User talk:Sjenkins7000

GB vs GiB and so on
one mebibyte 1 MiB = 220 B = 1 048 576 B and one megabyte 1 MB = 106 B = 1 000 000 B so the MiB is larger and therfore does not belong in any article relating to todays computer. source.... *

 Planetary Chaos  Talk to me  16:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

we also need to use the talk page to gather a consensus to shut out the usage of GiB and so on.  Planetary Chaos  Talk to me  16:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You can help by going here Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29  Planetary Chaos  Talk to me  19:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism reversions
Please have a look at what qualifies as vandalism. You'll note that "an edit I dislike" is not mentioned. Calling good-faith changes vandalism, as here, may be considered a personal attack. Seraphimblade 10:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:VANDAL explains pretty clearly what is considered vandalism, and the criteria are very narrow, very deliberately. For example, were Sarenne blanking pages and replacing them with profanity or nonsense, or inserting such on pages at random, those edits would be vandalism. However, our current manual of style is clear-change to the binary prefixes should generally be accepted, and should most certainly not be reverted as "vandalism". Whatever you may think of a user or h(is|er) changes, if the user has a rationale for what (s)he is doing, whether you think it's right, wrong, or otherwise, it's not vandalism. Seraphimblade 10:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you're talking to AMA, and we're trying to get the backlog down there, so hopefully someone will take your case pretty shortly. (Not me, of course, as I'm a participant in the debate!) You may wish to look at Manual of Style (dates and numbers)-it already indicates that the change to binary prefixes should be accepted. As the MOS is one of the most significant guidelines on Wikipedia, anything in it already reflects a consensus and should be followed. What would be required is strong consensus to change the MOS. If you wish to do so, you're quite welcome to! However, following the existing MOS is neither vandalism nor failure to follow consensus-indeed, going against the MOS is going against consensus, as the existing MOS guidelines already reflect strong consensus. Seraphimblade 11:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I filed a request for clarification with the Arbitration Committee, as they recently ruled that community consensus must be followed until changed. The response I received was that if something was passed by consensus, it must be followed, though as there was some ambiguity as to this case, so I have requested further clarification. . However, the addition to the MOS regarding binary prefixes did pass by broad consensus: . Until and unless consensus should be reached to change this guideline, it should be considered to be a product of consensus and respected as such, even by those who may personally disagree. Seraphimblade 13:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Here are the acutal results

Request for clarification regarding Naming Conventions consensus finding
Should existing guidelines, such as those presented in the Manual of Style, be treated as a community consensus until and unless consensus is established to change them? Seraphimblade 11:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Broadly speaking, anything that matches established community practice and is relatively uncontroversial can be assumed to enjoy a community consensus, regardless of where it happens to be written down. I would be wary, however, of extending that to those points in the MoS that don't match actual community practice (and there are a few, usually on the more obscure MoS pages) unless there has been an explicit consensus that they be adopted. Kirill Lokshin 13:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * In this case, what brought the question on was a section in Manual of style (dates and numbers) on binary prefixes. This section states that the use of XiB prefixes (such as MiB) should be used rather than notation such as megabyte where the binary representation is more accurate. This guideline was adopted by consensus some time ago, but recently was disputed after a newer editor attempted to actually make the recommended changes, and those changes were reverted (in many cases while being called "vandalism".) The dispute has not reached the level of a consensus to change the guideline. Are there any recommendations for such a situation? Seraphimblade 13:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, given that the MoS doesn't appear to correspond to what article editors are actually doing in practice, it's somewhat questionable whether it (still) enjoys consensus in this case. I would suggest starting a (widely publicized—try leaving notes with the relevant WikiProjects, and on the talk pages of some prominent articles) discussion with the intent of figuring out what the MoS should say on the topic (rather than the somewhat narrower yes/no question of whether what it currently says is correct). Kirill Lokshin 13:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Will do. Thank you for your help. Seraphimblade 13:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

This can be found here. -- SWTPC6800 16:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)