderbird2, the fact that they are ambiguous ONLY matters to people who understand the subject well enough to know what MiB means in the first place. There isn't that much real difference between 200 MB and 200 MiB. Dfmclean (talk) 18:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- That is partly true. But I maintain there are likely to be readers who are confused by inconsistencies between what it says on their DVD or hard drive and what the operating system is telling them. To help these readers the articles need to be unambiguous. Do you think that the reader in question will be more confused by 512 GB (512 GiB) or by 512 GB (512 x 10243 B)? I think it is less of a distraction to the reader to supply footnotes instead along the lines of 512 GB[1]. Thunderbird2 (talk) 19:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
See also this note on Headbomb's talk page Thunderbird2 (talk) 19:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- I have heard that the Inuit language contains a whole set of words that all refer to specific types of "snow". Would you advocate disambiguating instances of the word snow with the Inuit word for the exact kind of snow? That's the crux of the problem with the IEC prefixes. They are more precise, nobody is arguing that. I personally think that, if they had been introduced 20 years ago, we would all be using them and this discussion would be moot. However, the reality is that almost nobody has heard of them and even fewer people use them. The exact method or format of the disambiguation is a little iffier. I don't think that we should be using exponential notation (and especially not powers of 1024!), we should just write out the full number. I do agree though that putting the number in a footnote is probably better. I suppose that I would be ok with 512 GB[2]. Dfmclean (talk) 20:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- Precisely. Once you accept that disambiguation is necessary, and start thinking about how to achieve it, you realise that it is not a simple problem. I suspect that different solutions may be appropriate for different articles. I also suspect that if we allow editors a reasonably free hand (but stating clear guidelines regarding criteria), eventually one style will emerge as preferred. When that happy day arrives, we should rally behind the preferred method, but we are not there yet. In the meantime we should not tackle such a difficult problem with one hand tied behind our collective back. Thunderbird2 (talk) 20:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- The consensus was clear in its support of the overall text. That's because the overall text is good. What has not been shown is that there is a consensus in favour of the deprecation, which incidentally is so strong that it is being interpreted by some as a justification for replacing MiB by MB without disambiguating by some other means. That is a retrograde step, and an irreversible one without expert human intervention. It will damage Wikipedia by introducing undesirable ambiguity. Is that really what people thought they were supporting on 7 June? I doubt it Thunderbird2 (talk) 19:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- It improves Wikipedia by using units that readers find more familiar, it is clear the consensus says the IEC prefixes are not wanted. The deprecation is part of the text, therefore it has consensus. It was discussed for about two months and voted on, twice. The fact you voted against it is irrelevant because you refused to take part in the discussion (despite Headbomb asking you many times) and since consensus is made with good reasons not by votes then your unsubstantiated point of view was discarded.Fnagaton 20:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
[edit] Seperator
-
- 200 MB and 200 MiB are not that much different???? To me a MB has always been 1024 kbytes (= 1,048,576 bytes); but there are some people who think a MB is 1,000,000 bytes; and there are some people who think it is a 1000 kbytes. If you were promised a salary of 200,048,576 dollars, but you only received 200,000,000 dollars or 200,1024,000 dollars you would notice the difference. Just because its storage, it does not mean that these differences are not very much.
