Talk:Binary prefix/Archive 14

Violations of WP:OR
If Jeh and Kbrose are willing to debate I can take them both through the JESD100B.01 standard related to kilo/mega/giga word by word and demonstrate exactly why their assumptions are unsupported and violate WP:OR. Are you both game? By violate WP:OR I mean specifically relevant to this section in WP:OR "unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position". Fnagaton 02:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * What is the point? You will simply deflect and ignore any objections from any who disagree with you. Jeh (talk) 02:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The point is to debate the issue and improve understanding of the problem with using original research to advance a position. Instead you try to question my motives and misrepresent me. Fnagaton 02:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I've phrased many comments here in a manner intended to invite debate. All I've ever gotten from you in response are your trademark barrages of deflection, denial, and insistence that your interpretation of the referenced documents is the only one that meets WP's requirements. And in terms of editing the article you have in no case acted in a spirit of cooperation; you have simply reverted wholesale large amounts of work that happened to include things that you feel violate WP's rules. You did not confine your edits to specific statements or phrasing. No, you just reverted entirely... including much work that cannot possibly be interpreted as OR, or POV, or etc. These actions do not lead me to believe you are suddenly now interested in a real debate, so I will not be drawn into wasting time playing your game. Why don't you play someone else's game for a change? Try coming up with a wording such as I described above: one that does not misrepresent (in your opinion) JEDEC's statements re. IEC prefixes but which does not ignore them completely either. Is that so impossible? Would it be so objectionable for you to try? Jeh (talk) 03:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Not at all accurate. It is Kbrose (who started off with "These tirades by refuseniks is really getting very tiring") who insists Kbrose's reading of the document is correct without providing reliable sources to support Kbrose's claims made in the article, I pointed this out at length while citing guidelines and policy on the talk page. I then tried to edit in a spirit of cooperation by advising that obviously contentious changes are talked about here first and yet the edit history shows reverts disregarding that advice and an edit history and talk page comments about "vandalism", obviously meant as an attack. I came up with an edit that does not misrepresent JEDEC's statements and cited WP:UNDUE to support that edit, which was followed by more reverts with violations of WP:OR. I see a lot of personal attacks from you where you misrepresent me and try to question my motives, instead of entering into debate about the topic you are trying to use ad hominem and debate the poster. I have asked repeatedly for you both to stick to the topic and provide reliable sources for the assumptions in the article, none were given. Now I note you are using more ad hominem instead of sticking to the topic. Anyway, your attempts to debate the poster are off topic. The topic is: Debating the issue and improve understanding of the problem with using original research to advance a position. It is obvious, if you are unwilling or unable to stay on topic then instead of writing more ad hominem I advise you disengage and let others who want to debate the topic do so. If you are really interested in on topic debate then that's great, I'm all for it, so retract your ad hominem above and let's debate the topic. Fnagaton 03:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I say again: You do not have authority here to dictate terms of debate or to tell anyone to "disengage." Get over yourself. Jeh (talk) 04:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * When you personally attack me I have every right to ask you to stop and disengage. After giving several chances to debate the topic it has become obvious that you're just going to continue to attack the poster. I have tried to start on topic debate to remove WP:OR in the article and you have declined with replies containing personal attacks. Fnagaton 05:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:NPA is not a shield to protect you from being called on for, for example, misrepresenting material you claim to be citing, for ignoring valid arguments, for ignoring reliable sources when cited, for editing an article to support your POV and then claiming the result is NPOV, etc. Perhaps you misunderstand what a "personal attack" is. Jeh (talk) 05:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, I'm not misrepresenting any material or ignoring any valid arguments or ignoring reliable sources or adding POV to an article. I removed uncited assumptions and personal point of view from the article and cited relevant guidelines and policy and explained exactly why. The personal attacks are demonstrated above where you try to question my motives and misrepresent me. As I wrote at the start, I am willing to sit down word by word to demonstrate to you that the recent edits violate WP:OR because they include uncited WP:POV edits and do not cite relevant reliable sources. But you don't engage in on topic debate, you attack me instead. The third time of asking, will you stop personally attacking me and engage in on topic debate? Fnagaton 05:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Look at your phraseology: "I (that's you, Fnagaton) can take them (that's me and Kbrose) both through the JESD100B.01 standard related to kilo/mega/giga word by word and demonstrate exactly why their assumptions are unsupported and violate WP:OR." That's not descriptive of a "debate," you are simply promising to "prove" your point of view. Why should I or anyone else engage you in this so-called "debate" when you have already made up your mind as to the outcome? ...I suppose now you're going to say I'm "debating the poster" again. Jeh (talk) 06:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * If you think what I'm going to say is wrong then here is your chance to debate the topic and prove it infront of everyone else. Instead you're using personal attacks. Fnagaton 07:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It is a waste of time to engage in the schirades by Fnagaton. This user has a history of disruptive behavior, war editing and sock puppetry. The issues of the article don't even seem important anymore. Kbrose (talk) 06:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * (sigh) and that's how people like Fnagaton win. ("charades", just fyi.) Jeh (talk) 07:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Ad hominem from Kbrose and Jeh's "People like Fnagaton" is another personal attack. The fact is I've asked many times for you to debate the topic and not the poster. Fnagaton 07:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It is my perception that you have repeatedly demonstrated long, nay, great endurance in disputes - but perhaps I am mistaken, or perhaps you do not see yourself that way. I am willing to be corrected on that point... but I've said nothing to indicate that I felt it was a pejorative, so I don't see where this "personal attack" claim comes from. The "sigh" was simply because I think it is regrettable that many disputes on WP are resolved not by consensus but by endurance (and, on the other side, by attrition). Jeh (talk) 08:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * To correct you, I have a lot of patience when debating topics and that means I can continue a topic for a while. You have kept on debating the poster instead of keeping on topic. As you admit below with your "I can see how predicting..." comment your post is a personal attack, just because you do not assume good faith does not mean there is no good faith. I can demonstrate good faith because I am in the middle of a debate with Rwessel above. The difference is that you are not on topic whereas Rwessel is on topic. Fnagaton 10:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The record above shows that both users are refusing to debate the topic and are instead engaging in personal attacks. Fnagaton 06:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * When you have stated in no uncertain terms that you are determined to "demonstrate" to us rather than debate? Of course I refuse to "debate" on such terms. ("With reasonable men, I will reason --") You are of course completely free to explain your case, line by line and in detail, without anyone's prior approval or agreement. (Why didn't you simply do that instead of asking for permission to "demonstrate" to us?) Re WP:NPA I find nothing there to suggest that noting that your own very clear words are inconsistent with a claimed willingness to "debate" constitutes a "personal attack"; it is simply pointing out an inconsistency between your statements (less than a few hours apart, too). If you really think that that's a real, actionable "personal attack," then by all means, take it to WP:DR. Jeh (talk) 07:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Your continued misrepresentations about my intentions is a further personal attack. I asked if you wanted to take part because otherwise you could have claimed I was misrepresenting what you think or using a strawman argument. Asking you to take part means that you would have had a chance to clarify your exact claim, after which I would have rebutted it by engaging you in debate about the exact meanings of certain terms. As I already stated earlier "The point is to debate the issue and improve understanding of the problem with using original research to advance a position.". Do not continue to misrepresent what I have written. Fourth time of asking, are you willing to debate the topic and stop debating the poster? Fnagaton 07:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Your claims of "further personal attack" and "debating the poster" are simply more attempts at deflection. I'm ignoring them. I have not "misrepresented" your intention, I have merely quoted your exact words. Indeed, it is you who are misrepresenting your own statement. You said, exactly:

"If Jeh and Kbrose are willing to debate I can take them both through the JESD100B.01 standard related to kilo/mega/giga word by word and demonstrate exactly why their assumptions are unsupported and violate WP:OR."

(emphasis, of course, added.)

There is no possible way to interpret this as an invitation to "engage in debate about the exact meanings of certain terms." No, on the contrary, you are going to demonstrate exactly what everything means.

Your stated concern over a "misrepresentation" claim is also specious. How could anyone accuse you of "misrepresenting" their positions when you just said you were simply going to walk through the standard and through WP:OR? You made no mention of "representing" anything anyone else was saying, "mis-" or otherwise.

(In fact that would be the best way to do it in any case - just stick to what the JEDEC doc says and what WP:OR, etc., say, and start fresh as far as responses are concerned.)

And of course anyone would have a chance to clarify their claims whether they had previously "agreed" to take part or not. Or even if they have not previously agreed to a "debate" on your terms.

So I really don't see why you don't just do that. It seems to me you could have done that several times over in the time since you originally proposed to do it. Why you wanted to go down this do you agree to debate path remains a mystery. Just post your analysis already!

I would do the same, but I would rather simply work on a different wording and propose it. Which I'm doing, and will get back to now. I know the article is locked, but there are Sandboxes after all.

Here is an on-point question: can you conceive of the existence of any wording that would be acceptable to you while acknowledging the existence of, and quoting the contents of "Note 2" (other than the table of prefix meanings, which would be redundant, though its presence should be noted) under the entry for "MB" in JEDEC JESD100B.01 (ESD100B01.pdf)? Or do you insist on no mention of the Note at all? If the latter there is really not much point in either of us continuing. Jeh (talk) 08:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You are misrepresenting my motives and intentions again. I've stated what I meant and clarified it, do not continue to use a strawman and debate the poster. I already posted my analysis at "01:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)" you personally attacked me at "02:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)". If you think the minor point about the contents of the footnote is important enough to be included then it gives the point undue weight and needs to be corrected by something at the same point in the article to clarify the situation. Fnagaton 08:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Unless I'm missing it, I don't see an edit at "01:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)."  Rwessel (talk) 08:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * This comment.Fnagaton 09:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * My mistake. I had never looked closely enough at the dates in the history to realize that they were not UTC like the dates displayed in the sigs. Rwessel (talk) 09:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That's where I said


 * What is the point? You will simply deflect and ignore any objections from any who disagree with you. Jeh (talk) 02:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * in response to Fnagaton's

If Jeh and Kbrose are willing to debate I can take them both through the JESD100B.01 standard related to kilo/mega/giga word by word and demonstrate exactly why their assumptions are unsupported and violate WP:OR. Are you both game? By violate WP:OR I mean specifically relevant to this section in WP:OR "unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position". Fnagaton 02:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * (emphasis again added) I can see how predicting "you will simply deflect and ignore" could be construed as a PA and furthermore non-WP:AGF in most circumstances, but not here. Fnagaton's "proposal" to "debate" admits to no willingness to listen or otherwise engage in anything resembling constructive debate, only to "demonstrate exactly" why those who disagree with him are wrong. Hence he has explicitly stated that he is not going to "debate" in good faith, and so my statement is an entirely reasonable expectation of what would transpire had I "agreed."  After all there is an explicitly stated purpose there not of debating, but rather of lecturing. No thanks. I see no need in any case for any sort of formal agreement to "debate", Fnagaton's insistence on it is at best a rhetorical device. And Fnagaton's insistence that a direct quote is somehow "misrepresentation" is merely an attempt at deflection. Jeh (talk) 09:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Again you're misrepresenting my motives and not debating the topic. The eigth word in that post of mine you quoted is the word "debate" so saying that I can "demonstrate exactly" something does not in any way mean any debate would be in bad faith. As I already explained hours ago the quote is out of context and gives undue weight to a minority point of view, this misrepresents the meaning of the quote. Fnagaton 09:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Fnagaton is continuing his campaign on the JEDEC memory standards page. There I have called for an editors' opinion poll to gain consensus as to the proper reflection of content in the JEDEC standard to end this meaningless game he is playing. Debating the meaning of the document is absurd. The document is very succinct and crystal clear. If Fnagaton has a point to prove the user should state his interpretation here clearly and let other editors vote on it on be done with it. The amount of time that is wasted here with utter nonsense is astonishing and saddening. Kbrose (talk) 17:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Legal Issues section removal
While I generally approve of the recent batch of edits by kbrose (this article is still something of a mess, but it's better), I think there's some justification for retaining the discussion of the legal issues as illustrating the problems caused by the (mis)use of the decimal prefixes, and as additional justification for the binary prefixes.

I don't really agree that they'd fit better in the SI article, but if not here, then perhaps a separate article. Or perhaps merged into Timeline_of_binary_prefixes, with some references from here. Rwessel (talk) 23:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe they belong more in the article on hard drives? Again with references from here, from SI, and from the timeline article - references are cheap. Jeh (talk) 23:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that they don't fit necessarily better into the SI prefix article, and I also agree that the topic is related in a way, because the binary prefixes are a solution to this, it seems however be creating undue weight here. A separate article about the whole controversy is a better solution indeed, so this does not need to be rehashed in every article connected with these prefixes. Kbrose (talk) 23:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I reverted all of the edits by Kbrose because they contain multiple violations of WP:NPOV and WP:OR. For example where the claims about endorsement for IEC prefixes was added which are unsupported assumptions based on a mistaken reading of the relevant standards document. Until such time that Kbrose can support those edits with cold hard proof from reliable sources then those assumptions should stay out of the article. By all means edit the article to improve the formatting, just don't add unsupported assumptions or change the meaning of the article. Fnagaton 23:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The statements are clearly referenced by the very document that stated them originally. The JEDEC standard itself makes the statements. We don't need references that verify that a reference states something. It could hardly be any clearer. On the other hand your edits are unsupported. The whole thing started out with an inferior edit HERE in even worse language than the some other parts of the article, which however was already adequately stated in the article and your antics to revert to that language shows nothing but insistence on your verbage. Kbrose (talk) 00:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You are wrong because nowhere does the document say "JEDEC endorses IEC prefixes" so it only your assumption that there is endorsement and that is a ciolation of WP:OR. You have repeatedly failed to provide any reliable sources to support that asumption. To prove your claim you need to show evidence that the JEDEC really use IEC prefixes, they don't, therefore your assumption is incorrect. I challenge you to provide proof by giving reliable sources that show your assumption is true. Failure to do so means your assumption is unsupported and your edits should therefore not be in the article. Fnagaton 01:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Fnagaton, there is no requirement that anyone else accept your standards of proof, no matter how many times you write as if you are the final arbiter and no matter how many times you use your much-loved phrase "you are also wrong because" (do you have a keyboard macro for that or something?). You do not WP:OWN the article and it is not up to you to dictate terms for acceptable material therein. Re. this particular point, a quoted document is its own WP:RS for what that document says -- and by extension, for what the author (in this case JEDEC) says -- no other proof or evidence is required and such a citation is not at all WP:OR nor WP:UNDUE. Jeh (talk) 01:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "To prove your claim you need to show evidence that the JEDEC really use IEC prefixes". Sorry, but no. Now if the claim was that JEDEC requires IEC prefixes, that would be quite another matter. But JEDEC is not in a position of requiring anything; they do write and publish "standards" and "recommendations" but their members have no obligation to follow them; nor does JEDEC have any enforcement power. Evidence that a particular recommendation is not being followed is not at all evidence that the recommendation does not exist. Jeh (talk) 01:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I also think it would be much more helpful if, instead of doing a wholesale reversion of all of Kbrose's work, you could try being a little less confrontational. You could mark up specific objectionable claims with or similar, for example. You could imbed comments in the text detailing your objections. You could even try rewriting some of the material to address your objections in a more neutral way. As it is your insistence that the article remain frozen in its Fnagaton-approved state until someone satisfies your personal list of requirements for approval for any changes is really very uncooperative; it is indication that you have strong feelings of ownership of this issue. You should know that that is not acceptable. Jeh (talk) 01:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It isn't my standard of proof, it is WP:OR and WP:RS. I think Kbrose needs to be less confrontational and not re-revert wholesale unreferenced changes to the article without talking about them first, especially since they were reverted first time around and relate to a topic under discussion. The link given in the article does not state "JEDEC endorses IEC prefixes". The link given does not even imply endorsement by the simple fact that the linked document does not include top level definitions for IEC prefixes and all standards produced do not use IEC prefixes. By top level definitions I mean this: Look at the document where it defines kilo, mega or giga. You see the kilo/mega/giga in a bold heading indicating it is part of the standard. Now look for something similar for kibi/mebi/gibi, there are no bold section headings etc. This indicates kibi/mebi/gibi are not endorsed for the standard to the same extent as kilo/mega/giga. It is WP:UNDUE to try to claim this footnote is as important as the top level definitions, especially since there is no evidence to support that. Therefore it is incorrect to include that assumption in the article since it violates WP:OR to include an idea by synthesis. I give you the same challenge as Kbrose to comply with WP:RS and WP:OR and provide reliable sources to suport your claims. I do not want to see anyone ignoring WP:RS and WP:OR for the sake of their personal point of view. WP:OR sections of the article can be removed of course because removing them improves the quality of the article. Fnagaton 01:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * In short, it violates WP:OR to say "albeit endorsing binary prefixes as an alternative" because it is an "unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position" unless you can provide a reliable source that says "JEDEC endorses binary [IEC] prefixes". I challenge you Jeh and Kbrose to provide that reliable source, otherwise that claim violates WP:OR. Fnagaton 01:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The JEDEC standard defines the common usage for Mega, then explicitly states that the common usage is deprication, then presents an acceptable alternative (unless you'd care to argue that they perversely included an alternative they didn't find acceptable). The contents of a published standard are clearly the official consensus of those who publish the standard, thus they are endorsing the IEC prefixes.  It is perhaps plausible to argue that this reflects only the JEDEC 100 committee (much like you can attribute the Ethernet standard to the 802.3 committee, but not the 802 group as a whole - for example the 802.5 - token-ring - group clearly has nothing to do with that), but given the general nature of the standard it's hard to argue that it doesn't apply to the entire standards body.  If they had said the common usage is bad, and stopped there, then OK, they wouldn't be endorsing the IEC prefixes.  But they explicitly included them in their standard - by actual inclusion and *not* only a reference.


 * It is perhaps plausible to argue that it's only a weak endorsement of the IEC prefixes, but an endorsement it is. Now we can argue as to the exact status of the various bits of the entry, but most standards body rules generally define formatting as not being normative.  I don't know what JEDECs rules are, but the ISO/IEC rules are that notes are informative rather than normative unless explicitly identified, although experience has been that while that rule is fairly strictly followed for footnotes, inline notes are often considered normative.  But be that as it may, it's unclear what the practical distinction between normative and informative text is in a standard defining a term.  And in this case it makes little sense for the informative text to deprecate the normative text.  Nor is it reasonable to argue that informative text is any less an expression of the official opinion of the writers than the normative text, rather the distinction is that normative text implies a "must" rule for the users of the standard, while informative text is usually considered a "should" rule - again, this distinction is unclear in the case of a definition, although it makes some sense in the case of the *usage* of that definition by vendors of the types of devices covered by JEDEC.  Although having the deprecation in an informational section makes that more than a bit confusing (basically assuming that the deprecation is informational result in "you must use mega to mean 2**2, but you should use mega to mean 10**6"), it makes much more sense to assume all three lines are normative.  But it is plausible to argue that inclusion in informative (rather than normative) text would make for only a weak endorsement.


 * Nor is this synthesis - synthesis is pretty explicitly defined to be the combining of separate sources, I hardly think that three consecutive sentences in the same document counts.


 * Finally, this is a standard for the usage of the terms, which in the case of these terms applies most to the vendors of the relevant devices. I've seen a number of JEDEC standards, and none of the ones I've seen refer to the binary prefixes, but neither do they discuss storage capacities except in a general way (OTOH they do often talk about signaling rates and whatnot, and then always with the proper SI decimal prefixes).  IOW many, probably most, JEDEC standards documents have no reason to use the binary prefixes, since it’s not germane to their subject.  If you could point to recent JEDEC standards that fail to use the prefixes (but still (mis)use the SI prefixes to size storage devices), that would be interesting, but more in the sense of the standard not getting traction rather than a change in JEDEC's official position.


 * Please remember that you’re objecting to a statement that JEDEC endorses the IEC prefixes. That’s pretty mild.  It’s not JEDEC is demanding their use, JEDEC is requiring their use, etc., it’s an endorsement.  And given that they’ve gone to the trouble of putting the IEC prefixes in their standards document (even in the standard that defines terms used in many of their other standards, so you’d think they would be extra careful about what they put in there), it’s hard not to read that as some kind of acceptance or endorsement.


 * And I still think you reverted far more content than is justified, even if your arguments were fully accepted. Rwessel (talk) 07:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The JEDEC standard itself does not explicitly state that the common usage is deprecated. The quote in the footnote does state deprecated however that is a quote from another body and not from the JEDEC itself, ergo deprecation is not part of the explicitly stated standard.
 * Onto normative versus informative. Starting from page 1 of the document (page 9 from the front) please list the first five terms (not the definitions, just the terms) defined in the standard. I will continue with the argument once you do that.Fnagaton 08:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The point is that the JEDEC standard *includes* the quote. And they included it without qualification, in fact the JEDEC text basically agrees with the quotation.  So they presumably wanted to include the meaning of the quote.  Note for example, the definition of "address," which they got from ANSI X3.172 - they meant to define "address," but chose to use ANSI's definition (and if it isn’t an exact quote, it’s darn close).  And besides, the JEDEC statement (not IEEE quote) immediately preceding the IEEE quote is quite clearly apologetic for including the definition.  The statement: "The definitions of kilo, giga, and mega based on powers of two are included only to reflect common usage." is unequivocally a negative comment on the usage of the decimal prefixes to mean the binary values.


 * "Accumulator", "address," "address register," "arithmetic and logic unit (ALU)" and "arithmetic unit." Was there a point to that?  And my comment that even if the two notes are informative, they are *still* in the JEDEC standard by JEDEC's hand, and thus express the official position of JEDEC (or at least the standards writing part thereof).  Rwessel (talk) 08:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * They included a quote in a footnote, the JEDEC text doesn't agree with the quotation about being deprecated. Nowhere does any text rom the JEDEC in that document mention "deprecated" except in section 2.3.2, where the JEDEC explicitly say "deprecated" and it is not relevant to binary prefixes. It is also an assumption, a point of view, that the text is "apologetic" and "unequivocally a negative comment". However to support that assumption you're going to have to provide a reliable source stating that the quoted "deprecated" means "also deprecated by the JEDEC", do you have one to provide?
 * The definitions for "address" is different to the definitions for "mega" in the following way: The "address" definition contains two definitions, labelled as (1) and (2) and are part of the standard. Contrast this with other entries like bit where it also has (1) and (2) but also a separate NOTE. This NOTE is separate from defintions, meaning the NOTE section is note part of the defined standard. Do you follow that?Fnagaton 09:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There was a point to listing those, I did mention I would continue with it after you listed it. :) Now then, those terms in the standard are listed and end on page 14 (page 22 from the front), do you agree? (Again I'll continue with the argument after your reply.)Fnagaton 08:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I forgot to ask, please detail the logical steps you used to create that list of first five terms defined in the standard. Fnagaton 08:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Again, it's an inline note, not a footnote. I already commented that by IEC/ISO rules notes are informative and not normative, that rule is less than rigorously enforced for inline notes.  And informative sections are part of the standard, but with a lower level of "strength," as they are not normative.  It is unreasonable to think that an informative note does *not* represent the official position of the standard writers.  And the note defines the binary prefixes directly (not as a quote), although with reference to IEC as the source.


 * If JEDEC didn't mean to include IEEE's description of use of the binary prefixes to mean the usage binary values to be deprecated, what bit of perversity would have led them to include the quote without any qualification? They *could* have said, "IEEE says 'X', we agree except for...", but they didn't.  The presented, unqualified, a statement regarding a practice from the authority on SI prefix usage.  Are you seriously questioning whether an unqualified quotation means the same thing to the quoter as to the quotee?  They *could* have said "JEDEC deprecates the practice," and then gone one to explain why they did that, rather they just quoted the existing and carefully written statement on the subject by the authority on SI usage.


 * The definitions of general terms do, indeed, end on page 14. There are other definitions, more domain specific, beyond that.  Are you having trouble with your PDF viewer or something?  If you've got a point, make it.  If this is an attempt at the Socratic method, you're not doing it very well, and are mostly being annoying.


 * The first five terms were written in one common form of definition, and were in a section titled so as to lead one to expect definitions, which was in a document titled so as to lead one to expect definitions, thus being easily recognized as such. The table of binary prefixes ("Prefixes for binary multipliers") is another common format for definitions, one often used when a series of related terms are defined.  A similar format is used in "2.3.1 Access times" to define a variety of access times.


 * And while I really don't feel like arguing the point, the text I called "apologetic" and "unequivocally a negative comment" are such based on common English usage. Perhaps we could say instead that "The definitions of kilo, giga, and mega based on powers of two are included only to reflect common usage" indicates that JEDEC included the definitions only because of common usage, and not because they thought it was correct or valid or adequate or that they *should* be used?  In fact applying the level of hair splitting going on here, JEDEC *cannot* think that the binary definitions for the SI prefixes should be used, or that they're valid, since they explicitly stated that the *only* reason for including them was common usage, and those other reasons being conspicuously absent from the list.   Rwessel (talk) 10:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * For brevity in referring to the note (not a footnote) in question it I am going to call it Mega.Note2.


 * Now - it is true that the JEDEC text does not explicitly say "we agree with this statement of deprecation," or "we agree that the traditional use of "mega" is confusing". But nor does it say anywhere else "we agree with this" or "we recommend this", not even when they reference or use definitions from other standards. Everything in the document, included quoted and referenced material, must be assumed to be something the authors agree with, support, and recommend for adoption and use unless there is an explicit statement otherwise. It is unreasonable, indeed, it is WP:POVish to insist on a higher, er, standard of evidence of support by JEDEC for Mega.Note2 than for anything else in the standard. Or to assume that they included the quoted material even though they didn't agree with it.


 * Conversely, there is an explicit statement otherwise for "The definitions of kilo, giga, and mega based on powers of two". Mega.Note2 says they "are included only to reflect common usage." (emphasis added) If they are included only to reflect common usage, then what other reasons for inclusion are not in effect here? Well, it says in the Foreword:

The purpose of this standard is to promote the uniform use of symbols, abbreviations, terms, and definitions throughout the semiconductor industry.
 * So that's why all of these definitions of symbols and terms are here, to promote their uniform use. But Mega.Note2 says "The definitions of kilo, giga, and mega based on powers of two are included only to reflect common usage." This absolutely excludes the notion that they are included to promote their continued use (or any other reason - "only" is only admissive of one thing, and that one thing is stated as "to reflect common usage"). There is no other correct interpretation of the word "only".


 * For further confirmation, try turning it around: Would anyone write "The definitions of kilo, giga, and mega based on powers of two are included only to reflect common usage" if they meant "and we continue to recommend their use"? Would they then immediately follow that statement with statements that such usage "leads to confusion" and "is deprecated"? This interpretation of the first sentence of Mega.Note2 clearly makes no sense, not just because of the meaning of the word "only", but also it makes no sense in context with the rest of the note. It is not WP:OR to see that such a juxtaposition would be self-contradictory. That interpretation of the first sentence of Mega.Note2 must therefore be rejected.


 * The only possible interpretation of Mega.Note2 is that the powers-of-two definitions of these terms are not being promoted for continued use, that they are regarded by the authors as both confusing and deprecated (in agreement with the quoted material from IEEE), and that the binary prefixes are recommended for use with multipliers based on powers of two. Jeh (talk) 10:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No Jeh that is not the only interpretation. It is an assumption without a reliable source cited for that point of view. To both above, the key difference is between numbered notes and numbered definitions. Do you see the physical difference between the two things in the document? Fnagaton 10:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know what document you are looking at - in the one linked from the article the definitions are not numbered. Some Notes are numbered, some are not - they are only numbered when there is more than one under a given definition. I do of course see a difference in formatting but there is no defensible reason to infer from that, or from anything else, that the various Notes need any more supporting evidence than the rest of the document. After all, it says on page 2 ("Notice"):

JEDEC standards and publications contain material that has been prepared, reviewed, and approved through the JEDEC Board of Directors level and subsequently reviewed and approved by the JEDEC legal counsel.


 * There's no exclusion there nor any reason to think there is an exclusion for "Notes", numbered or otherwise. Jeh (talk) 10:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It is an assumption without reliable sources to support that theory that the notes hold as much weight as the numbered definitions. Do you have a reliable source to support that point of view? As linked in the article leads to . For example the definition of "address" has two numbered definitions. Do you see the two numbers? Fnagaton 10:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * ...oh, I see. Yes, there are a few numbered definitions, where there is more than one definition for a term (very often closely related). So what? That pattern clearly doesn't apply to numbered Notes; all of the numbered Notes apply to the term under which they appear; they are not mutually exclusive alternatives. They are simply numbered in cases where there are more than one, so I don't see why you are focusing on numbered Notes. The fact remains that the statement on page 2 is all-inclusive. There is no reason to think that the Notes, numbered or otherwise, quoted material or otherwise, are any less a part of the "material that has been prepared, reviewed, and approved through the JEDEC Board of Directors level" than anything else in the document. It does not require outside reliable sources to assume that a document, notes and all, says what it says. Rather it is WP:POV-ish to sieze on the appearance of this text in a "Note" as a reason for discounting it. Jeh (talk) 10:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It is about how the document displays information. For example the document consistently displays the "term" in bold with a separating colon before the "definition". Do you see that?Fnagaton 10:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure, I see it. Is it your contention that anything that does not have a "term" in bold with a separating colon before the "definition" is not part of the text approved by JEDEC? And if it isn't, I must ask, what is it doing in the standard? Jeh (talk) 11:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Then if, as you contend, the JEDEC want "gibi" to use used you should be able to tell me the page and line number in the linked document that shows the "term" for "gibi" in bold followed by a colon and then a definition. Can you produce that page and line number? The questions you ask are interesting but are a side point that I want to save for later. :) Fnagaton 11:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Consider the table in "2.3.1 Access times" on page 24 (36). Does the second entry define "access time from address, low-to-high-level output" or not?  Note that it does *not* bold the term or follow it with a colon.  And while the section heading is bold, it does not have a colon.  Rwessel (talk) 11:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Fnagaton, I don't accept that a term in bold followed by a colon and then a definition is the only way in which the document provides information that can be used as WP:RS. Indeed when the document says "The definitions of kilo, giga, and mega based on powers of two are included only to reflect common usage" it is saying that that definition is not to be taken as a recommendation for continued use. Is it your contention, then, that Mega.Note2 should be discounted because it contradicts the definition under which it appears? Nonsense. Mega.Note2 is providing additional information about the definition. It is saying "this entry, though it appears just like all the others here, is not really the same. It is included only due to common usage. That usage is confusing and deprecated; here is a replacement..." You are giving WP:UNDUE weight to the first lines of the entries for Mega, Kilo, and Giga. It is not up to you to decide that even though the document says that the definitions in those first lines are only there to reflect common usage, that the document is really not saying that. That is pure WP:OR on your part.


 * I also note that WP:RS makes no exceptions for notes, or for numbered notes, or for footnotes, or any other kinds of notes, nor does it give special notice to any other sort of document structure, page layout, or typography... not for dictionaries, nor for glossaries, nor for standards, nor for any other sort of document. You are giving WP:UNDUE weight to a simple matter of text formatting and you are using that as an excuse to ignore what the words say. It is up to you to find a WP:RS that supports your contention that such "Notes" can be given less weight than anything else in the document just because they are formatted differently; certainly you won't find it in WP:RS. Jeh (talk) 11:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Rwessel, as I mentioned above I am only talking about section 1 "General terms and definitions" page 1 to 14 (pages 9 to 22). It is within this section that "gibi" would appear if it was intended to be used. The word "gibi" would not appear in "2.3.1 Access times". My question to Jeh still stands, would you like to try to show the page and line number where the term "gibi" is in bold followed by a colon and then definition? The exception you seek is actually written in WP:UNDUE regarding minority points of view. You're giving undue weight to a note that contradicts the main definition of a term, given that the IEC prefixes are not commonly used and that there is no IEC prefix "term" in bold followed by a colon means the logical course of action according to WP:UNDUE is to conclude the note has less weight than the main definition. It is also WP:UNDUE to try to claim the table in a note is meant to contradict a "term" in bold followed by a colon especially when "gibi" is not listed as a "term" in bold followed by a colon and a definition.
 * Jeh, regarding the formatting you agreed and wrote "Sure, I see it" just before you could not provide the page and line number. Like I said before, it is your unsupported assumption that the note text means to deprecate or means to depart from the formatting of the rest of the section.
 * To both, those assumptions go against the evidence in the document as well. For example, if the JEDEC had really meant to deprecate mega as a prefix to units of semiconductor storage capacity they would have written this "mega(M) (as a prefix to units of semiconductor storage capacity): Deprecated, see mebi". They did not, the definitions for kilo, mega and giga all use binary common use. When the main definition for the term, the text following the colon contradicts the note then the definition has priority.Fnagaton 11:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I see no plausible reason to claim that every definition in a document of definitions, or within a single section, be in a single format. And given that the same format is used elsewhere in the same document (albeit not in the same section), and section 2 frequently uses the prevalent section 1 format it mixes it with other formats, I really don't see any justification to dismiss the definition.  It *is* in a format commonly used for definitions (and the format is used elsewhere in the document), and it's in a section of definitions in a document of definitions.  IOW, it's a definition.  The fact that the other entries in the immediate vicinity are in a different format, is irrelevant.  It may be that the definition in question is in an informative rather than a normative bit of the text, which does not change its status as a definition, but may reduce its weight.  Rwessel (talk) 21:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * To sum up: If nobody can produce page and line number from the linked docuement to show a gibi "term" in bold, followed by a colon and then the defintion then the article cannot claim that "gibi" is endorsed. Then logically since if nobody can produce similar terms for the other IEC prefixes then the article cannot say that IEC binary prefixes are endorsed. Also logically speaking if nobody can produce something in the document that says "mega(M) (as a prefix to units of semiconductor storage capacity): Deprecated, see mebi" then the article cannot claim they are deprecated.


 * But it *does* say deprecated. And while it doesn't say "see Mebi" - it then *presents* Mebi.  Rwessel (talk) 22:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No, the quote from the IEEE says "deprecated", the JEDEC do not explicitly state it is deprecated. Since it is in a note and the terms for kilo mega giga still contain the binary use then they are not deprecated. So it is illogical to assume the terms are deprecated. As shown by the newer standards published by the JEDEC they are still in use so are not deprecated. Fnagaton 09:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Now onto UNDUE. Since nobody can deny that in the real world IEC prefixes are little used then WP:UNDUE comes into play. It says "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view." i.e. since the note is in the minority point if view and the main definition is in the majority then the main definition has priority. It goes on to say: "Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view, and that it is in fact a minority view." and "Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents" and "It may also create an apparent hierarchy of fact: details in the main passage appear true and undisputed, whereas other, segregated material is deemed controversial, and therefore more likely to be false — an implication that may not be appropriate." This means that article header text must include clear explanation that IEC prefixes are in the minority point of view. I think, according to WP:UNDUE, the note is such a minority point of view that it should not be included. If someone wants to include quotes from it then according to WP:NPOV those quotes must be followed by corrective text to make it clear they are the minority point of view and what the majority point of view actually is. Fnagaton 12:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * This is simply not applicable. The actual degree of real world usage of the IEC prefixes is utterly irrelevant to whether or not JEDEC has endorsed them (or is even following its own endorsement).  Nobody is trying to claim that they're in common use (which most certainly would be a minority opinion!).  Look at the current version of the first JEDEC reference:  "Despite this, the new binary prefixes have seen limited adoption in practice; the use of K (or k), M and G as binary multipliers when denoting the capacity of solid-state memory like random access memory (RAM) remains ubiquitous industry practice,[7] and the JEDEC memory standards still define the SI prefixes kilo, mega, and giga as binary multipliers in accordance with traditional use, albeit endorsing binary prefixes as an alternative".  It specifically states that they are *not* in common use and that JEDEC still defines the traditional forms, but that JEDEC has also endorsed the IEC alternates.  And the second JEDEC reference ("JEDEC Solid State Technology Association, the semiconductor engineering standardization body of the Electronic Industries Alliance (EIA) in Standard 100B.01[6][74] continues to include definitions in the binary sense K, M and G as prefixes to units of semiconductor memory (see JEDEC memory standards).") doesn’t mention the binary prefixes at all, and only emphasizes their lack of use.  This entire debate seems to turn on whether or not the purposeful (unless you think that was some sort of accident), and unqualified, inclusion of the IEC prefixes *in* the JEDEC standard is an endorsement of the IEC prefixes or not.  It doesn't even have to be a strong endorsement, but I cannot see anyway to *not* call it some form of endorsement.  Rwessel (talk) 22:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Rwessel you wanted to see something regarding the MB/GB prefixes being used in a binary sense. Here it is, from the JEDEC web site . This document was published in Feb 2007. The JESD100 standards document was written in Dec 2002. The newer document is published at least four years after the standards document is out. You will notice that the document is for DDR2 SDRAM. The memory sizes are explicitly stated as "64 MB, 128 MB, 256 MB, 512 MB, 1 GB" in the document. The document describes memory which uses binary sizes. You will further notice that there is no MiB or GiB mentioned. Since the DDR2 document is itself written by the JEDEC then if as you claim the JESD100 calls for binary MB to be deprecated then this newer document refutes your claim. Your claim is refuted because both documents are written and published by the JEDEC. Ask yourself this question, is it more likely that a) the JEDEC ignored their own standard and used "deprecated" units, or b) that your theory about deprecation is incorrect. Logically the most simple explanation is B, of course.Fnagaton 12:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * And I already mentioned that it doesn't really matter. Rwessel (talk) 22:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course it matters. On the one hand we have the unsupported theory that the JEDEC meant to deprecate MB/GB in the binary sense. On the other hand we have the newer standard document that clearly shows the JEDEC using MB/GB in the binary sense. Fnagaton 00:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Fnagaton, you misunderstand the term "deprecate". It is not the same as an inviolate commandment to not use. Nowhere is anyone claiming that JEDEC will refuse to approve new standards that use SI prefixes with binary meanings. It simply means that continued or new use is discouraged. The two documents are therefore not in conflict. Are you also going to challenge the inclusion of IEEE's approval of binary prefixes, even though most articles in their publications do not use them? Jeh (talk) 00:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You also misunderstand and misapply WP:UNDUE. The section of WP:UNDUE that could apply here is the second paragraph, which begins "In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint." It does say there that "such pages should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite content strictly from the perspective of the minority view," and that requirement is complied with by the current version.


 * The third paragraph, which begins "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view," is also not applicable as the article is not about any dispute. It is simply about binary prefixes.


 * Your claim that "since the note is in the minority point if view and the main definition is in the majority then the main definition has priority." But the note is not distinct from the main definition. It is part of the definition. Claiming that the note says that the standard says one thing while the note it applies to says another, and that these two statements are separable and can be considered as different statements, is an interpretation that is entirely original with you. The definition of "Mega" does not end with the first note that follows, it includes the two and ends with the next definition in the document.


 * Nor is there a concept of a "minority view" within the standards document; the entire document is approved by JEDEC and there is no concept of "minority points of view" within a standard body as far as its approved standards are concerned, unless they are specifically described as such in the standard. Otherwise, everything the document says is what the standard is recommending. The text in the standard that defines "Mega" says that the traditional use of "Mega" is included "only" to document common usage - i.e. not to recommend it - that it is both confusing and deprecated, and offers the binary prefixes as alternatives. It does not say that what you call the "main definition" is a majority view and that there was dissenting opinion within JEDEC for a minority view. If that were the case it would have said so. Again, your claim that these can be considered as separate statements and not one large entry is pure WP:OR from you.


 * It is true that it does not say "the traditional usage of SI prefixes to mean binary factors should not be continued," or anything similar; but nowhere does the main article here claim that it does.


 * Your citation of WP:UNDUE is therefore inapplicable and off point, for several different reasons, each alone being sufficient and together being far more than sufficient. To the extent that WP:UNDUE does apply to this issue its requirements are already met, particularly the second note from Jimbo Wales: "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents". It is pretty difficult to claim that JEDEC is not a prominent adherent. Jeh (talk) 00:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The current version attempts to misrepresent that the JEDEC endorse something, when that is unsupported assumption. That violates WP:NPOV. The main definition is distinct from the note. The main definition takes priority over the note. The article at the very least needs to cite the newer memory standards document (after the cite of the older document) from the JEDEC and draw attention to the fact it uses MB/GB in the common binary sense. To do that would be a better example of encyclopedic writing because it includes newer more up to date information from the same source. I hope you would not disagree with adding that kind of cite to the article introduction? Fnagaton 01:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Since there are no objectios, as such I have corrected the passage to reflect the real world situation and I will add specific cites to the JEDEC site when it comes back to life after its temporary offline period. Or another editor can add the cites to the other standards published by the JEDEC, I don't mind. :) Fnagaton 09:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)