User talk:Thunderbird2

2007:". The truth is, a few of these were accounts that I created one after another - after getting blocked again to be precise. I wouldn't have created any other accounts but blocking the complete sub-network of my ISP leaves me with only a few options. Many of the blocked so-called sockpuppets, like the two above mentioned accounts, have nothing to do with me. I don't know who they are. Many of them were blocked for very little, things which clearly didn't justify indefinite blocks. Several other involved accounts behave exactly the same, if not worse, but they are not even admonished. The point isn't that it's unfair. The point is, this behaviour of the involved admins doesn't make any sense whatsoever. See also 3009:

any and all discussion. T2s editing, while in favor of XiB notation, has been relatively unbiased and civil compared to the abuse heaped upon him and other editors who would like a discussion and see what is the real consensus. The few forums in which he has raised these issues seem to me to be more attempting to get a discussion going rather than forum shopping. Rather than being tendentious, he is being tenacious in trying to get a discussion going! Since you are new to this issue, why don't you try to get a civil discussion going in

3028:

suggestion for you: If you are willing, I will describe to you the key events that led us to the situation we are now in. Then, if at the end I have failed to convince you that the present MOSNUM contains a statement for which no consensus exists, I undertake to drop the subject. What I ask of you in return is that, if I have convinced you that there is a problem in need of attention, that you help me bring it the attention of whatever forum you advise, and in whatever manner you consider appropriate. Think about it. Thanks,

2855:

might consider most logical wouldn’t be accepted by a majority, and that your arguments are unilaterally declared “weak” and therefore invalid. I have fought the same struggle at times – on dewiki we are a rather bigger group in favour of IEC prefixes, but still we have no stand. But I have found it helpful to retract your commitment once you realize that it’s unlikely you will convince anyone. At the point where a debate becomes ad hominem, it has already gone too far. The RfC flood here shows that this one has gone

3386:, they should ask for refunds on their tuitions (they won't get them, since much of their education was a bait and switch to begin with but that's another tale), then look up the Knowledge articles on those topics. As for XiB, it's a standard which hasn't caught on widely in any way, but Knowledge has articles about the notation for those readers who happen to stumble across it. Lots of proposed standards don't "take" or otherwise need a long time to wend into use, either way, this is one of them. Run an 2665:). What I would like to see is the problem discussed openly (and civilly) and a consensus reached. What is wrong with that? It seems to me that the reason why this problem goes on and on without resolution is that one or two editors do their utmost to stifle debate. I respond by making it clear that consensus has not been reached, and the result is an unhealthy stalemate. If you have any suggestions for resolving the stalemate I am all ears. I would dearly love to move on to something more fruitful :-/ 3837:

true that I would support such a change, but I am realistic enough to see there is probably no consensus for that. The reason I say "probably" is because it has never been discussed in a civil manner, so it is impossible to tell what consensus might be if it were to be discussed. What I was campaigning for was for such a civil discussion to take place, but whenever a discussion started (and there have been at least 3 different intents, by 3 different editors: Thunderbird2, Omegatron and

2944: 530:

without updating the actual numbers, and they are not commonly used prefixes. It is you who claimed you've not seen the other use but you cannot then claim that means it doesn't exist when it actually does exist. The "widespread incorrect use of the term" is fallacious because you know full well that the IEC prefixes are not in widespread use to begin with. Are you seriously trying to tell me you've never seen even one place where an IEC prefix is equated with a decimal base ten value?

3914:. That is Knowledge policy. The only exceptions to this policy are more or less meaningless as to what's been going on here. Yes, most editors, along with myself, would mostly rather talk page posts weren't pruned off by their owners, but by community consensus it's allowed and there are reasons for this. Edits removed from a page stay in the edit history. When an editor removes a post, the community consensus is that this is an acknowledgement that the post has been read. 4086: 1537:, but for it to work you need to give consensus a chance during the R and D parts. It is the frequency of changes that are making this difficult. Like I said, it’s not my opinion that matters, but the consensus of a group. It’s not just about the green box either. The frequency of the changes makes it difficult for editors to monitor changes to other parts they are interested in. Picking out the one edit that interests them is like looking for a needle in a haystack. 4030: 3781: 21: 3509:. I think given the very obvious minor use of IEC's XiB standard you should wait at least a year before even starting to write on this subject again. Then give serious thought about if the world has started to reflect what you want. If you do not stop and think then it is likely your notions will be rejected again as they have been now and you will likely face more warnings about 2989:. Although incivility isn't allowed here, if one keeps after a take on something even after consensus has spun up otherwise, the kerfluffle might stir up some mistaken incivility. Truth be told, I agree with you that XiB notation is very helpful and I wish the world would take it on, but the world hasn't done this yet and Knowledge deals with stuff like this mostly through 2451:. I was just about to do so myself, see the conversation on my talk page. The problem is that some templates accept spaces between value and unit ('3 ft' versus '3ft') as a redirect and others do not. The railway templates duplicate the convert templates, I have thought of changing them over, or at least asking the railway people if they would consider it themselves. 3418:

ten based (decimal). The other point is that anyone with a small amount of mathematical knowledge knows how to convert 2 into a number if they really want to. But ask someone who doesn't know about MiB to convert 2MiB into a number of bytes and they have much less chance because the notation system is not widely used. Also the superscript notation is one of the more

461:

in the decimal sense does happen in the real world just because you have not seen it happen does not mean it doesn't happen and also kibibyte is used by less than 1% of the real world. So actually real world consensus is against using kibibyte and because it can be incorrectly used you therefore have to accept that it is ambiguous.

1176:

units to be used then disambiguate using the exact number of bytes with power notation, like it says in MOSNUM. By the way, Greg's comment does support my case because it is basically the same as my position on this topic, i.e. use the most appropriate nomenclature which is to be found in real world sources relevant to the topic.

3325:

GB's 10 or 2 bytes. BTW, this superscript notation is one of the recommended disambiguation methods, do you think the normal Knowledge reader would have understand it. BTW, I asked a number of college graduates, sometimes readers of Knowledge to explain kilo and mega to me - they couldn't. So I suggest your question should be

3453:). I agree with both Gwen Gale and WorkingBeaver that disambiguation with exact numbers of bytes is an acceptable disambiguation method, but I challenge the assertion that it is the most widely used. In my experience, reliable sources that wish to make unambiguous statements about computer memory usually use MiB. 2807:

If the discussion had already been closed, it would appear helpful to engage with the closing admin, and get their reasoning for closure. If they choose not to respond to you in a timely fashion, find an admin whose intellect and common sense grab you and ask for their advice (which might be to start

2024:

Whoever you are, you can make things much easier for yourself by discussing and gaining consensus for your changes before you make them. It also helps if you develop a spread of interests. I understand also that so-called "single-purpose accounts" are not looked kindly upon. I am not familiar with

1623:

It certainly reads better without the uno, thanks. Regarding the remaining points, not yet spelled out (but related to promotion of non-SI units) I think it's better to address the details at MOSNUM rather than here, because it is a subject which others may have strong views on. I will make my views

1570:

The quick pace of edits is due to the large number of editors who are involved in this. The large number of editors is by design: It’s there on MOSNUM to attract a wide audience. So I don’t think there is anything we can do about a rapid pace change given that at least twelve editors have been active

1175:

It is against Knowledge policy to use your talk page to misrepresent another editor. The fact is that the units you prefer do not have consensus for use, so do not keep on pushing for them to be used. If you are really interested in reducing what you think is ambiguity rather than pushing for certain

785:

that numeric values with more than 12 digits (rare but possible) won’t work with a template. Also, he appears to be expert only in templates and it appears that {delimitnum} will require a parser function (magic word). Those are apparently written by “developers” (the programmers who make Knowledge’s

3647:

What one may think of as "getting to the pith" of an edit history may, to others with another PoV, be taken as lying. I fall into this now and then myself, reading something and saying to myself, "They're lying!" but then thinking, "This is nettlesome, but to them, it may be heavy spin, but it's not

3027:

To Gwen Gale: What you see as "tendentious editing" (undesirable), I see as an attempt to restore consensus (desirable). I completely agree with the need to respect consensus, and that is precisely the reason I feel strongly about this. I sense in your post a wish to address the problem, so have a

3008:

Gwen I really think you are mischaracterizing T2's efforts. You are now the 12 or 13 editor that believes that XiB notation is very helpful and I suspect you would agree it should not be deprecated. What is going on here is that three editors who have a passion against XiB notation are suppressing

2875:

Hello Quilbert, thanks for dropping by. I appreciate your advice, but you misinterpret my position slightly. My complaint is not that IEC prefixes are not used (that would be a perfectly legitimate position for MOSNUM to adopt), but that the consensus to not deprecate them is ignored by a small but

2542:

was directed at me, giving the false impression that I had been warned previously (the comment is directed to an anonymous editor with whom Fnagaton was holding a discussion on my talk page). The blocking admin fell for it hook, line and sinker. And there's more. He has twice claimed that I operate

2511:

here - Doug is bothered (rightfully so) by the at the BS that my answer to his question attracted. Fnagaton and GregL will not agree to mediation so under the rules the mediation request is closed. As I read the consensus guidelines, the next step might be a straw poll, but given their tactics I

1194:

I think Fnagaton might have demanded for a retraction because I lead him to an erroneous conclusion by stating “No one like’s to have another editor wade in and change someone’s work without so much as a “hello” on a talk page.” I didn’t immediately realize the distinction between “no consensus" and

631:

Excerpt from the linked mail: "The MiB (and its derivatives) was invented by hard drive manufacturers in a very lame attempt to make their drives capacity look bigger,". This guy is confused and it's easy to prove him wrong. It's not surprising though that people with that kind of fanatic view would

460:

That's not the same as what I'm saying because the metre is defined by a standard and is mostly correctly used by the vast majority. If the real world consensus for using kibibyte was of a similar strength to that using metre then your point would be valid, but it's not. Kibibyte (or KiB) being used

3983:

You haven't edited the article in question, but since you are or have been actively involved in the IEC prefix discussion (sorry to remind you of it if you, like me, got tired of the uncivil discussion and wanted to have nothing to do with the issue anymore), I invite you to consider the nomination

3417:

editing by a couple of people does not mean there is a problem with the current MoS text. Regarding superscript notation, it is easy to understand and the point about using it is that with 2 it is easy to see the system intended is the power of two system (binary) and with 10 the system intended is

3324:

There is a very reliable source that established this notation, the IEC. Everyone in this dispute agrees that the current notation is ambiguous and has caused confusion, particularly with the non-technical reader but even amongst technically competent readers - quick, without looking it up are DVD

2859:

too far … I see no chance for IEC prefixes to be accepted at this time. So if you decided to just give up on it for now, the whole atmosphere might relax a lot, there will be more free capacities for actual productiveness, and, who knows – maybe you once make friends with your present nemeses again

2648:

The way I see it is that I try to focus on one thing at a time until it is resolved. This is not yet resolved, and as a consequence of that I can imagine I might give the impression of being single-minded. If you look at my edit history you will see that I have made contributions to many articles

1551:

Finally, the sheer size of the discussion thread at Talk can sometimes be a practical problem. I sometimes can’t load the page at all (which explains some of my quieter periods), and sometimes I can’t find the part that I want to edit because it’s too deeply hidden. There is a bot that is supposed

1416:

edit warring reverts and I've given you a chance to show you respect the rules by allowing you the chance to undo your edit. My talk page is semi-protected because an anonymous IP user from your ISP who has a habit of editing on the topic of binary prefixes vandalised my talk page multiple times in

872:

to notify the others that further debate is not required and the proposal is moving forward to development. Would it be premature to post such a notice now? Things seem to be going smoothly so I don’t see the point of kicking a sleeping dragon. I’m not a regular contributor to MOSNUM and don’t know

548:

Yes, I am. Does that surprise you? Use of the kibibyte and its cousins is rare, and when they are used it is usually by a specialist who has made a deliberate choice to avoid ambiguity. That combination is likely to make incorrect use very rare indeed. Your point will become more valid once (if?)

529:

No you are incorrect because my argument does not read “The kibibyte is not in widespread use. Therefore it is ambiguous.”. My argument is as I've already said that in the real world KiB/MiB/GiB is used in the decimal sense, for example media that has been incorrectly labeled to use the neologisms

327:

I showed the potential for ambiguity above "The letters "KiB" can be used by manufacturers...". The JEDEC defines kilo as 1024 so because it is defined by a standards organisation it is not ambiguous, as you put it. So either you have to accept that KiB has the potential to be ambiguous or you have

3836:

until he finally left in desperation. Now it's my turn. You cookie is kind but not enough to persuade me to stay. Before I go I'd just like to clarify one thing: you seem to be under the impression I was campaigning for MOSNUM to support use of IEC prefixes, but that is not my intention. It is

1297:

I just wanted to ask whether you'd be willing to put the second survey on hold for a few days (temporarily deleting if you think appropriate)? My instincts are telling me that there's a chance that some approximation of a consensus might develop, if given the chance, but I don't think it can if we

1045:

The main confusion people have with the linear integral is they think of it as a re-integration of the exponential integration of sound level - as given by the dc output of a sound level meter - and therefore ascribe a time constant to it; indeed some German laws even say "Fast Leq" or "Slow Leq".

732:

Theaveng - this is wrong. 56k modems use a variant of HDLC framing (see V.42bis), which groups hundred(s) of bits together into a single frame, thus achieve an overhead of only 5% and not 20% as you mention. even for compressed / random data. the overhead you mention exists between the modem and

2854:

Hi, I don’t mean to be presumptuous here or something, but have you ever considered that your life might be more fun if you just leaned back and stopped caring about this baleful debate, at least for a while? I can understand your disappointment about the fact that the way you and I and then some

2515:

BTW, I'm sorry it was my edit that lead to your 3RR suspension; from now on I will carefully watch for unwarranted reverts by those two and support an editor trying to have a dialog. It is particularly disappointing that the administrator did not follow up on your reference to F; clearly in that

1524:

Greg, thanks for taking the trouble to drop by. The differences may all be subtle ones. I’m not sure because I find it hard to keep track of the latest version. The point about the uno is that by putting it alongside the IEC prefix you are tarring both with the same brush. In other words, the

3339:

deprecate IEC Binary prefixes about 2 months before a different group of 7 (T2 only common editor) did exactly that? Since then two of the deprecation advocates have suppressed all possible discussion including tactics such as a RfC on T2 and an allegation of Sock Puppet against me. I think if

2632:

That phrase was a conscious effort to get them to listen to what I was saying; it does not seem to have been particularly successful. You do write continually on this point; you have the right to ask once for a clarification of principle. The corollary of this is accepting the answer when given.

3539:

There was a substantial debate in the several months leading up to the April vote - I participated along with a dozen or so editors. With a clear 11-0 consensus I stopped watching the page assuming the issue was resolved. A different set of editors then chose to ignore the existing consensus,

3660:

An editor shouldn't call another editor a liar, though. Rather, show the diff, say it doesn't agree with what they say and leave it at that. As for the sockpuppetry claims, say you want either a CU or no more words. Lastly, you can remove anything you want from your talk page (but for declined

1510:. I don’t see much difference of any significance in the portion that directy addresses the IEC prefixes. What is it you would like to see changed to meet your approval? As I was proofing this post, I just now noticed the above posts. Is that horseshit what is driving you crazy at the moment? 2668:

I should clarify further that my objective is not to force my preference on others, but to achieve a wording that has consensus. It is the principle of consensus that I feel has not been upheld, which is why I feel strongly about it, and why I am prepared to continuing arguing the case.

3675:

Like you say, calling someone a liar is provocative. Like you I have never done so (here on WP I mean) and for the same reasons. Much better to say "you seem to have made a mistake". In fact to do otherwise is a clear breach of WP:AGF, and to do so repeatedly becomes harassment.

1936:, I hope these make the prefixes used "unambiguous" enough? Personally I don't think it is ambiguous to use KB/MB/GB in this article because it does state plainly enough in the article text how most of the numbers are worked out using simple arithmatic before the prefixes are used. 3504:

so "when a notation system isn't widely used or recognized by likely readers of Knowledge it shouldn't be shoved into articles by the MoS". The obvious weight of evidence, debate and consensus against what you want to happen is why Gwen Gale advises you should wait and not be

3480: 2792:

I edited them and then claimed that I had edited an archived page. In any event, it may well be that out of ignorance I have not followed correct procedure, and to that extent he would be correct. What is the correct procedure to follow to request the case be reopened?

2752:

this means that you must stop editing it, it does not mean that you can continue to keep it open forever by editing it every couple of months. It is closed and archived so do not continue to violate correct procedure by continuing to edit any of the pages. You have been

1215:

Oh, I see now. I didn't understand what you meant by it at the time, but it seemed that you were trying to help, so I just moved on. Don't let it bother you. If the debate gets too hot we always have the "real world" to escape to. That's the beauty of Knowledge :D

3632:

I have now restored the page as best I could. Regarding Fnagaton's activities, he has repeatedly accused me of dishonesty, lying and vandalism, and of having more than half a dozen sock-puppets, always without foundation. In what sense is that not harassment?

1548:, but the passion comes across sometimes as confrontation. I guess you see it as the natural cut and thrust of lively debating, but not everyone sees it that way: On at least one occasion you have Jimp's subtle diplomacy to thank for avoiding an escalation. 1015:

In earlier standards sound pressure level was correctly specified but then some said "usually called sound level"; hence for all practical purposes "sound level" and "sound pressure level" are used interchangeably although strictly speaking they are different.

3725:. I am not prepared to continue to do so while other editors are able to accuse me of lying, dishonesty, disruption, sockpuppetry and vandalism, always without foundation and always with impunity. Can you think of a single good reason why I should continue? 1532:

The discussion on my Talk page does not bother me at all - if anything it amuses me that it attracts so much interest :-) Rather, my concern at MOSNUM is (mainly) about the frequency with which changes are made to the main page. I support the principle of

3513:

behaviour. Here is an idea, in a years time before you want to write on this subject again ask Gwen Gale or myself if we think the world has changed towards supporting your notions, if we agree you can open this debate again. If we both say no then avoid

3422:

methods by reliable sources which is good enough reason to include it as a method for disambiguation. Another common method is for hard drive and chip manufacturers to write the number of bytes and I see that method is also mentioned in MoS. I agree with

3491:

it says opinions have more weight than just a vote so this is sensible. You were part of these debates about the votes in Archive_B9. I think to reference a vote when it is known there is more recent debate that rejects that vote is an example of this

3550:

The argument that XiB shouldn't be used because "when a notation system isn't widely used or recognized ..." is sort of like saying an obscure word in dictionary can't be used. Censorship, which is what this is should be offensive to all Knowledge

3077:

This is not about the notions of one editor or another, but about consensus. I thought that MOSNUM (and other pages like it) were supposed to reflect the consensus of wikipedia editors. Are you suggesting that I should stop trying to achieve that?

3917:

Anyway this is a warning, which has nothing to do with any disagreements or claims anyone has been making. This is Thunderbird's talk page. If Thunderbird removes a post and another editor puts it back, that editor may be either warned or blocked.

1069:

I agree, and would summarise as: Sound level (SL) and sound pressure level (SPL) are different quantities that are sometimes (incorrectly) used synonymously. My feeling is that the difference between SL and SPL should be explained in the article.

268:

I don’t understand your point. All I am saying that a kibibyte is defined as 1,024 bytes, because I have never seen it defined any other way. It is you who are claiming the ambiguity, so the onus is on you to show there is a second definition.

502:

Your argument seems to read: “The kibibyte is not in widespread use. Therefore it is ambiguous.” That simply doesn’t follow. It is you who claims the kibibyte is ambiguous. The onus is on you to prove it. Frequency of use is irrelevant.

881:

know that the proposal’s current (unarchived) location is being used as a reference source during the developer’s efforts. So if the proposal is marked as “resolved,” it would be helpful if it wasn’t archived until the developer is

3617:

I was trying to remove the false accusations of lying from my page (which is harassment in my opinion) and ended up removing the wrong thing in error. I will now restore the latest version of the page without these accusations.

3054:

show more folks have taken to the IEC's XiB standard (meaning it has become both more widely seen and understood), maybe you'll be able to gather a consensus for some tweaking of the MoS. Knowledge is an encyclopedia which only

3108:

I don't know. We seem to talking at cross-purposes, so I'll ask the same question in a different way: If a part of MOS or MOSNUM had been placed without establishing consensus, should that part stay or should it be removed?

2095:

I see that things have happened rather quickly over the last couple of days. I suppose it is too late to make a difference to the outcome now. For what it's worth, I find it interesting that this all night editing spree by

3936:

Ahhhhhh I see but to me it did not make sense to post a reply to a comment when the section for that comment has been removed with "rm harass" so I restored the history of comments before adding my reply to give it context.

2684: 778: 3412:

there isn't a reliable source for the use of binary IEC prefixes. I don't see any sign of this claimed 11-0 vote that would stop the current MoS being used. I do see there has been a lot of discussion on this subject and

2900:(the one that added those mysterious references to the article on SONAR) finally dropped by and posted a comment about using the term 'bioacoustics' for biomass assessment. Take a look and tell us what you think. Thanks, 135:

We both agree that disambiguation using explicit decimal or binary powers is a good thing. Where we differ is whether disambiguation using explicit binary definitions is equally good (my opinion) or not (your opinion).

1397:". This was clearly not vandalism. I would have talked to him directly but his talk page is semi-protected which makes a lot of sense because he would have removed my comment claiming either vandalism or harassment. -- 3884:

behaviour. You admit there is no consensus for such a change. You forward this idea that consensus has to meet your ideal of a "civil" discussion but your comments show you are responsible for most of the incivility.

3446: 2076:

Sorry for the delay in replying - I've been away for a few days, but I'll take a look at it now. I confess I am new to this procedure, and so am unsure what is expected. But if I can add something useful I will.

3991:

I beg you to try to keep your sentiments about the actual IEC prefix on Knowledge question out of the deletion discussion and consider the merits of the deletion proposal, namely, notability in the Knowledge sense

3661:

unblock request templates, only so you know), though many editors find it much more helpful if you don't remove stuff, other than to a clickable archive. I was only talking about what you put in the edit summary.

2291:-related articles on Knowledge. You received this invitation due to your interest in, or edits relating to or within the scope of the project. If you would like to join or just help out a bit, please visit the 1144:

Hey, no worries - you're entitled to your opinion and anyway I agree with what you wrote. In other words I see no conflict between the choice of the most appropriate nomenclature (say KB, MB, GB) and the need to

4136:. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose 803:

Hi Greg. Yes, you've done a fine job and the consensus has shifted in your favour. Persuading Tony is especially valuable because I think he knows how to contact the developers. If I were you I would ask him.

2272: 1327:

Oh dear. It's taken a life of it's own now. (Take a look at the edit history). I don't think there's any harm done - the questions were intended to explore for compromise. Shall we just watch how it develops?

995:. However, in IEC 61672 to avoid confusion, because it is exponentially integrated we called it "time-weighted sound level" (para 3.8) to differentiate it from the linear integral of time-average sound level. 753: 4017: 3166: 2490: 3802:

and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

1955:

You should report Fnagaton and his friends everytime they're edit warring and make sure you get some people to support your report. Otherwise they seem to have a white vest in front of clueless admins.

390:

By that logic, the metre is an ambiguous unit because someone somewhere might use the word to mean yard. In other words, it's not sufficient to claim that it might happen - you need to show that it

924: 3378:

If a notation system isn't widely used or recognized by likely readers of Knowledge it shouldn't be shoved into articles by the MoS. If college graduates can't tell you the difference between

1774:

You probably understand English well enough to realize that you're not telling the truth. Fnagaton wrote "If another editor comes along and puts the KB back again will you accept that edit?"

1153:

annoy me though was Fnagaton's exploitation of your comment as if it supports his case. I've just been reading his beloved JEDEC standard and it makes interesting reading. Keep a watch on

121:

The point being why disambiguate with a unit like KiB or MiB which can be ambiguous. Which is why the discussion then got around to expressing the numbers of bytes in base two or base ten.

3547:

Nothing is being "shoved into article by MoS" - an internationally recognized unambiguous notation system usage is being precluded by an MoS policy manipulated by a small group of editors.

1731:. This Fnagaton guy accused me of an "edit war" right away when he was the only one reverting and messing with my recent edits. The behavior of this guy are quite dubious, apparently his 2685: 786:

magic all possible). Do you know how we go forward? Is there someone at MOSNUM who tends to such matters and sees to it that “developer issues” are kicked up the ladder and addressed?

3050:

Since you're asking, I think you should drop this for at least six months, maybe a year. I see no hint or hope of consensus for what you want to happen. After six months or a year, if

328:

to accept that kilobyte is not ambiguous. If you accept the former then then you cannot use it for disambiguation. If you accept the latter then kilobyte does not need disambiguation.

2560: 1091: 2563:

about the block that you might want to read. I don't think it will lead anywhere because they are looking only at my actions, not Fnagaton's, and seem to see nothing unfair in that.

3710:

To Elizabeth II: Thank you for your help in cleaning up my page. I confess though that I see little point in continuing editing on Knowledge. I have contributed to en.wp and its

2326:

the heading ==WikiProject Software Announcement==. If you know someone who might be interested, please pass this message onto others by pasting this code into their talk page {{

2708: 733:

the host computer, if they are using an asyncronous serial port, and thus the host speed is usually set to the highest possible speed (115200 or more). i corrected the article.

3500:

has been warning about. You can challenge the assertion but being able to find a small number of references that use MiB does not change the conclusion that MiB is not often

4052: 1639: 738: 2768:

Fnaghton is correct here, T-bird. You need to stop doing that, as there will be repercussions if you are not willing to calm down and listen to what folk are saying. -

1802:

So he did not ask me to do anything and you are being uncivil. You are a new account making the same edits as the blocked user who also left messages on this talk page.

1345: 637: 3652:

the truth." Hence, I can't recall ever calling someone a liar on-wiki (come to think of it, it's unlikely I'd call someone a liar to their face, either, even if they

2993:. Please take this as a warning that your edits seem to be straying into disruption: You won't get very far here if you keep it up. Please think about this. Cheers, 2470:

How and where would u like my comments on yr summary of the issue? Without pride in authorship I could update yr page, or put my comments on its talk page or ????

1507: 1234: 46: 3408:

accepted by Knowledge since there are very few other sources to support the IEC and there a huge number of reliable sources showing other uses. So the answer is

1552:

to keep things neat and tidy by archiving threads older than 15 days, but if a single thread keeps growing and growing, the bot cannot accomplish its objective.

57: 51: 851: 4000: 3484: 3165:. I am very much in favour of mediation, as I believe it would lead to the civil discussion that I seek. Do you think it is possible to breathe new life into 3010: 2982: 2516:

situation he was suppressing discussion while you were trying to keep it marked. You may have technically violated the rule but he sure violated the spirit.

1127:

I had a head of steam going on my typing and so went ahead anyway. I hope you understand (why I posted anyway, as well as my position on that matter). Cheers.

2025:

the relevant policy, but I imagine there is one somewhere. In a nutshell, contribute to a range of subjects and, if you think an edit might be controversial:

4184: 1095: 1506:

is the first version you supported, right after I had revised it to address your concerns and you had made a few tweaks of your own. Please compare that to

4179: 2788:

Thank you for your interest Arcayne. It is not true that I have edited an archived page. In both occasions that Fnagaton refers to, he archived the page

2394: 3540:

restarted the debate and two or three months later overruled the prior set of editors with only one of the original 11 participating (ignoring of course,

99:

was "discussed and agreed". You can expect changes to the KB vs KiB text to be controversial, so I think the precise wording should be discussed first at

2600: 632:

sabotage or boycott it - even subconsciously. People are rarely good at things they hate. Fail causes hate and hate causes fail. It's a vicious cycle. --

3487:. In the May debate the votes in Archive_B9 were actually discussed and rejected because votes are less weighty than debate on a subject. Reading about 523: 4165: 3237:

No. I have never claimed that. But it's only one side of the coin. I thought that the whole point of consensus is that it happens after looking at

1976: 1544:, and I admire the effort and energy you put into your writing. There are times when the energy turns into passion. There's nothing wrong with that 1525:

wording (last time I checked) gives the impression that the MiB is an equally pointless unit. To gain my support you need to make clear that the MiB

1052: 96: 89: 3404:

Regarding "Is there a reliable source for the use of Binary IEC Prefixes for disambiguation?" the IEC might be "a source" but that source is not a

717:

Hi Theaveng. Thanks for taking the trouble to explain this. I see you've also included a footnote in the article. I've learnt something today :)

95:

I can't find the precise text to which you refer, but if you tell me it was discussed I believe you. However, what I meant by "discussed" in my

3223:

Do you truly think reliable sources show this notation is widely used and understood among computer users (not programmers and hardware folks)?

2808:

a new RfC, linking it to the old one). Protocol here can be a pain, but it is worth learning, as it will save your bacon more often than not. -

2622: 1910: 1837: 1811: 1789: 1765: 1503: 1195:“no discussion.” No worries then. I’m looking forward to a solution that makes sense and that everyone can abide by and feel comfortable with. 678: 641: 3894: 3854: 3531: 3470: 2964: 2696: 1780:. In reality, you have not really edited anything at all, you were just reverting edits. You're also acting like a sub-ordinate of Fnagaton. -- 902: 847: 3642: 2160: 3013:

and see what results you get. FWIW, when I tried the same I got accused of being T2s sock puppet by two of the three deprecation advocates.

2583: 2315: 2140: 2058: 1579:

place for the “current” version: the one on MOSNUM. Go take a look at it. Is it something that you would vote for now (after Tony1’s edits)?

1149:

that nomenclature. I will be happy with any outcome that permits an unambiguous definition of these terms, on that or any other page. What

3964: 3946: 3611: 3440: 3002: 2678: 1079: 70:

The letters "KiB" can be used by manufacturers in the decimal sense in exactly the same way as KB has been. Therefore KiB is also ambiguous.

3906: 3771: 3734: 3705: 3685: 3670: 3627: 3564: 3268: 3250: 3232: 3178: 3156: 3103: 3087: 3072: 3059:

the world, it's not meant as a way to shove your notions or mine or anyone else's into the world, that's what books and articles and blogs

2719: 2189: 2086: 1487: 1465: 1447: 1085: 1060: 964: 3930: 3037: 2885: 1710: 1686: 1185: 1123:

and understood your position on the matter before I started typing, I would have just stayed out of the fray. I figured out your position

981:

Take 20 times the base 10 log and you get Sound Pressure level (Para 3.3 in IEC 62672). It is expressed in decibel (dB) and the symbol is

726: 610: 584: 558: 539: 470: 403: 337: 278: 263: 249: 235: 221: 207: 173: 159: 145: 130: 112: 2837: 2823: 2802: 2601: 1286: 3399: 3135: 2876:

vocal minority. It is this disregard for consensus that I feel strongly about, as it seems to go against everything that WP stands for.

2552: 2432: 1873: 1595: 1278: 1264: 1225: 1166: 1049:

All these are scalar quantities with the 'dimension' of pressure, but Sound Intensity is a vector quantity. (It has direction as well.)

956: 833: 813: 4037: 3824:

Yes, it's only a website. What bothers me is that it's one that sets up consensus as an ideal, and then permits it to be trampled on.

3357: 3022: 2931: 2692: 2535: 2296: 1945: 1924: 1356: 1337: 1322: 1109: 35:. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else. 3522:

the world and is not a platform for you to shove your notions into the world, Gwen Gale's wise words chosen to reflect what I think.

2783: 2762: 2174: 2054: 1861: 1412:

You are wrong, I am not the one who is edit warring, you are. I reverted your change and have issued you with a 3RR warning for your

1406: 1307: 2254: 938: 702:

Thus a 56 kbit/second modem == 56000/10 bit per byte == 5600 bytes per second (after the start and stop bits are stripped). ----

2722:

violates correct procedure because the project page and the talk page are archived. You are incorrect to say in your edit comment "

2713: 3921:

Thunderbird, if you remove a post, please don't call it harassment. If you do, you may get a civility or personal attack warning.

3147:. Are you seriously suggesting there is no consensus for civil discussion? Or did you think I am asking for something different? 2418: 2123: 1651: 1633: 1564: 1206: 916: 894: 2957: 2240: 767: 601:

Amusing link (lol). Now I must reply "I have seen one example" but it doesn't alter my view that such incorrect usage is rare.

4071: 1828:

Everything you write is a lie. The truth is, you're either Fnagaton or someone acting on his behalf. Your incompetence shows. --

4115: 2228: 873:

1) what is expected of me (or someone else?) under these circumstances, and 2) what is the wise thing to do at this juncture.

747: 2479: 1671: 4012: 3972: 2595: 2205: 2107: 2018: 2010: 1656:

Could you please update your vote on the greenbox now that FCL has been split into the redbox (and also vote on the redbox)?

734: 1778: 1618: 1519: 1478:

The user 217.87.83.146 has been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours. It's clear who has been revert warring here.

927:. It ain’t over ’till it’s over though. I’m curious as to how long it takes for these things (parser functions) to be made. 4161: 4057: 2460: 1933: 633: 2047: 1965: 797: 510:

to acquire ambiguity. If, by widespread incorrect use of the term, it eventually becomes ambiguous (as happened with the

3587: 2732: 2531: 2222: 1457: 1398: 1364: 240:

The definition introduced by the IEC (standard 60027-2, third edition, p121) and adopted by IEEE (Std. 260.1-2004, p12).

4107: 3501: 2577: 2572: 2364:

You need to list the involved parties (GregL, Headbomb, etc) and notify them of the mediation link on their talk pages.

4148:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to

3911: 3141: 2726:" and then edit the archived talk because actually the project page and the talk page archive templates clearly state " 2539: 2304: 2148: 2070: 1732: 1313:

Hello. I've done what you asked. I'm curious how you think it might help though. Still, I'm happy to wait & see.

923:

Awe… never mind. Random832 answered my question first and said ‘do it.’ So I posted the notice of going to development

3162: 4033: 4022: 3321:

Gwen, I am not sure the relevance of your question - does it matter whether the notation is "widely used ..." or not?

2909: 2465: 2350: 1497: 742: 3722: 2869: 2525: 2502: 1775: 1029:, the time integral of the time-varying square of frequency-weighted sound pressure in Pascal-squared-time. Symbol E 4018: 2970: 2119: 1436: 1434: 1432: 1430: 1428: 1426: 1424: 1422: 1420: 1418: 782: 3874: 3872: 2978: 4157: 2512:

suspect Fr and DL will supress any such attempt. So, I think we should go to binding arbitration - yr thoughts?

1741:

just after Fnagaton asked him to do so. Isn't he just trying to circumvent this so called "three revert rule"? --

1298:

try to move on too quickly. My rationale isn't particularly compelling, I must admit, but it never hurts to ask!

772: 3602:

to understand what the term means here and please be careful about calling good faith edits harassment, thanks.

2547: 2217: 1677:

OK. I'll take a closer look. I'm not sure I'm ready to vote yet on the red box, but I'll update my green vote.

2613: 2292: 2279: 2127: 1706: 1667: 781:

is going well enough that it’s logical to wonder how one actually implements the basic desire. It appears from

2144: 2111: 1750: 1249: 711: 572: 3346:"Discussion is the preferred means for demonstrating problems with policies or the way they are implemented." 1580: 27: 3758:! If you need to take a break, do it, but you can always find nooks here where you're needed. Keep in mind, 2385: 2103: 2442: 2262: 2136: 3390:

on the talk page if y'all like, but think about waiting six months to see what happens in the wide world.

2642: 1970: 4153: 4076: 2986: 2891: 2131: 1906: 1807: 1761: 1738: 1390: 254:

So just because it's defined by your preferred "standards organisation" it isn't in your view ambiguous?

41: 2828:

I see. That sounds like it might be a long process, but I will consider it. Thank you for your advice.

2534:. I've been reading through Fnagaton's recent contributions and they make interesting reading. In his 2115: 1138: 1950: 1926: 3811:}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{ 3340:

discussion were opened you would find a number of editors who would support the use of IEC, after all

1529:

have a valuable role to play. I will be more specific about other concerns next time I visit MOSNUM.

80:

Conclusion: The only completely non-ambiguous disambiguation is expressing the exact number of bytes.

76:

KB is defined by the JEDEC (a standards organisation) in the binary sense and therefore not ambiguous.

2271: 2014: 752:

I wanted to give you a heads up that I’ve transplanted the most important parts from my talk page to

3458: 2327: 1999:

when I was making anonymous edits. I never used Tor. I never used multiple accounts. I don't know

3590:

is not on, they're not taken as harassment on en.Knowledge and calling them such could be seen as

3460: 3942: 3890: 3527: 3436: 2849: 2508: 2484: 2346: 1461: 1402: 850:). Things have rapidly progressed since that posting. Within eight hours, he had written up the 3988:, which I believe can fairly be said to have been created only as a hammer for the discussion. 3985: 3974: 3541: 3450: 3255:

Then I see no need for now to sway what the MoS has to say about it, anything further would be

2097: 1902: 1803: 1757: 855: 2724:

it says clearly on the article page that further discussion should take place on the talk page

667: 3845:). That is not consensus and it never will be. This is my last edit. Thank you and Good bye. 3476: 2284: 1961: 1288: 100: 3536:

I suggest that some of the points you make are not supported in the history of this debate.

2586:. Do you believe this guy? There must be something we can do to end this rain of terror. 1575:

do something to make it clearer what is the version being discussed. There will now only be

4144:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 4049: 2974: 2950: 2943: 2662: 2638: 2456: 2448: 1056: 2032:

participate in the discussion; if your arguments are reasonable, others will listen to you

1901:

You are being uncivil because you have no valid counter and that means your post is wrong.

8: 4149: 3960: 3926: 3841:), it was trampled on by a group of three editors working together (Fnagaton, Greg_L and 3791: 3767: 3701: 3666: 3607: 3488: 3454: 3395: 3264: 3228: 3131: 3123: 3099: 3068: 2998: 2990: 2236: 2213: 2185: 2066: 1869: 1833: 1785: 1746: 1728: 1233: 1046:

This is simply a mis-understanding of the maths - or "math" as Americans quaintly say.

843: 2423:

I have listed and notified the 7 named editors. I am curious to see what happens next.

4103: 3938: 3886: 3799: 3560: 3523: 3432: 3353: 3018: 2865: 2758: 2704: 2591: 2521: 2498: 2475: 2199: 2061:

isn't even convinced that DavidPaulHamilton is a sock. To me, this is plain as day. —

2003:

at all. Since then I've noticed quite a few accounts getting blocked as "sockpuppet of

1941: 1700: 1661: 1483: 1443: 1181: 707: 580: 535: 466: 333: 259: 231: 203: 155: 126: 85: 73:

KiB is claimed to be not ambiguous because it is defined by a "standards organisation".

3335:

and I suggest the answer is yes. Are you aware that a group of editors voted 11-0 to

4125: 4116: 4068: 3846: 3755: 3726: 3677: 3634: 3619: 3462: 3242: 3170: 3148: 3110: 3079: 3060: 3029: 2923: 2916: 2877: 2829: 2816: 2794: 2776: 2670: 2564: 2424: 2359: 2288: 2246: 2152: 2078: 2039: 1678: 1643: 1625: 1556: 1374: 1329: 1314: 1256: 1217: 1158: 1120: 1071: 948: 805: 718: 694: 670: 602: 550: 515: 395: 270: 241: 213: 165: 137: 104: 4098:

Appreciate yr continuing this tracking. Perhaps one day the ban will be revisited

67:

KB is "ambiguous". Why? Because manufacturers sometimes use it is the decimal sense.

4145: 4129: 3719: 3599: 3427:

that waiting six months or a year is a good idea because anything further would be

3341: 3329:"Is there a reliable source for the use of Binary IEC Prefixes for disambiguation?" 2411: 2378: 1995:. I only picked the account name after repeatedly being accused of sockpuppetry by 1957: 1718: 1614: 1591: 1515: 1274: 1245: 1201: 1133: 1104: 933: 911: 889: 828: 792: 762: 3456: 4041: 4036:

has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at

3881: 3808: 3711: 3591: 3515: 3510: 3506: 3493: 3428: 3414: 3256: 2905: 2634: 2452: 2004: 1984: 1352: 1303: 2731:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

2538:, which is pure fiction, but they believed him. Worse than that he claims that 4141: 4133: 3956: 3922: 3825: 3812: 3787: 3763: 3697: 3662: 3603: 3497: 3424: 3391: 3260: 3224: 3127: 3122:

As I've said, although one editor has said otherwise, I've seen no hint of any

3095: 3064: 2994: 2920: 2618: 2342: 2232: 2209: 2181: 2062: 1865: 1829: 1781: 1742: 1342:

Ah well, such is the wonderful world of Knowledge. I agree: no real harm done.

2491:

Knowledge:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-07-13 Manual of Style (dates and numbers)

4173: 4137: 4099: 4008: 3877: 3842: 3838: 3833: 3759: 3717: 3595: 3556: 3479:

that 11-0 vote was held in April last year. Then there was a large debate in

3387: 3349: 3014: 2897: 2861: 2755: 2700: 2658: 2608: 2587: 2517: 2494: 2471: 1996: 1980: 1938: 1724: 1696: 1657: 1534: 1480: 1440: 1389:. I reverted his edit and fixed the wrong case of the 'k'. Fnagaton promptly 1382: 1178: 1154: 1114: 703: 577: 575:. Note the bit which says "1 KiB = 1000 bytes and 1 MiB = 1000000 bytes". ;) 532: 463: 330: 256: 228: 200: 152: 123: 82: 3714: 2686:

Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive493#request for comment

1456:

Fnagaton, just apologize kindly and I'll ignore your behaviour this time. --

4065: 3693: 3586:

You can more or less remove what you like from your talk page, but calling

3405: 3051: 2809: 2769: 2000: 1992: 1860:

I've reported DavidPaulHamilton as a possible sockpuppet of Fnagaton. See

947:

Good luck with the parser development. And thanks for keeping me posted.

4085: 3993: 3829: 2627: 2400: 2367: 1610: 1587: 1511: 1270: 1241: 1196: 1128: 1099: 928: 906: 884: 823: 787: 757: 150:

Then why do you want to disambiguate using units which can be ambiguous?

4029: 2915:

Hello Yerpo. Thanks for pointing this out to me. I have replied on the

3912:

Thunderbird can remove from this talk page any post he wishes to remove

2901: 1348: 1299: 1042:

20 times the base 10 log integrated over the whole period. (para 3.11)

3518:

editing and wait for longer. Knowledge is an encyclopedia which only

2334: 3780: 4004: 1370: 669:. Still, we all make mistakes - and hopefully he learnt from his. 20: 4132:

is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Knowledge

2650: 1541: 511: 3996:), regardless of which units you believe Knowledge should use. 3795: 2330:|~~~~}} with the following heading == WikiProject Software ==. 2649:

that have nothing to do with this subject (a few examples are

1777:

and then he informs you about someone reverting your edits:

2960:

at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

699:

1 start bit + 8 data bits + 1 stop bit == 10 bits per byte.

506:

I guess it would be different if you were talking about the

2654: 2530:

Hi Tom. There's no need to apologise. The facts are that

2231:? Is your opinion similar? How do our opinions differ? — 2100:

took place immediately after you filed the original report:

2937: 666:

Yes he is certainly confused, and was also soon corrected

549:

these units are used by non-specialists. Time will tell.

1394: 1378: 3542:

Fnagaton's apparent participation as David Paul Hamilton

3140:

What I want is for MOSNUM to reflect consensus based on

1344: 4038:

the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page

2180:

That's supposed to convince us he's not a sock? :) —

1386: 991:

Now, frequency weight it (A, B, C, D or Z) and you get

4001:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/JEDEC memory standards

3094:

Why would I say you shouldn't edit through consensus?

3011:

Knowledge talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/IEC

2983:

Knowledge talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/IEC

2973:

about civility. However, you seem to be straying into

3955:

No worries at all about what's gone by, only sayin'.

2395:

Knowledge:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-07-02_Romanians

2053:

Thunderbird2, do you have anything to contribute to

1624:

known there, but I need time to compose them first.

1119:

Sorry T-bird. If I had read the goings-on better at

2736:". Note the "current talk page" actually links to " 2277:Hello Thunderbird2. You have been invited to join 1090:I just wanted to make you aware that I made a post 2744:. Also note the RfC you keep on trying to edit is 2204:I guess ANI is not the right place. I've created 1605:I removed the bit about the uno. May I count on a 4124:You appear to be eligible to vote in the current 1737:has nothing better to do than reverting edits on 4171: 164:I don't accept that the kibibyte is ambiguous. 2949:Hello, Thunderbird2. You have new messages at 1723:Hello Thunderbird2! I've read your comments on 52:Removal of KiB for disambiguation was discussed 1240:T-Bird, is this what you were hoping to see? 2860:one time. In hope for a peaceful resolution — 2584:Knowledge:Suspected_sock_puppets/Thunderbird2 2316:Knowledge:WikiProject Software/Announcement-u 2029:suggest the change and explain your reasoning 4185:Wikipedians who opt out of template messages 2602:Knowledge:Requests for comment/Thunderbird2‎ 2493:still needed? What's the current situation? 4180:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery 3807:Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{ 514:), then I will agree with you. Not before. 212:Because I am aware of only one definition. 3259:, though I'm still open to your thoughts. 2173:"This catus is the only catus that has a 2055:Knowledge:Suspected sock puppets/Fnagaton 1862:Knowledge:Suspected sock puppets/Fnagaton 1033:, units either Pahr or Pahr (para 3.12) 31:. Thunderbird2 has not edited Knowledge 2532:I reverted 3 times and Fnagaton 5 times 1020:The chain for the linear integral is:- 63:The argument goes something like this: 4172: 3880:others by misrepresenting them is not 2965:tendentious editing and forum shopping 2729:Do not edit the contents of this page. 1066:Hello 24malbec09, thanks for the note. 56:Removal of KiB for disambiguation was 2536:3RR report he claims I made 5 reverts 2206:Knowledge:Requests for comment/Greg L 1983:. I have nothing to do with them. I, 3907:everybody please read this carefully 2553:and here ... you'll like this one :) 1991:assumption of being a sockpuppet of 1086:Talk:MOSNUM: {{delimitnum}} template 965:Sound Pressure level and sound level 854:and presented it to a developer via 15: 3648:a lie, because to them, their spin 3449:. (You can ignore the vote cast by 2738:Knowledge talk:Requests for comment 852:Talk:MOSNUM {{delimitnum}} proposal 13: 3779: 3348:Right now there is no discussion. 2942: 2245:I'll take a look. May I edit it? 1756:He did not ask me to do anything. 1377:proves, the original authors used 1255:Yes, I like that. See you there. 47:/Harassment by Fnagaton and Greg_L 14: 4196: 4150:review the candidates' statements 4034:Template:Computer Storage Volumes 4023:Template:Computer Storage Volumes 3871:Removing comments you don't like 28:This user may have left Knowledge 4084: 4028: 2714:Stop violating correct prodecure 2270: 1727:. Maybe you could look at this: 1343: 969:The FORMAL chain is as follows. 19: 2507:TB2: I thought I would answer 1003:but it is usually just called L 4156:. For the Election committee, 4126:Arbitration Committee election 4117:ArbCom elections are now open! 4053:01:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC) 3999:The deletion discussion is at 2559:There's a discussion going on 2035:edit once consensus has formed 748:Trying it again at Talk:MOSNUM 1: 4166:16:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC) 3965:02:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC) 3947:02:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC) 3931:01:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC) 3895:22:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC) 3855:19:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC) 3772:19:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC) 3735:19:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC) 3706:19:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC) 3686:18:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC) 3671:18:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC) 3643:17:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC) 3628:17:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC) 3612:17:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC) 3565:19:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC) 3532:00:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC) 3471:17:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC) 3441:02:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC) 3400:23:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC) 3358:22:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC) 3269:14:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC) 3251:13:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC) 3233:13:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC) 3179:13:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC) 3157:11:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC) 3136:21:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC) 3104:18:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC) 3088:18:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC) 3073:19:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC) 3038:17:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC) 3023:17:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC) 3003:11:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC) 2932:16:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC) 2910:07:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC) 2709:17:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC) 2679:19:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC) 2643:22:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC) 2623:14:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC) 957:07:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC) 939:06:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC) 917:05:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC) 895:06:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC) 834:22:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC) 814:22:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC) 798:22:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC) 4108:00:34, 7 December 2014 (UTC) 4062:FYI, I replied to your post 4058:FYI RDP of various materials 3984:for deletion of the article 2886:17:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC) 2870:02:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC) 2838:17:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC) 2824:21:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC) 2803:17:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC) 2784:06:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC) 2763:04:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC) 2742:not the talk page you edited 2321:to the top of your talk page 2299:. You may also wish to add 2276: 1975:I assure you I know neither 768:20:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC) 727:18:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC) 712:18:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC) 679:21:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC) 642:21:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC) 611:06:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC) 585:20:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC) 559:18:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC) 540:18:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC) 524:16:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC) 471:14:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC) 404:14:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC) 338:14:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC) 279:14:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC) 264:13:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC) 250:13:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC) 236:13:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC) 222:12:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC) 208:12:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC) 174:12:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC) 160:11:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC) 146:11:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC) 131:11:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC) 113:12:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC) 90:12:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC) 7: 4152:and submit your choices on 3656:lying, it's not worth it). 3163:this post in your talk page 2987:Knowledge:Wikiquette alerts 2596:20:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC) 2573:17:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC) 2526:15:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC) 2503:18:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC) 2351:11:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC) 2295:, and add your name to the 2287:dedicated to improving the 2223:binary binary binary binary 1365:Fnagaton edit-warring again 10: 4201: 4158:MediaWiki message delivery 4072:09:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC) 2480:01:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC) 2461:17:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC) 2337:Tyw7, Leading Innovations 1911:00:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC) 1838:15:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC) 1812:15:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC) 1790:14:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC) 1766:14:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC) 1751:14:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC) 1652:21:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC) 1634:19:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC) 1619:18:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC) 1596:18:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC) 1565:12:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC) 1520:01:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC) 1488:00:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC) 1466:23:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC) 1448:22:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC) 1407:21:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC) 1357:20:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 1338:20:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 1323:20:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 1308:20:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 1279:06:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC) 1265:05:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC) 1250:00:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC) 1226:07:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC) 1207:00:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC) 1186:08:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC) 1167:22:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC) 1139:22:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC) 1110:22:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC) 1080:15:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC) 1061:11:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC) 777:T-bird, it looks like the 756:. Hope to see you there. 4083: 4013:22:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC) 3126:for what you want to do. 2466:IEC Deprecation yet again 2433:15:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC) 2419:14:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC) 2386:14:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC) 2305:User WikiProject Software 2177:that can be lite Purple." 1583:Follow current literature 1498:Follow current literature 1393:my edits with his usual " 1098:template. See you there. 1023:Sound pressure in Pascal 3850: 3730: 3681: 3638: 3623: 3598:. Please have a look at 3466: 3246: 3174: 3152: 3114: 3083: 3033: 2927: 2881: 2833: 2798: 2674: 2578:Now I'm Your Sock Puppet 2568: 2428: 2255:16:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC) 2250: 2241:15:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC) 2218:01:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC) 2190:23:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC) 2161:16:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 2156: 2087:11:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 2082: 2071:19:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC) 2048:16:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 2043: 2019:23:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 1987:, was blocked under the 1874:22:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC) 1711:15:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC) 1687:15:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC) 1682: 1672:14:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC) 1647: 1629: 1560: 1333: 1318: 1260: 1221: 1162: 1075: 1040:time-average sound level 952: 809: 743:20:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC) 722: 674: 606: 554: 519: 399: 274: 245: 217: 169: 141: 108: 2548:here, biting a newcomer 2297:list of project members 1966:18:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC) 1946:00:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC) 1925:I used your style from 1609:if I press to a vote? 773:How do we move forward? 4019:Templates for deletion 3986:JEDEC memory standards 3975:JEDEC memory standards 3784: 3588:these edits harassment 3483:. There was also this 3167:this mediation request 3063:and very worthily so. 2981:, given your posts at 2951:Theseeker4's talk page 2947: 2098:User:DavidPaulHamilton 1540:You did a good job at 1369:Please keep an eye on 860:My question to you is 571:Even specialists make 33:since 25 February 2009 4130:Arbitration Committee 4092:The Original Barnstar 3783: 2946: 2447:Thanks for reverting 2227:What do you think of 1571:on this. However, we 1289:Talk:X86 architecture 779:voting at Talk:MOSNUM 3723:nearly two years now 2663:underwater acoustics 2449:Narrow gauge railway 2443:Narrow gauge railway 2280:WikiProject Software 2263:WikiProject Software 905:this same question. 842:T-bird, I contacted 4134:arbitration process 4077:A barnstar for you! 3760:it's only a website 2975:tendentious editing 2892:Bioacoustics, again 2691:Hi, you can see it 2509:yr question to Doug 2132:this one is bizarre 1729:User_talk:TimTomTom 1555:I hope this helps. 1508:the current version 1094:regarding the new 1092:here on Talk:MOSNUM 754:here at Talk:MOSNUM 4146:arbitration policy 3798:! Cookies promote 3794:) has given you a 3785: 3594:, maybe even as a 3485:more recent debate 3161:I've just noticed 2958:remove this notice 2948: 2921:Season's Greetings 2733:current talk page. 1951:Frequent edit wars 1638:I replied further 1385:converted them to 883: 226:Definition where? 4113: 4112: 3475:According to the 3451:Fnagaton's puppet 3445:The 11-0 vote is 2821: 2781: 2641: 2607:Self-explanatory. 2357: 2356: 1971:It's a witch hunt 1903:DavidPaulHamilton 1804:DavidPaulHamilton 1758:DavidPaulHamilton 1294:Hi Thunderbird2, 1121:Talk:DEC 3000 AXP 859: 822:Will do. Thanks. 39: 38: 4192: 4088: 4081: 4080: 4047: 4032: 3052:reliable sources 2991:editor consensus 2961: 2820: 2817: 2814: 2780: 2777: 2774: 2637: 2417: 2414: 2408: 2384: 2381: 2375: 2310:to your userpage 2309: 2303: 2274: 2267: 2266: 1347: 23: 16: 4200: 4199: 4195: 4194: 4193: 4191: 4190: 4189: 4170: 4169: 4154:the voting page 4120: 4079: 4060: 4045: 4040:. Thank you. -- 4026: 3978: 3909: 3828:was hounded by 3817: 3596:personal attack 3406:reliable source 2967: 2962: 2955: 2940: 2894: 2852: 2850:Piece of advice 2818: 2810: 2778: 2770: 2716: 2689: 2635:Septentrionalis 2630: 2616: 2605: 2580: 2487: 2485:MedCab check-in 2468: 2445: 2412: 2401: 2398: 2379: 2368: 2365: 2362: 2328:Software invite 2307: 2301: 2265: 2225: 2202: 2011:202.120.139.211 2005:User:NotSarenne 1985:User:NotSarenne 1977:User:Classicaio 1973: 1953: 1930: 1721: 1500: 1367: 1292: 1238: 1157:for details :D 1117: 1088: 1032: 1010: 1006: 1000: 986: 967: 903:asked Random832 775: 750: 735:217.132.220.219 697: 54: 12: 11: 5: 4198: 4188: 4187: 4182: 4123: 4119: 4114: 4111: 4110: 4095: 4094: 4089: 4078: 4075: 4059: 4056: 4025: 4021:nomination of 4016: 3977: 3971: 3970: 3969: 3968: 3967: 3950: 3949: 3908: 3905: 3904: 3903: 3902: 3901: 3900: 3899: 3898: 3897: 3862: 3861: 3860: 3859: 3858: 3857: 3826:User:Omegatron 3804: 3778: 3777: 3776: 3775: 3774: 3750: 3749: 3748: 3747: 3746: 3745: 3744: 3743: 3742: 3741: 3740: 3739: 3738: 3737: 3696:, by the way. 3584: 3583: 3582: 3581: 3580: 3579: 3578: 3577: 3576: 3575: 3574: 3573: 3572: 3571: 3570: 3569: 3568: 3567: 3553: 3552: 3548: 3545: 3376: 3375: 3374: 3373: 3372: 3371: 3370: 3369: 3368: 3367: 3366: 3365: 3364: 3363: 3362: 3361: 3360: 3333: 3332: 3331: 3322: 3296: 3295: 3294: 3293: 3292: 3291: 3290: 3289: 3288: 3287: 3286: 3285: 3284: 3283: 3282: 3281: 3280: 3279: 3278: 3277: 3276: 3275: 3274: 3273: 3272: 3271: 3200: 3199: 3198: 3197: 3196: 3195: 3194: 3193: 3192: 3191: 3190: 3189: 3188: 3187: 3186: 3185: 3184: 3183: 3182: 3181: 3159: 3043: 3042: 3041: 3040: 2979:forum shopping 2966: 2963: 2954: 2941: 2939: 2936: 2935: 2934: 2893: 2890: 2889: 2888: 2851: 2848: 2847: 2846: 2845: 2844: 2843: 2842: 2841: 2840: 2715: 2712: 2688: 2683: 2682: 2681: 2666: 2629: 2626: 2612: 2604: 2599: 2579: 2576: 2557: 2556: 2550: 2543:a sockpuppet: 2486: 2483: 2467: 2464: 2444: 2441: 2440: 2439: 2438: 2437: 2436: 2435: 2397:for a sample. 2361: 2358: 2355: 2354: 2338: 2333: 2275: 2264: 2261: 2259: 2224: 2221: 2201: 2198: 2197: 2196: 2195: 2194: 2193: 2192: 2178: 2166: 2165: 2164: 2163: 2150: 2146: 2142: 2138: 2134: 2129: 2125: 2121: 2117: 2113: 2109: 2105: 2101: 2090: 2089: 2052: 2037: 2036: 2033: 2030: 2023: 1972: 1969: 1952: 1949: 1932:To make these 1929: 1923: 1922: 1921: 1920: 1919: 1918: 1917: 1916: 1915: 1914: 1913: 1889: 1887: 1886: 1885: 1884: 1883: 1882: 1881: 1880: 1879: 1878: 1877: 1876: 1847: 1846: 1845: 1844: 1843: 1842: 1841: 1840: 1819: 1818: 1817: 1816: 1815: 1814: 1795: 1794: 1793: 1792: 1769: 1768: 1720: 1717: 1716: 1715: 1714: 1713: 1690: 1689: 1600: 1599: 1499: 1496: 1495: 1494: 1493: 1492: 1491: 1490: 1471: 1470: 1469: 1468: 1451: 1450: 1366: 1363: 1362: 1361: 1360: 1359: 1325: 1291: 1287:2nd survey at 1285: 1284: 1283: 1282: 1281: 1237: 1232: 1231: 1230: 1229: 1228: 1210: 1209: 1191: 1190: 1189: 1188: 1170: 1169: 1116: 1113: 1096:{{delimitnum}} 1087: 1084: 1083: 1082: 1067: 1036: 1030: 1027:sound exposure 1019: 1008: 1004: 998: 984: 972:Sound Pressure 966: 963: 962: 961: 960: 959: 942: 941: 920: 919: 898: 897: 856:bugzilla:13025 839: 838: 837: 836: 817: 816: 774: 771: 749: 746: 730: 729: 696: 693: 692: 691: 690: 689: 688: 687: 686: 685: 684: 683: 682: 681: 653: 652: 651: 650: 649: 648: 647: 646: 645: 644: 634:217.87.122.179 620: 619: 618: 617: 616: 615: 614: 613: 592: 591: 590: 589: 588: 587: 564: 563: 562: 561: 543: 542: 500: 499: 498: 497: 496: 495: 494: 493: 492: 491: 490: 489: 488: 487: 486: 485: 484: 483: 482: 481: 480: 479: 478: 477: 476: 475: 474: 473: 431: 430: 429: 428: 427: 426: 425: 424: 423: 422: 421: 420: 419: 418: 417: 416: 415: 414: 413: 412: 411: 410: 409: 408: 407: 406: 363: 362: 361: 360: 359: 358: 357: 356: 355: 354: 353: 352: 351: 350: 349: 348: 347: 346: 345: 344: 343: 342: 341: 340: 302: 301: 300: 299: 298: 297: 296: 295: 294: 293: 292: 291: 290: 289: 288: 287: 286: 285: 284: 283: 282: 281: 185: 184: 183: 182: 181: 180: 179: 178: 177: 176: 116: 115: 78: 77: 74: 71: 68: 53: 50: 37: 36: 24: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4197: 4186: 4183: 4181: 4178: 4177: 4175: 4168: 4167: 4163: 4159: 4155: 4151: 4147: 4143: 4139: 4135: 4131: 4127: 4118: 4109: 4105: 4101: 4097: 4096: 4093: 4090: 4087: 4082: 4074: 4073: 4070: 4067: 4063: 4055: 4054: 4051: 4048: 4044: 4039: 4035: 4031: 4024: 4020: 4015: 4014: 4010: 4006: 4002: 3997: 3995: 3989: 3987: 3981: 3976: 3966: 3962: 3958: 3954: 3953: 3952: 3951: 3948: 3944: 3940: 3939:WorkingBeaver 3935: 3934: 3933: 3932: 3928: 3924: 3919: 3915: 3913: 3896: 3892: 3888: 3887:WorkingBeaver 3883: 3879: 3875: 3873: 3870: 3869: 3868: 3867: 3866: 3865: 3864: 3863: 3856: 3852: 3848: 3844: 3843:User:Headbomb 3840: 3839:User:Quilbert 3835: 3834:User:Fnagaton 3831: 3827: 3823: 3822: 3821: 3820: 3819: 3818: 3816: 3814: 3810: 3805: 3801: 3797: 3793: 3789: 3782: 3773: 3769: 3765: 3761: 3757: 3754: 3753: 3752: 3751: 3736: 3732: 3728: 3724: 3720: 3718: 3716: 3713: 3709: 3708: 3707: 3703: 3699: 3695: 3691: 3690: 3689: 3688: 3687: 3683: 3679: 3674: 3673: 3672: 3668: 3664: 3659: 3655: 3651: 3646: 3645: 3644: 3640: 3636: 3631: 3630: 3629: 3625: 3621: 3616: 3615: 3614: 3613: 3609: 3605: 3601: 3597: 3593: 3589: 3566: 3562: 3558: 3555: 3554: 3549: 3546: 3543: 3538: 3537: 3535: 3534: 3533: 3529: 3525: 3524:WorkingBeaver 3521: 3517: 3512: 3508: 3503: 3499: 3495: 3490: 3486: 3482: 3478: 3474: 3473: 3472: 3468: 3464: 3461: 3459: 3457: 3455: 3452: 3448: 3444: 3443: 3442: 3438: 3434: 3433:WorkingBeaver 3430: 3426: 3421: 3416: 3411: 3407: 3403: 3402: 3401: 3397: 3393: 3389: 3385: 3381: 3377: 3359: 3355: 3351: 3347: 3343: 3338: 3334: 3330: 3327: 3326: 3323: 3320: 3319: 3318: 3317: 3316: 3315: 3314: 3313: 3312: 3311: 3310: 3309: 3308: 3307: 3306: 3305: 3304: 3303: 3302: 3301: 3300: 3299: 3298: 3297: 3270: 3266: 3262: 3258: 3254: 3253: 3252: 3248: 3244: 3240: 3236: 3235: 3234: 3230: 3226: 3222: 3221: 3220: 3219: 3218: 3217: 3216: 3215: 3214: 3213: 3212: 3211: 3210: 3209: 3208: 3207: 3206: 3205: 3204: 3203: 3202: 3201: 3180: 3176: 3172: 3168: 3164: 3160: 3158: 3154: 3150: 3146: 3144: 3139: 3138: 3137: 3133: 3129: 3125: 3121: 3120: 3119: 3118: 3116: 3112: 3107: 3106: 3105: 3101: 3097: 3093: 3092: 3091: 3090: 3089: 3085: 3081: 3076: 3075: 3074: 3070: 3066: 3062: 3058: 3053: 3049: 3048: 3047: 3046: 3045: 3044: 3039: 3035: 3031: 3026: 3025: 3024: 3020: 3016: 3012: 3007: 3006: 3005: 3004: 3000: 2996: 2992: 2988: 2984: 2980: 2976: 2972: 2971:warned Greg L 2959: 2952: 2945: 2933: 2929: 2925: 2922: 2918: 2914: 2913: 2912: 2911: 2907: 2903: 2899: 2887: 2883: 2879: 2874: 2873: 2872: 2871: 2867: 2863: 2858: 2839: 2835: 2831: 2827: 2826: 2825: 2822: 2815: 2813: 2806: 2805: 2804: 2800: 2796: 2791: 2787: 2786: 2785: 2782: 2775: 2773: 2767: 2766: 2765: 2764: 2761: 2760: 2757: 2751: 2747: 2743: 2739: 2735: 2734: 2730: 2725: 2721: 2711: 2710: 2706: 2702: 2698: 2694: 2687: 2680: 2676: 2672: 2667: 2664: 2660: 2659:nautical mile 2656: 2652: 2647: 2646: 2645: 2644: 2640: 2636: 2625: 2624: 2620: 2615: 2610: 2603: 2598: 2597: 2593: 2589: 2585: 2575: 2574: 2570: 2566: 2562: 2554: 2551: 2549: 2546: 2545: 2544: 2541: 2537: 2533: 2528: 2527: 2523: 2519: 2513: 2510: 2505: 2504: 2500: 2496: 2492: 2482: 2481: 2477: 2473: 2463: 2462: 2458: 2454: 2450: 2434: 2430: 2426: 2422: 2421: 2420: 2415: 2409: 2407: 2405: 2396: 2392: 2391: 2390: 2389: 2388: 2387: 2382: 2376: 2374: 2372: 2353: 2352: 2348: 2347:Contributions 2344: 2340: 2339: 2336: 2329: 2325: 2322: 2319: 2317: 2311: 2306: 2298: 2294: 2290: 2286: 2282: 2281: 2273: 2269: 2268: 2260: 2257: 2256: 2252: 2248: 2243: 2242: 2238: 2234: 2230: 2220: 2219: 2215: 2211: 2207: 2191: 2187: 2183: 2179: 2176: 2172: 2171: 2170: 2169: 2168: 2167: 2162: 2158: 2154: 2151: 2149: 2147: 2145: 2143: 2141: 2139: 2137: 2135: 2133: 2130: 2128: 2126: 2124: 2122: 2120: 2118: 2116: 2114: 2112: 2110: 2108: 2106: 2104: 2102: 2099: 2094: 2093: 2092: 2091: 2088: 2084: 2080: 2075: 2074: 2073: 2072: 2068: 2064: 2060: 2056: 2050: 2049: 2045: 2041: 2034: 2031: 2028: 2027: 2026: 2021: 2020: 2016: 2012: 2008: 2006: 2002: 1998: 1997:User:Fnagaton 1994: 1990: 1986: 1982: 1981:User:Wittiams 1978: 1968: 1967: 1963: 1959: 1948: 1947: 1944: 1943: 1940: 1935: 1928: 1912: 1908: 1904: 1900: 1899: 1898: 1897: 1896: 1895: 1894: 1893: 1892: 1891: 1890: 1875: 1871: 1867: 1863: 1859: 1858: 1857: 1856: 1855: 1854: 1853: 1852: 1851: 1850: 1849: 1848: 1839: 1835: 1831: 1827: 1826: 1825: 1824: 1823: 1822: 1821: 1820: 1813: 1809: 1805: 1801: 1800: 1799: 1798: 1797: 1796: 1791: 1787: 1783: 1779: 1776: 1773: 1772: 1771: 1770: 1767: 1763: 1759: 1755: 1754: 1753: 1752: 1748: 1744: 1740: 1736: 1735: 1730: 1726: 1725:Talk:Bondwell 1712: 1708: 1705: 1702: 1698: 1694: 1693: 1692: 1691: 1688: 1684: 1680: 1676: 1675: 1674: 1673: 1669: 1666: 1663: 1659: 1654: 1653: 1649: 1645: 1641: 1636: 1635: 1631: 1627: 1621: 1620: 1616: 1612: 1608: 1604: 1598: 1597: 1593: 1589: 1585: 1584: 1578: 1574: 1569: 1568: 1567: 1566: 1562: 1558: 1553: 1549: 1547: 1543: 1538: 1536: 1530: 1528: 1522: 1521: 1517: 1513: 1509: 1505: 1489: 1486: 1485: 1482: 1477: 1476: 1475: 1474: 1473: 1472: 1467: 1463: 1459: 1458:217.87.83.146 1455: 1454: 1453: 1452: 1449: 1446: 1445: 1442: 1437: 1435: 1433: 1431: 1429: 1427: 1425: 1423: 1421: 1419: 1415: 1411: 1410: 1409: 1408: 1404: 1400: 1399:217.87.83.146 1396: 1392: 1388: 1384: 1383:User:Fnagaton 1380: 1376: 1372: 1358: 1354: 1350: 1346: 1341: 1340: 1339: 1335: 1331: 1326: 1324: 1320: 1316: 1312: 1311: 1310: 1309: 1305: 1301: 1295: 1290: 1280: 1276: 1272: 1268: 1267: 1266: 1262: 1258: 1254: 1253: 1252: 1251: 1247: 1243: 1236: 1227: 1223: 1219: 1214: 1213: 1212: 1211: 1208: 1205: 1203: 1198: 1193: 1192: 1187: 1184: 1183: 1180: 1174: 1173: 1172: 1171: 1168: 1164: 1160: 1156: 1155:Binary prefix 1152: 1148: 1143: 1142: 1141: 1140: 1137: 1135: 1130: 1126: 1122: 1112: 1111: 1108: 1106: 1101: 1097: 1093: 1081: 1077: 1073: 1068: 1065: 1064: 1063: 1062: 1058: 1054: 1050: 1047: 1043: 1041: 1037: 1034: 1028: 1024: 1021: 1017: 1013: 1012: 1002: 994: 989: 988: 979: 978: 975: 974:is in Pascal. 971: 958: 954: 950: 946: 945: 944: 943: 940: 937: 935: 930: 926: 922: 921: 918: 915: 913: 908: 904: 900: 899: 896: 893: 891: 886: 880: 876: 871: 867: 863: 857: 853: 849: 845: 841: 840: 835: 832: 830: 825: 821: 820: 819: 818: 815: 811: 807: 802: 801: 800: 799: 796: 794: 789: 784: 780: 770: 769: 766: 764: 759: 755: 745: 744: 740: 736: 728: 724: 720: 716: 715: 714: 713: 709: 705: 700: 680: 676: 672: 668: 665: 664: 663: 662: 661: 660: 659: 658: 657: 656: 655: 654: 643: 639: 635: 630: 629: 628: 627: 626: 625: 624: 623: 622: 621: 612: 608: 604: 600: 599: 598: 597: 596: 595: 594: 593: 586: 583: 582: 579: 574: 570: 569: 568: 567: 566: 565: 560: 556: 552: 547: 546: 545: 544: 541: 538: 537: 534: 528: 527: 526: 525: 521: 517: 513: 509: 504: 472: 469: 468: 465: 459: 458: 457: 456: 455: 454: 453: 452: 451: 450: 449: 448: 447: 446: 445: 444: 443: 442: 441: 440: 439: 438: 437: 436: 435: 434: 433: 432: 405: 401: 397: 393: 389: 388: 387: 386: 385: 384: 383: 382: 381: 380: 379: 378: 377: 376: 375: 374: 373: 372: 371: 370: 369: 368: 367: 366: 365: 364: 339: 336: 335: 332: 326: 325: 324: 323: 322: 321: 320: 319: 318: 317: 316: 315: 314: 313: 312: 311: 310: 309: 308: 307: 306: 305: 304: 303: 280: 276: 272: 267: 266: 265: 262: 261: 258: 253: 252: 251: 247: 243: 239: 238: 237: 234: 233: 230: 225: 224: 223: 219: 215: 211: 210: 209: 206: 205: 202: 197: 196: 195: 194: 193: 192: 191: 190: 189: 188: 187: 186: 175: 171: 167: 163: 162: 161: 158: 157: 154: 149: 148: 147: 143: 139: 134: 133: 132: 129: 128: 125: 120: 119: 118: 117: 114: 110: 106: 102: 98: 94: 93: 92: 91: 88: 87: 84: 75: 72: 69: 66: 65: 64: 61: 59: 49: 48: 44: 43: 34: 30: 29: 25: 22: 18: 17: 4121: 4091: 4061: 4042: 4027: 3998: 3990: 3982: 3979: 3920: 3916: 3910: 3847:Thunderbird2 3809:subst:Cookie 3806: 3786: 3727:Thunderbird2 3694:Elizabeth II 3678:Thunderbird2 3657: 3653: 3649: 3635:Thunderbird2 3620:Thunderbird2 3585: 3519: 3463:Thunderbird2 3419: 3409: 3383: 3379: 3345: 3336: 3328: 3243:Thunderbird2 3238: 3171:Thunderbird2 3149:Thunderbird2 3142: 3111:Thunderbird2 3080:Thunderbird2 3056: 3030:Thunderbird2 2968: 2924:Thunderbird2 2895: 2878:Thunderbird2 2856: 2853: 2830:Thunderbird2 2811: 2795:Thunderbird2 2789: 2771: 2754: 2749: 2745: 2741: 2737: 2728: 2727: 2723: 2717: 2690: 2671:Thunderbird2 2631: 2606: 2581: 2565:Thunderbird2 2558: 2540:this warning 2529: 2514: 2506: 2488: 2469: 2446: 2425:Thunderbird2 2403: 2402: 2370: 2369: 2363: 2335: 2331: 2323: 2320: 2313: 2300: 2293:project page 2278: 2258: 2247:Thunderbird2 2244: 2226: 2203: 2153:Thunderbird2 2079:Thunderbird2 2051: 2040:Thunderbird2 2038: 2022: 2001:User:Sarenne 1993:User:Sarenne 1988: 1974: 1954: 1937: 1931: 1888: 1733: 1722: 1703: 1679:Thunderbird2 1664: 1655: 1644:Thunderbird2 1637: 1626:Thunderbird2 1622: 1606: 1602: 1601: 1586: 1582: 1576: 1572: 1557:Thunderbird2 1554: 1550: 1545: 1539: 1531: 1526: 1523: 1501: 1479: 1439: 1413: 1375:edit history 1368: 1330:Thunderbird2 1315:Thunderbird2 1296: 1293: 1257:Thunderbird2 1239: 1218:Thunderbird2 1200: 1177: 1159:Thunderbird2 1150: 1146: 1132: 1124: 1118: 1103: 1089: 1072:Thunderbird2 1051: 1048: 1044: 1039: 1038: 1035: 1026: 1025: 1022: 1018: 1014: 1011: 996: 992: 990: 982: 980: 977: 973: 970: 968: 949:Thunderbird2 932: 910: 888: 878: 874: 869: 865: 861: 848:request here 827: 806:Thunderbird2 791: 783:Jimp’s posts 776: 761: 751: 731: 719:Thunderbird2 701: 698: 671:Thunderbird2 603:Thunderbird2 576: 551:Thunderbird2 531: 516:Thunderbird2 507: 505: 501: 462: 396:Thunderbird2 391: 329: 271:Thunderbird2 255: 242:Thunderbird2 227: 214:Thunderbird2 199: 166:Thunderbird2 151: 138:Thunderbird2 122: 105:Thunderbird2 97:edit summary 81: 79: 62: 55: 45: 40: 32: 26: 3830:User:Greg_L 3813:subst:munch 3420:widely used 2285:WikiProject 2059:User:Shalom 1958:Multiplexor 1927:these edits 1235:Third draft 993:Sound Level 846:yesterday ( 4174:Categories 4142:topic bans 3658:You likely 3496:behaviour 3145:discussion 2718:Your edit 2639:PMAnderson 2619:WP Physics 2453:Lightmouse 2200:Greg L RFC 1739:his behalf 1417:the past. 1053:24malbec09 4138:site bans 3957:Gwen Gale 3923:Gwen Gale 3878:attacking 3788:Gwen Gale 3764:Gwen Gale 3698:Gwen Gale 3663:Gwen Gale 3604:Gwen Gale 3600:WP:HARASS 3498:Gwen Gale 3489:consensus 3425:Gwen Gale 3392:Gwen Gale 3342:WP:pointy 3261:Gwen Gale 3225:Gwen Gale 3128:Gwen Gale 3124:consensus 3096:Gwen Gale 3065:Gwen Gale 2995:Gwen Gale 2969:Hi. I've 2917:talk page 2753:reverted. 2360:Mediation 2233:Omegatron 2210:Omegatron 2182:Omegatron 2063:Omegatron 1866:Omegatron 1830:TimTomTom 1782:TimTomTom 1743:TimTomTom 1373:. As the 1269:Woo-hoo! 976:Symbol Pa 882:finished. 844:Random832 695:56k modem 508:potential 101:WT:MOSNUM 58:discussed 4100:Tom94022 4069:is back! 3800:WikiLove 3715:projects 3557:Tom94022 3477:archives 3350:Tom94022 3015:Tom94022 2956:You can 2938:talkback 2898:Bmcclure 2862:Quilbert 2750:archived 2701:Quilbert 2614:κοντριβς 2609:Headbomb 2588:Tom94022 2518:Tom94022 2495:Vassyana 2472:Tom94022 2289:Software 1719:Bondwell 1707:κοντριβς 1697:Headbomb 1695:Thanks. 1668:κοντριβς 1658:Headbomb 1581:Link to 1502:T-bird, 1391:reverted 1371:Bondwell 997:Symbol L 704:Theaveng 573:mistakes 394:happen. 4066:Hunterd 3980:Hello, 3973:AfD of 3592:uncivil 3551:editors 3241:sides. 3061:are for 2812:Arcayne 2772:Arcayne 2651:decibel 2341:‍ ‍‍ ( 2332:Thanks, 2175:spieces 1934:changes 1607:Support 1542:Mac Pro 1202:my talk 1134:my talk 1105:my talk 934:my talk 912:my talk 901:I also 890:my talk 862:whether 829:my talk 793:my talk 763:my talk 512:calorie 4128:. The 4050:(talk) 3796:cookie 3712:sister 3520:echoes 3516:pointy 3511:pointy 3507:pointy 3494:pointy 3429:pointy 3415:pointy 3344:says: 3257:pointy 3057:echoes 2746:closed 2740:" and 1734:friend 1611:Greg L 1588:Greg L 1546:per se 1535:WP:BRD 1512:Greg L 1381:until 1271:Greg L 1242:Greg L 1197:Greg L 1147:define 1129:Greg L 1100:Greg L 1009:Aeq(t) 929:Greg L 907:Greg L 885:Greg L 824:Greg L 788:Greg L 758:Greg L 4046:cobra 4043:Cyber 3882:civil 3815:}}! 3721:for 3143:civil 2902:Yerpo 2896:User 2790:after 2406:levse 2373:levse 2009:]. -- 1989:false 1438:etc. 1349:Jakew 1300:Jakew 1125:after 1115:Sorry 198:Why? 42:/2007 4162:talk 4104:talk 4009:talk 4003:. -- 3994:WP:N 3961:talk 3943:talk 3927:talk 3891:talk 3876:and 3851:talk 3832:and 3792:talk 3768:talk 3731:talk 3702:talk 3692:I'm 3682:talk 3667:talk 3654:were 3639:talk 3624:talk 3608:talk 3561:talk 3528:talk 3502:used 3467:talk 3447:here 3437:talk 3396:talk 3384:mega 3382:and 3380:kilo 3354:talk 3265:talk 3247:talk 3239:both 3229:talk 3175:talk 3153:talk 3132:talk 3115:talk 3100:talk 3084:talk 3069:talk 3034:talk 3019:talk 2999:talk 2985:and 2977:and 2928:talk 2906:talk 2882:talk 2866:talk 2834:talk 2799:talk 2759:aton 2756:Fnag 2748:and 2720:here 2705:talk 2697:here 2695:and 2693:here 2675:talk 2661:and 2655:knot 2592:talk 2582:see 2569:talk 2561:here 2522:talk 2499:talk 2476:talk 2457:talk 2429:talk 2413:Talk 2393:see 2380:Talk 2343:Talk 2324:with 2312:and 2283:, a 2251:talk 2237:talk 2229:this 2214:talk 2208:. — 2186:talk 2157:talk 2083:talk 2067:talk 2044:talk 2015:talk 1979:nor 1962:talk 1942:aton 1939:Fnag 1907:talk 1870:talk 1834:talk 1808:talk 1786:talk 1762:talk 1747:talk 1701:ταλκ 1683:talk 1662:ταλκ 1648:talk 1640:here 1630:talk 1615:talk 1603:P.S. 1592:talk 1561:talk 1527:does 1516:talk 1504:here 1484:aton 1481:Fnag 1462:talk 1444:aton 1441:Fnag 1414:four 1403:talk 1353:talk 1334:talk 1319:talk 1304:talk 1275:talk 1261:talk 1246:talk 1222:talk 1182:aton 1179:Fnag 1163:talk 1076:talk 1057:talk 1007:or L 953:talk 925:here 875:P.S. 868:and 866:when 864:and 810:talk 739:talk 723:talk 708:talk 675:talk 638:talk 607:talk 581:aton 578:Fnag 555:talk 536:aton 533:Fnag 520:talk 467:aton 464:Fnag 400:talk 392:does 334:aton 331:Fnag 275:talk 260:aton 257:Fnag 246:talk 232:aton 229:Fnag 218:talk 204:aton 201:Fnag 170:talk 156:aton 153:Fnag 142:talk 127:aton 124:Fnag 109:talk 86:aton 83:Fnag 4122:Hi, 4064:]. 4005:SLi 3762:;) 3756:Yes 3481:May 3388:RfC 3337:NOT 3117:)! 2919:. 2857:way 2699:. — 2628:SPA 2489:Is 2345:● 2057:? 1577:one 1573:can 1395:rvv 1379:KiB 1151:did 1001:(t) 870:how 4176:: 4164:) 4140:, 4106:) 4011:) 3963:) 3945:) 3929:) 3893:) 3853:) 3770:) 3733:) 3704:) 3684:) 3669:) 3650:is 3641:) 3626:) 3610:) 3563:) 3544:). 3530:) 3469:) 3439:) 3431:. 3410:no 3398:) 3356:) 3267:) 3249:) 3231:) 3177:) 3169:? 3155:) 3134:) 3102:) 3086:) 3071:) 3036:) 3021:) 3001:) 2930:) 2908:) 2884:) 2868:) 2836:) 2819:() 2801:) 2779:() 2707:) 2677:) 2657:, 2653:, 2621:} 2617:– 2594:) 2571:) 2524:) 2501:) 2478:) 2459:) 2431:) 2416:• 2410:• 2399:— 2383:• 2377:• 2366:— 2349:) 2318:}} 2314:{{ 2308:}} 2302:{{ 2253:) 2239:) 2216:) 2188:) 2159:) 2085:) 2069:) 2046:) 2017:) 1964:) 1956:-- 1909:) 1872:) 1864:— 1836:) 1810:) 1788:) 1764:) 1749:) 1709:) 1685:) 1670:) 1650:) 1642:. 1632:) 1617:) 1594:) 1563:) 1518:) 1464:) 1405:) 1387:KB 1355:) 1336:) 1321:) 1306:) 1277:) 1263:) 1248:) 1224:) 1165:) 1078:) 1059:) 1005:eq 999:AT 955:) 879:do 877:I 858:. 812:) 741:) 725:) 710:) 677:) 640:) 609:) 557:) 522:) 402:) 277:) 248:) 220:) 172:) 144:) 111:) 103:. 60:. 4160:( 4102:( 4007:( 3992:( 3959:( 3941:( 3925:( 3889:( 3849:( 3790:( 3766:( 3729:( 3700:( 3680:( 3665:( 3637:( 3622:( 3606:( 3559:( 3526:( 3465:( 3435:( 3394:( 3352:( 3263:( 3245:( 3227:( 3173:( 3151:( 3130:( 3113:( 3098:( 3082:( 3067:( 3032:( 3017:( 2997:( 2953:. 2926:( 2904:( 2880:( 2864:( 2832:( 2797:( 2703:( 2673:( 2611:{ 2590:( 2567:( 2555:. 2520:( 2497:( 2474:( 2455:( 2427:( 2404:R 2371:R 2249:( 2235:( 2212:( 2184:( 2155:( 2081:( 2065:( 2042:( 2013:( 1960:( 1905:( 1868:( 1832:( 1806:( 1784:( 1760:( 1745:( 1704:· 1699:( 1681:( 1665:· 1660:( 1646:( 1628:( 1613:( 1590:( 1559:( 1514:( 1460:( 1401:( 1351:( 1332:( 1317:( 1302:( 1273:( 1259:( 1244:( 1220:( 1204:) 1199:( 1161:( 1136:) 1131:( 1107:) 1102:( 1074:( 1055:( 1031:A 987:. 985:p 983:L 951:( 936:) 931:( 914:) 909:( 892:) 887:( 831:) 826:( 808:( 795:) 790:( 765:) 760:( 737:( 721:( 706:( 673:( 636:( 605:( 553:( 518:( 398:( 273:( 244:( 216:( 168:( 140:( 107:(

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index