Follow the consensus expressed in WT:MOSNUM binary prefixes archives and undo the recent edits you made in defiance of that consensus. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I think the consensus you're talking about, which may or may not have existed in the past, is currently inexistent. Actually the opposite consensus exists. Except for three contries (including the US), the International System of Units has been adopted unanimously worldwide. It doesn't define an exception for solid-state storage. This is the NPOV and this is where the defiance is. The SI is not a matter of consensus on Wikipedia. Compvis (talk) 00:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since you will not recognize Wikipedia's authority to establish its own house style, further interaction with you will take place through dispute resolution processes. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:16, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do recognize its authority over things that it's apt to decide, and the SI, as possibly the most widely adopted standard, is not one of those. You seem to drastically underestimate it. In addition, I do think that Wikipedia does not have the same opinion it did many years ago. Compvis (talk) 00:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We could revisit the matter, but, at the time Mebibytes and Gibibytes were never used in English-language reliable sources. If that has changed, the consensus might be revisited. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neither Wikipedia consensus nor your edits against it have changed. I've brought your latest efforts in WP:MOSNUM to WT:MOSNUM for comments, although I would be justified in blocking you, due to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation#Final decision. Consider this a warning under that provision. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:19, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Compvis. Computing units are not part of the base units defined by SI, nor are derived units. I cannot help but view your recent edits in Template:Quantities of bits and Template:Bit and byte prefixes as an attempt to promote an unjustified point of view without a source. If you think JEDEC must have something to do with SI and their failure to comply is worth mentioning, please supply a source to that effect. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 02:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even sure this is the right way to reply to someone... anyway let's try this. Hello. Actually, JEDEC has never recommended to use these prefixes, it has merely acknowledged their "common usage", right before mentioning the SI value of those, and the fact that they are deprecated. While you're right that the SI doesn't define units of information, it definitely defines prefixes, and the SI is a very important standard worldwide. That being said, I didn't assert that JEDEC has to follow the SI, but rather that it is important to mention that it doesn't follow it since it's using the exact same prefixes and since the SI is so important worldwide, and that is a fact. Actually the fact that JEDEC is still mentioned there is extremely POV for me, but unfortunately, I don't expect many people to accept its removal. So I left the column JEDEC in the hope it would be easier to get it accepted. Here's the source: JEDEC Solid State Technology Association (December 2002). "JEDEC Standard No. 100B.01 – Terms, Definitions, and Letter Symbols for Microcomputers, Microprocessors, and Memory Integrated Circuits" (PDF). p. 8. Retrieved 2010-03-07. "The definitions of kilo, giga, and mega based on powers of two are included only to reflect common usage. IEEE/ASTM SI 10-1997 states “This practice frequently leads to confusion and is deprecated.”" (Requires free registration and login.) Where should I have mentionned this source? Actually, I have more sources if needed. Compvis (talk) 04:33, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That source is only good for a proposal about removing JEDEC's name from the column. What I said was different. Let me clarify my NPOV point: Are you familiar with weasel words? Weasel words sometimes dress a sentence with authority, while implying something that is not backed with source. As such, weasel words have serious NPOV problems. For example, pretend this sentence appears in an article about ACME Corp: "In January 2222, ACME Corp hired Ms. X, the first female translator ever." Unless the writer had a crazy love for number one or things that are first, this sentence means to imply that there is something noteworthy about a woman being hired; e.g. ACME has been committing gender discrimination until then, or the woman had used a leverage beyond shear competence to get hired.

Your sentence is like that. Suddenly out of nowhere, you have said "inconsistent with SI system". Well who said they are? Unless you have a love for spotting indiscriminate inconsistencies, you are implying that they must have been consistent because SI has patented the Greek and Latin prefixes for its exclusive use. If the former is the case, Wikipedia does not publish indiscriminate info. If the latter is the case, you need to provide a source to that effect.

Oh, and by the way: Are you having reservations about saying "Hi?" Well, don't. There is nothing wrong about greeting others or being civil in general. Although, if you insist on greeting the same person only once per discussion, that's totally okay.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 07:26, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2 Highly NPOV facts: 1) the SI is almost the only game on Earth for measurement units and prefixes (it seems like you don't grasp this correctly), 2) The computer industry and it's usage of the SI prefixes as binary is a tiny fraction of the world's usage of SI prefixes. They are almost always used as powers of 10. So either we remove the JEDEC column or we cannot not mention this inconsistency with the SI. It would be dishonest and highly POV to present JEDEC as if it were on a similar footing as the metric prefixes. Compvis (talk) 07:54, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "similar footing", you would have a point (at least, a dull one) if these templates were used in articles outside of the computer field. But they are not. And within the computer field, JEDEC prefixes most certainly enjoy a "similar footing" to SI within their particular application area: semiconductor memory. Just try to find a RAM chip, or a DIMM, or a modern computer, whose RAM capacity is quoted using SI prefixes! The JEDEC prefixes are the only game on Earth for this product area. In fact, so pervasive are they, that many believe that other computer products such as hard drives either are, or somehow ought to be, marketed using JEDEC prefixes as well! (It seems as if you don't, or refuse to, grasp this).

The footnote is unnecessary, because the inconsistency with SI is self-evident from the table: You have the JEDEC column, and you have the "metric" column, and in two (but not all) cases they use the same prefix with different meanings.

The footnote is furthermore inappropriate, because it is denigrating JEDEC prefixes in favor of SI. Your position seems to be that it is appropriate for WP to promote SI over JEDEC, because of SI's near-universal acceptance (well, except for that little country in North America you might have heard of, and also the one occupying the British Isles). However, that is not how WP is written. WP is not in the business of promoting one standard or usage over another, nor of "calling out" those who use prefixes in ways not accordance with any particular standard. What WP is in the business of is of documenting the real world, as described in reliable sources. Standards are part of the real world, of course, but so are usages that don't comply with them, particularly when they're completely pervasive within one product area... as the JEDEC prefixes are for RAM. (And just by the way, "KB" meaning 1024 bytes is not contradictory to SI, because the SI prefix for 1000 is "k", not "K". So (edit - added:) even if the footnote was acceptable, (end edit) it would be wrong to apply it to the JEDEC column header.) Jeh (talk) 09:47, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't say it better. I am afraid, Compvis, use of "SI prefixes" phrase to refer to "Latin and Greek prefixes" might be an indicator of near-fanatical POV. In addition, per Wikipedia verifiability policy, as long SI does not officially put computing units in its scopes, the matter of compatibility and consistency is moot. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 11:46, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BRD, after your edits have been reverted, you should go to discussion. Not revert again.

 if your edit gets reverted, do not revert again. Instead, use the opportunity
 to begin a discussion with the interested parties to establish consensus.

Also, from the same page,

Leave the article in the condition it was in before the Bold edit was made 
(often called the status quo ante). When the discussion has achieved mutual 
understanding, attempt a new edit that will be acceptable to all participants 
in the discussion.

I have explained, point by point, my rationale for reverting your edit to the lede here. Please reply there. Thank you. Jeh (talk) 09:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you for his helpful comment about how to respond to a revert. It's definitely not obvious. In my opinion, it should be explicited for the new users at the "point-of-greatest-pertinence", which is in the history page, rather than just showing the regular "undo". Where should I make that suggestion? Compvis (talk) 21:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]