User talk:Jeh/Archives/2017/01

Happy New Year, Jeh!

Happy New Year!

Jeh,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Codename Lisa (talk) 06:55, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

S-video

Why r u threatening me with the three revert rule? And you revert undid a lot of imprtant fixes. u are bit too trigger happy on the undoing. 203.173.186.159 (talk) 07:57, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Please discuss the deletions you want to make at the article talk page, not here. Jeh (talk) 08:54, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

The discussion about my edits is not needed. They are very minor and very straightforward. The issue here is the quality of your editing which is something that needs discussion on your talk page. 203.173.186.159 (talk) 22:10, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

If you think your deletions are justified, please provide the justification on the article talk page. Your declaration that "discussion about my edits is not needed" is insufficient, as your edits have been challenged. Jeh (talk) 23:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

RfC opened at Wikipedia talk:User categories#Request for comment on our proposed policy for users remaining in redlinked categories

As a participant in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 December 22#Category:People paid by Big Pharma to schill and related discussions, you may be interested in participating in the RfC that addresses one of the main issues brought up in that discussion. Thanks, VegaDark (talk) 22:58, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Swiftly and certainly sorted! Cheers. O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 19:38, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Slow down please.

When I changed IBM 7090 I provided a rationale and links, which you mostly ignored. Instead you picked on one detail of my argument you considered incorrect (and even there you missed my point) and used that to justify a revert. Please give more thought to your reverts, and consider *all* arguments and evidence offered. This is how unnecessary edit wars start. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 20:08, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Although you're trying to frame it as a comment on my editing style, the root issue here is "should the article use '32K' to mean 32,768 or not?" As such, this is a discussion about article content. It should take place on the article talk page, not here.

Now, about your editing style: Please refer to WP:BRD. That's short for Bold, Revert, Discuss. It is not BRRD. You were Bold, I Reverted. You are not supposed to re-revert to your preferred version. Your next step should have been for you to Discuss - at the article talk page. Reverting to your preferred version after you've been reverted once: that is how edit wars start.

Now let's talk about your assumptions about me.

I didn't "ignore" your links. Or even "mostly ignore". I'm well aware of their contents, and that "K" does not mean 1024 in the SI system of units and prefixes.

(Beware the fallacy of "if only you'd read my links, you'd agree with me", and its corollary, "since you don't agree with me you must not have read my links.")

However, on Wikipedia, as per WP:COMPUNITS (part of our house style), we do indeed use "K" for 1024 when referring to size of RAM and similar computer memories - which would include the core used on the 7090.

In short, on Wikipedia, the "K" prefix absolutely does mean 1024 in these contexts. (And we would use "k", lowercase, for 1000.)

That's why I reverted you. I didn't ignore or fail to consider your declaration that "K does not mean 1024". Rather, your declaration is flatly contrary to our house style, and is the reason I reverted.

And even though I pointed you to our house style, you re-reverted anyway.

Note that it doesn't matter if you agree with MOS or not, or if MOS disagrees with e.g. ISO/IEC IEC 80000-13:2008. MOS sets the rules here. The COMPUNITS section of MOS was arrived at after two rounds of very "spirited" "discussion" involving at least two dozen different editors over time.

And we really don't want to re-start that war. So, more generally: Nobody should be editing Wikipedia with the intent of "correcting" K=1024 usage.

That having been said... you do have at least a few parts of legs to stand on for your edit. But that should be discussed at the article talk page. Jeh (talk) 23:34, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

There is so much bad logic in your response that I don't know where to start. Indeed, why should I bother? You clearly have no interest in an honest discussion. The Wikipedia rules are supposed to help us work together. But for you, they're just something you hit people over the head with until you get your way.

So here's what I'm going to do: if you revert or delete anything of mine, ever again, I will take it immediately to arbitration. That should be a last resort, but your belligerence makes any other response a waste of time.

People like you are why fewer and fewer people find it worth their time to contribute to Wikipedia. Obviously I can't persuade you to put the Wikipedia community ahead of your ego, so this is the very last time I will try to engage with you. Bye now.Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 02:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

{{Done}}

January 2017

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Half-Life 2, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. The1337gamer (talk) 08:46, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

My apologies. That was a stray mouse-click over an edit history page. (The touchpad on this laptop is quite sensitive; similar things have happened before.) No deletion or other edit was intended. (By the way, please WP:DTTR.) Jeh (talk) 11:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Testing. Jeh (talk) 12:25, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

The culprit turns out to be use of Twinkle on a "User contributions" screen. It has to be some other user, not yourself. Twinkle adds hotlinks for "rollback" and "vandalism" to that screen. The "rollback" link prompts for an edit summary (and if you cancel out of that dialog, no rollback happens), but the "vandalism" link does not! Nor does it open the reverted user's talk page. (Both unlike when you use Twinkle on a diffs page.) The "vandalism" link completes the undo with no further prompts, and if you're not paying close attention... I am going to ask the Twinkle maintainers for a fix; it should not be that easy. Jeh (talk) 20:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Review of the archives at Wikipedia talk:Twinkle suggests that this may be due to pop-up blocking by Chrome. Jeh (talk) 21:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

{{Done}}