User talk:Sarenne: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:13, 11 February 2007

Stop it

The common usage in Wikipedia's computing articles is to use xB, not xiB. Given that you're new here, you'll get some leeway for not understanding how things like this have been decided, but please stop continually changing articles to suit your opinion on the matter. And before you even think of getting indignant on me and saying "it's not my opinion, it's scientific blah blah blah", please understand that Wikipedia prefers common terminology in use in the real world, as it exists and is used in common conversation, marketing, and technical documentation, and not what the IEEE has to say. Every time this comes up on Wikipedia, we end up settling with the common usage. If you really, honestly think that your first contributions to the encyclopedia should be to rock the boat on the subject, you're going to be very disappointed with your time here. -/- Warren 01:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually no, if you go to any of the various articles (there are dozens more) that reference processor cache, you will find that KiB and MiB are the units in use. Consensus has been in favor of these units for some time now on the reasoning that they are correct, despite being less common. Whether this is the right way to go is entirely up to debate, but nonetheless I am restoring Sarenne's edits on this subject as they are consistent with the other relevant articles. If you can build consensus to switch all articles away from the binary prefixes, then by all means do. — Aluvus ^t/c 02:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Manual of Style says in the section on magnitude prefixes:

The use of the new binary prefix standards in the Wikipedia is not required, but is recommended for use in all articles where binary capacities are used. In articles where the precise byte capacities are important to description, the binary prefix should be used with binary capacities and the SI prefix should be used with decimal capacities (and should be noted as decimal if not immediately clear). If a contributor changes an article's usage from kilo- etc. to kibi- etc. where the units are in fact binary, that change should be accepted. However, because they are less familiar, binary unit prefixes such as MiB should be linked at least once per article to avoid confusion. Link as MiB to avoid a disambiguation page.

so perhaps "we end up settling with the common usage", for some value of "we", is true, but the MoS doesn't appear to do so. Guy Harris 02:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If i'm a new contributor on the english version of Wikipedia i'm not new on Wikipedia and i just wanted to make it more consistent as binary prefixes are already used on Wikipedia, even in articles I edited... As Guy Harris says, the consensus is to use binary prefixes when binary capacities are used and that what I was doing. I also tried to put a link to MiB, GiB when it's the first use of a binary prefix in the article. I thougth the debate was more or less over, apparently I was wrong :) Sarenne 10:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Harris is wrong. There is no such consensus amongst operating system or computer hardware articles. I have over 1,500 such articles on my watchlist, covering every major operating system out there, and the use of binary prefixes is extremely rare. You are more likely to see its use in esoteric computer science articles. When people have come along in the past to make this change, it's been removed because of the reasons I've already stated here: common usage in the real world is xB; and our sources use xB. We simply do not have the authority to go changing what our sources say -- especially when those sources are from computer companies themselves. The Manual of Style (a guideline) cannot override Wikipedia:Verifiability or Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, which are both cornerstone policies of Wikipedia. If the source says MB, we say MB. We don't have a choice in the matter. Get Apple and Microsoft and various hardware manufacturers to change their use of terminology, then come edit Wikipedia to reflect the real world. -/- Warren 13:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the binary prefixes are not presently used is not an argument, because binary prefixes are "new" and of course they are less used than SI prefixes. Why does the use of binary prefixes appear in the MoS page if it is not a consensus (i really don't know, it's a real question)?

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an advertising brochure of Microsoft or Apple. If the sources say MB whereas they mean MiB, we say MiB to avoid confusion and to follow international standards, as MoS says and as an encylopedia should say. If you don't want me using binary prefixes, try to change the MoS first. You can't blame a new contributor for following MoS rules. Usage in the real world is changing, Wikipedia must change too.

Sarenne 14:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, User:Sarenne was mistaken when he said I made a claim about the consensus; I merely noted that the MoS doesn't say "settle with the common usage", which is true.

Second of all, when K/M/G/T prefixes are used in front of B when discussing computers, either they refer to units of 1000/1000000/1000000000/1000000000000 bytes or they refer to units of 1024/1048576/1073741824/1099511627776 bytes. If we can reliably assume which of those it is, then, if it's the former, K/M/G/T by themselves should be used, and if it's the latter, Ki/Mi/Gi/Ti are as verifiable as K/M/G/T. If we can't reliably assume which of those it is, then using the same terminology of the source is needed to make the article verifiable, but it's not clear exactly what you're verifying, other than that we use the same ambiguous terminology as the source.

Third of all, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view says

The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.

so I fail to see how NPOV is involved here; one could perhaps argue that using the binary prefixes expresses the point of view that they're preferable to decimal prefixes, but one could also argue that using the decimal prefixes expresses the opposite POV, so NPOV would arguably require that we say "2GB/2GiB" for any "2 gigabyte" references that probably mean 2* 1073741824 bytes. (And if one considers this a POV issue, what about the GNU/Linux naming controversy? Does calling it "Linux" express a POV? Does calling it "GNU/Linux" express a POV? If both are true, does that mean you can't use either term alone without violating NPOV? If so, what is one to do?) Guy Harris 19:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If a source happens to use the European date format, are we to replicate that? Just today I saw an edit that had to deal with potential ambiguity in date formatting. A consistent, unambiguous format does eliminate many problems. Whether it precisely matches other sources is not at all relevant; outside of direct quotations, it is more important to preserve the content and meaning of a source than to preserve its precise formatting. The one legitimate argument I'm aware of against binary prefixes is that they may confuse some readers.

Put another way: if a laptop manufacturer decided to start calling its products exclusively "mobile productivity centers", an article refering to them as "laptop computers" would not be in the wrong. — Aluvus ^t/c 20:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the manual of style: "If for some reason the choice of units is arbitrary, choose SI units as the main unit, with other units in parentheses." These units, in America, are ALWAYS MB and GB, and NO website containing information about tech specs of a computer (including other Wiki computer info articles), use MB and GB. Leave them be, for the good of the readers. Sjenkins7000 02:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop the vandalism. Don't replace every xB with xiB. Sjenkins7000 03:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may disagree with it, but it is not vandalism. It would be much more productive if you made an attempt to actually discuss the issue rather than revert and call other people vandals. — Aluvus ^t/c 03:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a general consensus that we use xB rather than xiB. Meticulously going through each wiki site and replacing xB with xiB, when NOBODY refers to — or for that matter should refer to — "mebibytes" of RAM or "gibibytes" of hard disk space, is VANDALISM, plain and simple. The correct terminology: "megabyte" (abbreviated MB) and "gigabyte" (abbreviated GB). Stop the vandalism; don't change it based on your personal preference. Sjenkins7000 03:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. General consensus, as pointed out already on this page, is fairly murky. Repeating your "vandalism" accusation does nothing to forward your case, nor does it serve to aid in discussion. And FWIW my personal preference is against binary prefixes. But Wikipedia is not just my project. — Aluvus ^t/c 04:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General consensus to a debatable topic cannot be determined from some random comments on some guy's (or gal's) talk page. What I mean by general consensus is that, in the real world of talking about personal computer tech specs, nobody, nil, no one, not a single person refers to xiB units. Wikipedia articles shouldn't be any different. Show me even one other encyclopedia, magazine, or manufacturer website that refers to "gibibytes" of hard disk space or "mebibytes" of RAM, and I'll withdraw my complaint. Until you do, methinks this is vandalism. Sjenkins7000 04:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Assume good faith — Aluvus ^t/c 04:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia:Assume good faith: "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary....Assuming good faith also does not mean that no action by editors should be criticized." When a user replaces more than one hundred MB's and GB's with MiB's and GiB's, spanning almost a dozen articles, and doesn't discuss the changes first, the user loses the right to good faith. Not only was there no discussion, reverted edits were changed back. If you suggest I'm in violation of this rule, according to the very page you cited: "Accusing the other side in a conflict of not assuming good faith, without showing reasonable supporting evidence, is another form of failing to assume good faith." Again, I'll ask you, please stop changing xB's to xiB's. My reasoning for this request is listed above; put this issue to rest. Thank you. Sjenkins7000 05:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about binary prefixes. Why should I have discussed something that is in the MoS ? As I explained, I really thought the debate was over. Feel free to try to change the MoS but the discussion should'nt take place here :) Sarenne 10:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC). Until then, I'm restoring the binary prefixes. Sarenne 21:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I will revert all your changes until you obtain the necessary consensus. Quit wasting your time with this bullshit. -/- Warren 21:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done ! Consensus

Sarenne 22:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

21 January 2007

"The consensus of many editors formed the conventions described here, and Wikipedia articles should heed these guidelines. Before making any major changes to these guidelines, please use the discussion page to ensure that your changes reflect consensus.".You Clearly do not have the consensus to change these articles. Planetary Chaos Talk to me 23:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did'nt change the MoS... There is a consensus : here. Feel free to try to obtain a new consensus to change the MoS. Sarenne 23:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The context that you have provided clearly shows that the use of SI prefix is what's most common.

"The Wikipedia Manual of Style says in the section on magnitude prefixes:

The use of the new binary prefix standards in the Wikipedia is not required, but is recommended for use in all articles where binary capacities are used. In articles where the precise byte capacities are important to description, the binary prefix should be used with binary capacities and the SI prefix should be used with decimal capacities (and should be noted as decimal if not immediately clear). If a contributor changes an article's usage from kilo- etc. to kibi- etc. where the units are in fact binary, that change should be accepted. However, because they are less familiar, binary unit prefixes such as MiB should be linked at least once per article to avoid confusion. Link as MiB to avoid a disambiguation page." Planetary Chaos Talk to me 23:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The use of SI prefixes with binary capacities is what's most common but it is wrong so I changed SI prefixes to binary prefixes where binary capacities are used as stated in the MoS. It's a matter of consistency. Sarenne 00:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, Sarenne's changes from SI prefixes to binary prefixes are most certainly NOT vandalism, and the test warnings just above here were inappropriate. The MOS is not completely clear, but it is clear that use of binary prefixes is acceptable in many instances. | Mr. Darcy talk 00:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss, don't edit-war

Okay, look. Your changes to SI prefixes been reverted by several established editors now. Perhaps you should take it as a hint that what you're doing is not going smoothly, and that there isn't quite the consensus you're thinking there is on the issue. (See Wikipedia:Consensus can change). You may not think of SI prefixes as being a matter of opinion, but the simple truth of the matter is that they're almost never used outside of certain academic and computing circles, and they certainly aren't used by Apple to describe their hardware. It'd be like editing articles on Canadian topics to change distance measurements from kilometers to miles... that'd be clearly inappropriate, right?

Clearly there's a problem here. Instead of continuing your mission, I encourage you instead to go here and discuss this issue in the appropriate place. My view boils down to this: there is plenty of precedent across the encyclopedia to prefer locally-relevant date, number, and linguistic formatting in articles; Apple never uses SI prefixes in their marketing and technical material; Publications that report on Apple never use SI prefixes, either; Wikipedia relies solely on our sources; WP:V requires us to report accurately on what our sources say; WP:NPOV behooves us to discard edge-case opinions that are held by a small minority of people; and finally, WP:NPOV and WP:V always take precedence over WP:MOS. -/- Warren 00:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My "view" boils down to this : when Apple (or Intel or AMD or Microsoft...) says 512 MB, it means 512 * 1 048 576 bytes. M (SI prefix=decimal prefix) stands for 1 000 000, Mi (IEC prefix) stands for 1 048 576 so Wikipedia should encourage the use of the correct prefix to avoid confusion : Mi. This is not a point of view, that's the way it is :) Sarenne 01:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sarenne, Wikipedia should not be encouraging anything. It reflects what can be verified from reliable sources, and that is all. If you're trying to use Wikipedia to push your view that the IEC prefixes should become standard, then you are misusing the project, and I will have to ask you to stop. | Mr. Darcy talk 01:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I say "Wikipedia should encourage the use of the correct prefix" I mean that Wikipedia should encourage contributors (not readers) to use binary prefixes through the MoS when dealing with binary capacities, to avoid confusion. What people are doing outside of Wikipedia is none of my business and I don't use Wikipedia to push my view :) Sarenne 01:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I was one of the first to revert this change, but I was thinking about it since and kind of agree that binary prefixes should be used because they are accurate. Apple claims about their hardware that it's fastest and whatever and yet we are not copying that to wikipedia because it's often either not accurate or is simply marketing. Usage of MB for cache/memory is marketing simplification and wikipedia should IMO reflect reality. Also there was consensus made on WP:MS and it should be followed. So I don't agree with reverting of this edit in articles on Macs.--Pethr 06:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just Apple that does it -- it's the entire computer industry. That's the point -- Wikipedia tends to reflect common usage, not what some editors think is "correct". Anyhow, like I said, consensus can change, and there is a discussion going on about it at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers), which is the correct venue for this discussion. -/- Warren 14:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GB vs GiB and so on

one gibibyte 1 GiB= 230 B= 1073741824 B one gigabyte 1 GB=10 9 B= 1000000000 B

one mebibyte 1 MiB = 220 B = 1 048 576 B and one megabyte 1 MB = 106 B = 1 000 000 B so the MiB and GiB are larger and therfore does not belong in any article relating to todays computer. source.... *[1] Planetary Chaos Talk to me 16:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also I have a 3 Gigabyte memory it is not larger then that.So GiB does not apply in most cases. Planetary Chaos Talk to me 16:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have 3 gibibytes of memory (3 221 225 472 bytes) if you are talking about RAM. You are showing us a typical example of confusion :) Sarenne 17:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to my system specs I have 3,000,000,000.What? My system specs are lying? also see. "Apple uses the The fastest iMac ever, the 24-inch iMac provides professional performance along with the convenience of an all-in-one design. Like its 17-inch and 20-inch siblings, it features the new 64-bit Intel Core 2 Duo processor with speeds ranging from 1.83GHz to 2.33GHz. The new processor delivers up to 50% more performance than the previous 20-inch iMac. It also doubles the amount of L2 cache, the twin cores sharing 4MB between them." source [2] Planetary Chaos Talk to me 17:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If 1GB is 1 000 000 000 bytes, then, yes, your system specs are incorrect. Your system really does have 3 221 225 472 bytes of memory. That's why Sarenne is arguing in favor of binary prefixes, even when the vendor doesn't use them. Now, in practice, one could argue that this is just a simplification, and nobody really believes that a 3GB machine has only 3 000 000 000 bytes of memory and a Core 2 Duo has only 4 000 000 bytes of cache; however, people who do believe that are arguments in favor of binary prefixes, so, if you don't like binary prefixes, I suggest you not believe that your system has only 3 000 000 000 bytes of memory and the Core 2 Duo has only 4 000 000 bytes of cache (which would be a good idea in any case, because your system doesn't have only 3 000 000 000 bytes of memory, it has 3 221 225 472 bytes of memory, and the Core 2 Duo doesn't have only 4 000 000 bytes of cache, it has 4 194 304 bytes of cache).

BTW, your source explicitly says that the binary prefixes do belong in computer articles:

Once upon a time, computer professionals noticed that 2^10 was very nearly equal to 1000 and started using the SI prefix "kilo" to mean 1024. That worked well enough for a decade or two because everybody who talked kilobytes knew that the term implied 1024 bytes. But, almost overnight a much more numerous "everybody" bought computers, and the trade computer professionals needed to talk to physicists and engineers and even to ordinary people, most of whom know that a kilometer is 1000 meters and a kilogram is 1000 grams.

Then data storage for gigabytes, and even terabytes, became practical, and the storage devices were not constructed on binary trees, which meant that, for many practical purposes, binary arithmetic was less convenient than decimal arithmetic. The result is that today "everybody" does not "know" what a megabyte is. When discussing computer memory, most manufacturers use megabyte to mean 2^20 = 1 048 576 bytes, but the manufacturers of computer storage devices usually use the term to mean 1 000 000 bytes. Some designers of local area networks have used megabit per second to mean 1 048 576 bit/s, but all telecommunications engineers use it to mean 106 bit/s. And if two definitions of the megabyte are not enough, a third megabyte of 1 024 000 bytes is the megabyte used to format the familiar 90 mm (3 1/2 inch), "1.44 MB" diskette. The confusion is real, as is the potential for incompatibility in standards and in implemented systems.

As you can see, it also explicitly notes that, when discussing "computer memory" - i.e., main memory and cache memory - a "megabyte" is not 1 000 000 bytes, it's 1 048 576 bytes. Guy Harris 22:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How ever a 512 ram would be 512 MiB not MB 500 would be MB not MiB.see the difference? Planetary Chaos Talk to me 17:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, your system specs are lying, you have a 3 GiB RAM. And Apple means 4 MiB L2 cache, not MB. Sarenne 17:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my, Sarenne is absolutely correct and this is exactly the reason why we should use binary prefixes. It's not so, that everyone knows the truth so we can safely use computer industry marketing simlification, everyone rather believes incorrect information!--Pethr 19:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the relative correctness of xiB over xB units, xB units are the accepted units. By far, most people have never heard of xiB units, and as not one other encyclopedia, magazine, or manufacturer uses xiB units, Wikipedia should be no different. Wikipedia is written for users, not experts. If you believe Wikipedia should be changed to replace xB units with xiB units, I respond: show us at even one other source (encyclopedia, magazine, or manufacturer) who uses xiB units in reference to tech specs. Wikipedia reports; it doesn't coerce industry change. Sjenkins7000 10:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MB = 1024*1024 B or MB = 1,000,000 bytes is the accepted unit ?

Example of other sources : Linux. Wikipedia reports what is accurate and reliable, not what manufacturers says. Sarenne 11:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most definitely. I've noticed Apple's specs lately round to the nearest power of 10 even when it's incorrect. Just proves you can cite anything as prior usage. Also, historical encyclopedias hardly went out of their way to "go with the flow" on these things. It's genuinely difficult to use different terminology on different pages and still be consistent on each page. Potatoswatter 02:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The IEC prefixes

I wanted to apologize for the bad behavior of some of the folks that seem to be harassing you about your usage of IEC binary prefixes. While there is understandable controversy regarding their usage that has played out many times on various talk pages, it is totally wrong of people to label a content dispute "vandalism" and patronize you and your good-will edits by posting warnings messages here. Shame on them. Next time this comes up, I recommend you immediately defer to WP:MOSNUM and the previous discussions there. Many arguments both ways have been brought up there before, and people interested in the issue watch that page. If you try to discuss it on other scattered talk pages, it may not get exposure to enough editors. Anyway, I feel your pain... This particular issue is always graced with a lot of heated opinions occassionally mixed with a dash of ignorance. -- mattb @ 2007-01-23T00:40Z

I'd like to second that-I just happened to run across this bit on AN/I when I was discussing something there, I had no idea the incorrect terms were being used so widely. I will be quite happy to back your position, however, as you are not only correct, but very verifiably correct, making this perfectly suitable to be used. Seraphimblade 07:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

mebibytes?

Please don't use AES to edit war over megabytes--162.84.217.206 22:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why ? Sarenne 22:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sarenne, please stop edit warring on these articles or you may be subject to a WP:3RR block. The anonymous user is very obviously in the wrong, so just let a little time go by before you revert again. If the anonymous user persists, he will be blocked. -- mattb @ 2007-02-10T22:30Z

Ok, i'll wait until he understand or be blocked. Sarenne 23:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another clueless anon

Just wanted to let you know, user:63.215.28.13 is reverting all your edits. You may want to warn him to stop. I already did. If he continues, he may be blocked. danski14, 23:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MOSNUM also says not to change it from the style it is initially written in, and most of all, not to edit war over it user:63.215.28.13

It is not a matter of style. Binary prefixes can be used to replace decimal prefixes when decimal prefixes are used in a binary sense. Sarenne 23:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MOSNUM dosn't seem to say either of those things, but of course we don't want edit wars. Danski14 23:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What WP:MOSNUM says is:

If a contributor changes an article's usage from kilo- etc. to kibi- etc. where the units are in fact binary, that change should be accepted.

which seems to quite the opposite of "[don't] change it from the style it is initially written in". It doesn't say people should make a vigorous effort to change articles to use binary prefixes, but it also says that if such a change is made, it should be accepted.

As for edit wars, some might think that reverting a bunch of changes of articles' usage is a salvo in an edit war.... Guy Harris 00:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the MoS and the discussion pages, especially this one. This is your last warning. 209.247.21.237 18:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You´re joking, right? There is concensus on binary prefixes and some discussion on whether to enforce it or leave it to individual editors. This warning is really as unreasonable as edit warring over it instead of discussing it there. Thank you.--Pethr 18:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea who this "anonymous" editor is, but it looks like someone's logging out or using a proxy for this specific purpose-the anons have no or almost no edits when they start, and seem to intend deliberately to duck 3RR. I'm about half a step away from filing a sock report. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 19:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, include user:209.244.42.180.--Pethr 19:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inconclusive, but all these IP's (63.215.28.13, 209.244.42.183, and 209.247.21.237) return level3.net on reverse DNS'ing (according to dnsstuff.com, which I love greatly), and certainly have a very good knowledge of policy and editing going in. I'm giving pretty good odds this was someone involved in the debate ducking 3RR, and if the disruption continues I'm filing a sock report. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 19:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey,include me as well.209.247.23.17 19:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Thanks! Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 20:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please submit that request. Let´s get over with this. The problem is, that the number of ips seems not limited, let´s hope there is some common sign that can be blacklisted. This seems to me like clear campaign. Thank you.--Pethr 21:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, whatever it is, it certainly deserves to be looked at closely, and on ANI it will be. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 21:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On further review, I think the anons (or at least most of them) are Planetary Chaos, due to a highly-unique typing idiosyncracy that both PC and most of the anons make frequently. Now tell me, is this so? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 21:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well,let me take alook.209.247.23.17 22:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 156: / Line 156: @@
 :::Well, whatever it is, it certainly deserves to be looked at closely, and on ANI it will be. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]] [[Wikipedia:Editor review/Seraphimblade 2|Please review me!]]</sup></small> 21:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 ::::On further review, I think the anons (or at least most of them) are Planetary Chaos, due to a highly-unique typing idiosyncracy that both PC and most of the anons make frequently. Now tell me, is this so? [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]] [[Wikipedia:Editor review/Seraphimblade 2|Please review me!]]</sup></small> 21:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
+Well,let me take alook.[[User:209.247.23.17|209.247.23.17]] 22:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)