User talk:Frost
Welcome to my talk page!
- Please use the Reply button to reply to a message, or add topic (+) to start a new section.
- If I have left a message on your talk page, please DO NOT post a reply here, instead, reply there.
- Mention me using the "Mention a user" button in the Reply box or type out {{ping|Frost}}.
- I will have your talk page on watch and will note when you have replied.
- If you prefer to manually edit the page to post:
- Use an accurate and appropriate heading.
- Indent your comment by using an appropriate number of colons ':'.
- Sign your post with four tildes (~~~~) at the end.
Hi, the diffs you included in your report are helpful, but it's better to also include diffs by the master or a sock. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:33, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Noted. Frost 08:40, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you undid one of my edits to NTFS, saying it "wasn't constructive".
In what way was this edit "not constructive"? I saw that the article used incorrect units, fixed them to use the correct units, then it got reverted back to the wrong units. They referenced MOS:COMPUNITS, which I read, only to find out that the section of the referenced policy itself discussing a prohibition on IEC binary prefixes is rooted in the very short-sighted notion that "the majority of sources do things this way, so we do things this way".
I am an engineer and policies like these are severely troubling to me. It is well known that many of Wikipedia's policies (WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:V) backfire in cases of an incorrect majority, and this fact is well known to both people within and outside of Wikipedia. Specifically, if the majority of sources state things that are inaccurate, incorrect, or misleading, Wikipedia will inadvertently perpetuate that.
What's even more inexcusable is the fact that your article on the byte even explicitly mentions that the use of "KB", "MB", etc. to refer to powers of 1024 is "confusing and incorrect", yet in your policies you knowingly insist that things must be done this way. Is it not obviously apparent that this is massively hypocritical?
The computing industry suffers from a long-standing misuse of units and prefixes, and the MoS's opposition of use of the IEC prefixes is making things worse, not better. 208.114.63.4 (talk) 15:18, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- IEC units are bad. Few people actually use them, their presence in reliable sources are nearly non-existent except often to point out how nobody uses them, the public at large doesn't really appear to know about the units, and as Wikipedia follows what reliable sources say, we're almost always the "last" place to see anything major changed (with few exceptions). This is, of course, by design. If our articles constantly changed with the winds of politics, committees, or what have you, it would lead to confusion and edit wars over things like "megabyte (MB)" vs. "mebibyte (MiB)". Most of us have better things to do with our lives. If in 20+ years (and with a period where Wikipedia mandated the use of IEC prefixes) the world at-large didn't proceed to adopt these "new" units, forcing them down our readers throats won't magically "fix" the rest of the world. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:30, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
- So you know that the commonly-accepted practice is incorrect, yet you still continue to use it nonetheless?
- Maybe the reason why there are so many pages of flamewars with regards to this is because people are trying to point out that this policy of yours is factually flawed yet you refuse to actually fix it. Every time someone tries to point this out, the mob (and from the threads I've read, I know you in particular are especially infamous for this kind of gatekeeping) constantly bombard people with the same old, tired "no one else does this so we shouldn't" non-argument. It is utterly incomprehensible to me as to how Wikipedia does not understand, or refuses to accept, how short-sighted and illogical this "approach" is.
- This is not a matter of "forcing [something] down people's throats". This is not a subjective matter. This is a matter of being stubborn, complacent, narcissistic, and egotistical, and trying to deny such behaviour even when the evidence is extremely clear. 208.114.63.4 (talk) 12:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
So you know that the commonly-accepted practice is incorrect, yet you still continue to use it nonetheless?
No, I know what our reliable sources use, and we use what they use, not what some standards body attempted to force on society over two decades ago. WP:COMPUNITS is WP:V and WP:RS just being fully realized, and there's a small but vocal sector of the community that just can't seem to accept that we're not going to publish original research just because they really really really want us to..."no one else does this so we shouldn't" non-argument
... so, you're new here? WP:V is the long-form version of that "non-argument", and it's policy.- This will be my last reply to this as nothing is getting changed on a user talk page, if you genuinely want to try to change things, WT:MOSNUM is over there. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:55, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
No, I know what our reliable sources use, and we use what they use, not what some standards body attempted to force on society over two decades ago.
- Yes, and countless people have tried to point out how this becomes improper in cases like these, to no avail, simply because you guys clearly refuse to change your ways no matter how stupid they are.
WP:COMPUNITS is WP:V and WP:RS just being fully realized, and there's a small but vocal sector of the community that just can't seem to accept that we're not going to publish original research just because they really really 'really want us to...
- Yes, and in cases like these WP:NOR is inadvertently perpetuating confusion and misinformation. It's not that we don't understand the policies, it's you refusing to fix a known issue "just because". Why is this so hard for you to understand?
so, you're new here? WP:V is the long-form version of that "non-argument", and it's policy.
- No, I'm fully aware of WP:V. I'm also willing to accept that "VeRiFiAbIlItY" and "ReLiAbLe" have lost their meaning entirely (since in a lot of cases the sources that are deemed "reliable" are only given that status because someone or a small group of people forcibly shoved that notion down everyone else's throats) and that this fact is very well-known to both people within and outside of Wikipedia.
- And finally, I dare say this, but WP:V has clearly become "all verifiability, no truth". 208.114.63.4 (talk) 19:40, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
- I should've used a better edit summary/talk note, but your edit was inappropriate in the sense that it went against the MoS and you restored it after being reverted, instead of taking to the talk page (following WP:CYCLE). Going with the majority of sources is precisely the standard and common practice on Wikipedia. Frost 08:45, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
New pages patrol May 2025 Backlog drive
[edit]| May 2025 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol |  |
| |
| You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. | |
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:25, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
Category:Ambient pop albums by American artists has been nominated for merging
[edit]
Category:Ambient pop albums by American artists has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:57, 27 April 2025 (UTC)