User talk:Sarenne

• GBps is the accepted short form here, units with / are rare. Maury 21:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
• Accepted short form ? By who ? units with "/" are rare ? Since when ? Sarenne 21:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
• ""bps" is the "accepted short form" ? By who ?"

Practically everyone. Compare and contrast computer articles here on the wiki.

"units with "/" are rare ? Since when ?"

Since I've been a child, which was a LONG time ago.

I should have been more specific though, "units with '/' are rare in the computer field...".

Maury 21:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Ok, I'll bite. I typed "gbps" into the search box and got the "gigabytes per second" article. I typed "gb/s" into the same box and got "no matching article".
• Reading over your (constantly blanked) talk page history, I see this "unit war" has been an ongoing issue. I'm not terribly interested in what appears to be a religious issue, so I'll bow out now. Maury 22:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Concensus on -bi- units

Just for some comparison:

• "100 GB hard drive" Google search, 1,450,000 hits
• "100 GiB hard drive" Google search, 150 hits
• "1 MB megabyte" Google search, 1,370,000 hits
• "1 MiB megabyte" Google search, 92,000 hits
• "megabyte" - 5,700,000
• "mebibyte" - 36,000

Web survey appears to weight the -ga- units 3-5 orders of magnitude more strongly than -bi-. As a member of the IEEE and other standards boards, I beg you to stop your one-man attempt to convert wikipedia; spend that energy producing articles with rich, insightful content, from whatever IP you wish to. -- Metahacker 22:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Your recent binary prefix reverts

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Fnagaton 16:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

You are kidding me ? Look at the previous versions by Wgungfu. I don't care about your stupid warnings, liar. Don't message me anymore. Sarenne 16:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

No I am not kidding, you are rapidly approaching 3RR. I am also not a liar and I note you are not being civil. Fnagaton 16:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

2 reverts is not "rapidly approaching 3RR" and you know I don't care about your warnings, liar. Sarenne 16:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I again note your incorrect liar accusation. Taking into account the reverts by the anonymous proxy user, which you are suspected of operating, then you have already gone over 3RR. I must also point out that blanking valid warnings like this one, especially before the other editor has had a chance to respond, is not a good sign. Fnagaton 16:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to [[Template:Highssp]] for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Template:Do not delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wgungfu (talk • contribs)

Of course... Sarenne 16:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Gone.

Too many bad faith accusations, too much bad faith.

Sarenne 17:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Like your repeated bad faith accusations of "liar" and your repeated bad faith blanking of valid 3RR and sock puppet warnings on your talk page. Fnagaton 17:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Undid the blanking by User:Sarenne to respond to this "gone" user. If you what you claim is true then you would restore the warnings as you should to show good faith. If you blank this again then all you're doing is proving my point about your bad faith accusations and bad faith blanking. Fnagaton 17:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.