Hello, Dondervogel 2, and Taylor Lautner. Follow @oreopandada on Instagram!!!!! welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Hey there Tommy²⁰¹⁰ 18:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. If you'd like help, feel free to send a message --Tommy²⁰¹⁰ 18:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm 87.220.219.189. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! — Preceding undated comment added 13:05, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for tidying this up. Only so you know, there would have been nothing untowards about leaving in the bit about how you came up with the new user name.

You are welcome to write a few straightforward paragraphs about powers of 1024 prefixes on your user page. Your outlook on this topic has not been the worry but rather, how you've tried to wedge your outlook into how the prefixes are handled on en.WP. The time may come to use them here. When it does, it'll likely happen fairly quickly and easily. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your offer to help, which I gladly accept. Could you provide references to the papers by Horton and more recent publications you have in mind that can be used as references for criticism of the sloppy conventions around the decibel? You can put them on User talk:Boute/Decibel draft or on Talk:Decibel to keep decibel-related material together. Boute (talk) 09:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to find the original 1924 and 1929 papers by Martin by Googling BSTJ and discovered the complete BSTJ collection on the Alcatel-Lucent BSTJ site. A real treasure trove! Boute (talk) 14:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be a bit more specific about what statements you want references for? I.e that certain machines were decimal vs binary? What I added summarizes a lot of the info in the timeline itself and is referenced there.--agr (talk) 18:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly what I meant was a reference for which computers use decimal storage and which ones binary; the reason for placing the tag at the end of the paragraph was to also include stated usage of '8K' and '65K'. If these are all covered by existing cites later in the article, then feel free to remove the tag. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 10:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about adding something like the following to the T2 list of why not to deprecate:

The computer itself does not account for the number of bytes using binary prefixes, but someone in the 1980s decided to report memory, file and HDD size in this manner. As such, the use of Binary Prefixes is only a convention. Altering this convention to agree with SI Prefixes could have been done at any time as Apple did in 2009; however, for some reason it just stuck this way for much of the computer industry.

— Snow Leopard changes how file and drive sizes are calculated

Tom94022 (talk) 00:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You know more about the history than I do, so feel free to add this to the list if you feel it's important. I think the case against deprecation is overwhelming, but what the heck. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 09:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Fish, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hearing (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:46, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article Gurdon Institute has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. noq (talk) 11:32, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Charles Darwin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Darwin College (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:00, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Decibel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 100 Gigabit Ethernet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 40G (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dondervogel 2, and thank you for your contributions!

Some text in an article you worked on IEC 80000-6, appears to be directly copied from http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=31891. Please take a minute to double-check that you're following proper citing, quoting and close paraphrasing guidelines. The Help desk is always a good place to ask if you're not sure.

It's entirely possible that this bot made a mistake, so please feel free to remove this notice and the tag it placed on IEC 80000-6 at any time. MadmanBot (talk) 17:55, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

IEC 80000-13 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Octet, Kibi, Yobi, Hartley, Shannon and Erlang

ISO 80000-3 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Bel

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:17, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Timeline of binary prefixes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kibi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Timeline of binary prefixes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Yobi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Knot_(unit)#ISO_status. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 16:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have replied there. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 17:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dondervogel2

Here are some quotes that may be of interest to you:

The first two paragraphs of WP:MOSNUM:

This part of the Manual of Style helps editors to achieve consistency in the use and formatting of numbers, dates, times, measurements, currencies, and coordinates in Wikipedia articles. Consistency in style and formatting promotes clarity and cohesion; this is especially important within an article. The goal is to make the whole encyclopedia easier and more intuitive to use. Try to write so the text cannot be misunderstood, and take account of what is likely to be familiar to readers—the less they have to look up definitions, the easier it is to be understood. Where this manual provides options, consistency should be maintained within an article unless there is a good reason to do otherwise. In direct quotations, the original text should be preserved. The Arbitration Committee has ruled that editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style, and that revert-warring over optional styles is unacceptable.[1] If discussion cannot determine which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor.

Here is the opening paragraph of Unit Conversions:

Where English-speaking countries use different units for the same quantity, follow the "primary" quantity with a conversion in parentheses. This enables more readers to understand the quantity. Examples: the Mississippi River is 2,320 miles (3,734 km) long; the Murray River is 2,375 kilometres (1,476 mi) long.

Other principles are scattered through the text such as advice on conversion errors.

I hope that helps:

Best wishes, Michael Glass (talk) 12:58, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the troubling of quoting this text from mosnum. What I meant was something more specific about units. I am suggesting it would be useful to precede the section entitled "Units" with some guiding principles about the choice of units, transcending the disccussion of "which units system?. For example

• Units are familiar and unambiguous
• If an article begins in one unit (eg yard) it does not switch to another (eg metre) half-way through
• If a unit is defined as one quantity (eg decade meaning ten years) it does not switch to another meaninf (eg decade meaning factor 10 in frequency) half-way through

Dondervogel 2 (talk) 13:58, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a good idea in principle. However, I think we also need to look at the general structure of the whole section on which unit to use. I would need to flesh it out myself, but I think we need to begin with general principles and then work towards specific examples. At the moment the section tends to chop and change, and this causes duplications, and some confusion. An example of duplication is the advice to use miles on roads in the section on UK engineering articles, which largely duplicates the advice on using miles in the general section on UK articles, though arguably with a different, stricter, emphasis.

The structure, with its emphasis on the exceptions rather than the general rule, means that UK engineering articles have their own subheading while 'all other articles' which includes a far larger array of articles, is simply a dot point.

In short, I think there's a lot of work to be done to make the structure of the section more logical and consistent. However, I think that there is a heading waiting for your proposed addition: Which unit to use. Michael Glass (talk) 10:50, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Typhoon Talim (2005), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages LOW and MSW (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you removed a citation without explanation and inserted a bare URL in Kilobyte. Since you didn't explain this in the edit summary or on the talk page, I have reverted your edits because they don't seem to be an improvement. Please see WP:CITE for citation guidelines, and please, always provide an WP:EDITSUMMARY so other editors can understand what you are doing and why. Thanks. —EncMstr (talk) 17:27, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware of removing a citation. Which one did I remove? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 20:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm, I don't see the removal I thought I saw earlier. Perhaps it was because I just woke up then and was undoing a lot of vandalism before that. However, this edit you made inserts a bare URL and I reverted that along with your previous edit explaining my revert of both as Unexplained removal of citations and insertion of non-preferred format.

I guess never mind the removal. Sorry. —EncMstr (talk) 00:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lockheed CP-140 Aurora, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page SHP (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited ISO 80000-3, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Arc and Gon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Ironholds. Dondervogel 2, thanks for creating ANSI S1.1-1994!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please add references to articles you create.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Ironholds (talk) 04:52, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mebibyte, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ubuntu (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Embraer Legacy 600, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mph (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Wireless Gigabit Alliance, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page EVM (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:51, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm contacting everyone who has commented but who hasn't taken an explicit Support or Oppose position (or if you did, I missed it). In the interest of bringing this discussion to resolution, it might be helpful if you could do that. Thanks. EEng (talk) 12:58, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My initial position was to oppose because I thought it would contradict the International System of Quantities (ISQ). My position now is neutral. Rather than this very explicit rule for the kWh, why not replace it with the ISQ rule, with this as an example? That is something I would support. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 13:43, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would support that too, though I think it would need to say something like "Where such usage is seen in sources treating the topic area of the article, and where there is no risk of ambiguity, spaces between multiplied units may be omitted." However, I think that would take a much wider discussion, especially since there isn't any issue right now for anything other than kWh, so it would seem like a rule to solve a problem which isn't yet a problem; we're having the kWh discussion because kWh, specifically, has become an issue. EEng (talk) 15:07, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the problem hasn't been mentioned doesn't mean it's not there. Examples are nm vs Nm (or N m) for torque, ah vs Ah for electric charge, and ns vs Ns (or N s) for impulse, but there must be others. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 15:40, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Level (logarithmic quantity), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bel. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited RapidIO, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gig. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

DECserver

added a link pointing to Kilobaud

DMX512

added a link pointing to Kilobaud

Digital AMPS

added a link pointing to Kilobaud

ELM327

added a link pointing to Kilobaud

High-bit-rate digital subscriber line

added a link pointing to Kilobaud

MIDI

added a link pointing to Kilobaud

MIDI usage and applications

added a link pointing to Kilobaud

On-board diagnostics

added a link pointing to Kilobaud

Optomux

added a link pointing to Kilobaud

SDS Protocol

added a link pointing to Kilobaud

SafetyBUS p

added a link pointing to Kilobaud

U interface

added a link pointing to Kilobaud

Yamaha MU-series

added a link pointing to Kilobaud

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:15, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Really, you do not need to pursue this with me. Your comments have implied that unless WP settles on a single unit symbol to use, then the articles will not be in harmony, with each other, or with supposed standards. And that indeed is what the discussions have been about. To me, you seem a little put out that I am challenging that assumption and your use of the word "harmonization" to describe it (since the word itself implies more). I am perfectly able to see what the thrust of the discussion is about, but I am also perfectly able to see the way words can be taken to multiple things at one time. I don't really have a way to see your intent, but your words are capable of multiple interpretation, and I'll feel free to deal with that in the way I think most appropriate. And most appropriately of all, I will continue to assume your good faith, which I have not doubted even when I take issue with your words. Please be aware that I am not attempting to be testy with you. I just have a different point of view. I hope that is not an issue in itself. You have seemed (to me) to be disappointed in the reception you have already received, in a greater measure than I think is called for. I don't think it's that others don't understand what you're saying either. It's clear enough to get through. May you be a peace with whatever outcome is there; I assure you that I will be. Evensteven (talk) 15:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dondervogel 2, I agree with everything that Evensteven said, and I have similar feelings. However, I would have appreciated a note in the active discussions when you actually brought the issue to WT:MOSNUM to let involved editors know. Though bringing this to MOSNUM was certainly a sensible thing to do, actually bringing it up there after indicating that you were done with the discussion at Talk:Astronomical unit makes it seem like WP:FORUMSHOP, especially since you've now brought this up in at least four places. And though I agree with your characterization that your view is in the minority, I don't believe there were any editors involved in the discussion who "prefer not to discuss" it. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 16:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am puzzled by both of the above posts.

• There is a clear majority against the adoption of a single harmonised unit symbol for astronomical unit. I do not understand the reason for this reluctance, but I accept it. End of story.
• As for forum shopping, the discussion started at Talk:Voyager 1 and was moved to Talk:Astronomical unit on advice of editors there, and that is where it stayed. Some editors (two I believe) expressed an unwillingness to continue the discussion at Talk:Astronomical unit. That is their prerogative.

Dondervogel 2 (talk) 21:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice that the word "here" was a link at WT:MOSNUM (my browser uses purple for visited links, very similar to the black of ordinary text), so I thought you were asking to continue discussion there. My mistake; I apologize. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 21:13, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. Now I understand the confusion. Apology accepted - I will be more carefully with my choice of words next time. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 21:30, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sport Hornet LRS, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page LSA. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lockheed F-104 Starfighter, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mach. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see you don't do userboxes (or, indeed, a user page at all). But if you ever do, this is offered for your consideration:

Jeh (talk) 22:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I appreciate the thought. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 23:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited HMS Consort (R76), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Shp. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:52, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

""derived" yes, but "known" does not seem justified as Gauss did not publish this work" -- I thought it was published, but it took years until someone found the article. I don't have the reference, though. Whether anyone contemporary read the published copy, I wouldn't know. Gah4 (talk) 16:24, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to an article published by Heideman et al in 1984, "Gauss' treatise describing the algorithm was not published in his lifetime; it appeared only his collected works [10] as an unpublished manuscript". The publication date of this Ref. 10 is 1866. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 17:22, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cooley–Tukey_FFT_algorithm reference 1 seems to indicate that it was published in neo-latin. As I remember the story from years ago, it was the neo-latin that slowed down others finding it. It does say posthumous, but doesn't indicate unpublished. Is a "collected works" a published collection of unpublished papers? I could also wonder why we need two FFT articles. Gah4 (talk) 18:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was published, but not by Gauss and (more importantly) not in 1805, so I stand by my assertion that it was not "known" in 1805. "Collected works" normally refers to a collection of published papers in one volume, but in this case appears to include at least one unpublished ms. Even after publication it did not become widely known, and presumably Cooley and Tukey were unaware of it. I guess the text could be improved further by clarifying when it was finally published, and in what form. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 21:21, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I agree. I was thinking the 1800's, and it might be that "known in the early 1800's" would work, but yes, if he wrote it in 1805, and it wasn't published until later, it wouldn't be "known" in 1805. But we don't know how many people in the early 1800's might have read it, and not told anyone about it. Gah4 (talk) 23:27, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dondervogel, I reverted you at the linked article because those numbers are taken from the references (citations 88 and 89, some of which are available online!). Best, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:59, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Izno (talk) 02:37, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Decibel

added a link pointing to Level

Sound level meter

added a link pointing to Sound level

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

58.187.229.174 (talk) 04:39, 28 March 2016 (UTC) Reliable, sources used in Asian. This is just a reference, not allowed to modify. Okay?[reply]

The Toshiba Solid State Drive HG6 Series data sheet provieds both MB/sec and MiB/sec for data rate but only GB (decimal meaning) for capacity. Think maybe we are getting close to revisiting the ban on IEC binary prefixes? Tom94022 (talk) 18:48, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that for as long as Microsoft Windows insists on using ambiguous units, the argument that the mebibyte "sounds silly" will prevail. The moment MS starts using MiB, it will (as if by magic) sound sensible, overnight. Thanks for the link though. Interesting. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 19:06, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the Decibel article you reinserted the two letters "dB" right next to the two constants "10" and "20". Can you explain what do you see as the function of "dB"? It is not a variable and it is definitely not the units of the constant "10" and the constant "20". Jordsan (talk) 19:39, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"dB" is the symbol for the decibel, which is a unit of level. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 06:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited BMW 003, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CSt. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:54, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Heinkel HeS 3, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page I.S.A.. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:05, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I created Template:Unit plural discussion which can be placed on the relevant article talk pages. Feel free to edit it if you think it can be improved. —Guanaco 09:17, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited IEEE Std 260.1-2004, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:05, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dondervogel. With regard to this, the best I can do is to quote another user on Talk:Catalan independence movement: "As far as I know the Crida was born as a response of a joint declaration by 2300 Catalan intellectuals who came out against 'Cultural Inmersion' (the education system being solely in Catalan when a majority of Catalans didn't use it) and making Catalan the sole official language of Catalonia. La Crida was a direct response to this declaration." So the intellectuals were claiming discrimination against the Castilian, not the Catalan language. I phrased it as best I could when I edited the article in response to this comment. If you can think of a better phrasing, that would be good. Regards, Scolaire (talk) 12:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly I misunderstood then. I appreciate the explanation. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 20:16, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this revert. See also User talk:Wtmitchell#Manual Of Style. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:26, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not often I get thanked for reverting an edit! Thank you for taking the trouble. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 21:56, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited International System of Units, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mole (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:28, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Metre Convention, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Saavedra (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited JT Group Limited, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Data rate (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Giant's Causeway (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Safe haven

Haven (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Safe haven

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just pointing out that the correct abbreviation for nautical mile is NM for aviation, WS SIGMET Quick Reference Guide. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 12:58, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What matters on wikipedia is mosnum, which I thought prefers nmi, but I just checked and it also permits NM, so I stand corrected. Thank you for pointing this out. Do you think aviation articles should all use NM? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 19:18, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised at your edit note at the MOS re EN-UK usage. Have you never come across structures like "a well-deserved holiday"? (as opposed to "a well deserved [a] holiday",I suppose!) or a "well-earned pay rise". So "well-established convention" looks completely familiar whereas "well established convention" looks seriously weird to me. "well" and "established" are jointly qualifying "convention" so need to be linked for speed reading. Just saying. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:25, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've seen it, but I had the impression it is more common in American writing than British. Perhaps I've got this wrong but personally I prefer to reserve the hyphen for when it is needed, to distinguish between (eg) a red-car door (which might be green) and a red car door (which I assume would be red). The example is contrived but makes the point. I don't feel strongly about it either way, which is why I tagged my edit as "minor". Dondervogel 2 (talk) 15:11, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Noise-induced hearing loss, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sound level (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:42, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, thank you for your edit to Nautical mile to "clarify that ft and mi conversions are approximate". I'm not a mathematician, but I take it this is about a loss of precision in the conversion. Good to note. Too bad though that the convert template ({{convert|1852|m|ft mi}}) had to go. There is a discussion about precision at Template:Convert. I don't have to time to investigate (or understand!) it all today, but I thought I'd check in with you in case you had any clues ... though I suppose that if you knew of such a template you'd have used it. If I don't come up with anything I'll try the convert talk page. Cheers. --Cornellier (talk) 23:56, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you understand correctly. The definition of a nautical mile as 1852 m exactly means that the conversions to miles or feet are approximate, so use of the 'convert' template meant that information was lost. I don't know whether the template can be modified to cope with this situation (which is not unique to the nautical mile), but it's worth asking on their talk page, as you suggest. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 01:11, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Asked. --Cornellier (talk) 00:08, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Could you please add a reference for your recent edit to Goldfish adding a hearing section? Its important that everyone knows where the information came from! Thank you! --HighFlyingFish (talk) 01:27, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 07:09, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! --HighFlyingFish (talk) 15:36, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of tallest buildings in Haaglanden, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New Babylon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:32, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reply. If you can spare a moment, please review pound of thrust because I don't speak American or your strange FPS notation, so it may need copyedits. TYVM. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:00, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I never use them bizarre American units myself, but find myself needing convert to SI often enough to have developed a certain familiarity. I don't see a need myself for a separate heading in (if I had done it myself I would have re-directed to pound (force) instead) but it does no harm either. Thank you for taking the trouble. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 14:51, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Alliance Air Flight 7412, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page VREF (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:02, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bombardier CRJ100/200, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages SL and MLW (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:56, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've tried to contribute to "Sound Intensity" page by adding some general information mainly extracted from a couple of publications from Finn Jacobsen, who established the theoretical foundation for both types of transducers able to measure sound intensity (p-p and p-u probes). The change was rejected but I still think that this is rather objective information that should be available on Wikipedia. My contribution is in the talk page of "Sound Intensity". Could you please move it to the main page? Best regards Fernandez.microflown (talk) 21:10, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) This is best discussed at the Talk:Sound intensity#article's talk page. I have commented there and notified the editor who removed the content of the discussion. Huon (talk) 23:08, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Zettabyte, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Clone (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:17, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1998–99 South Pacific cyclone season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page AOR (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:22, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited EADS 3 Sigma Nearchos, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages ECM and ESM (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:48, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Metric units, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Current (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:07, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Canadian Fairmile B, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page WIT (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:26, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jc3s5h (talk) 11:52, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Metric units, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conductance (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 15:05, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tonne, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Minuscule (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:28, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited EllaLink, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page RTD (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 15:13, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Can You check and rewrite the units in pages of Apple products? Thanks! 2A00:1370:811F:A315:FB5E:4233:9A12:D71F (talk) 02:42, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Manolo Otero requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:44, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Manolo Otero is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manolo Otero until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:34, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removed this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADondervogel_2&diff=prev&oldid=972508421 . 73.89.25.252 (talk) 00:00, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure this was meant for you. Now you’re going to go to your room and thinking long and hard about what you’ve done. 🤭 —jameslucas ^{▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄} 16:06, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:39, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NebY (talk) 09:16, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whew! Many thanks for reverting my well-intended edit in Tonne #alternative usage. Thnidu (talk) 15:08, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. An easy mistake to make. I've made similar ones myself and am sure to do so again, so perhaps you can return the (well-intended) revert in kind. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 17:22, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Template:Quantities of bytes. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Elizium23 (talk) 22:47, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dondervogel. I found your edit comment here surprising. You wrote, "I agree 'beak' is not relevant here, but to me 'peak' seems more relevant than 'little bit' (and I see 'little bit' as a synonym of 'peak')" Pico- is a prefix for very small quantities. An etymology from a word that means "little bit" makes sense to me. A claimed etymology from a word that means "peak" makes no sense to me at all. Are you seeing something I am missing?--Srleffler (talk) 20:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The way I see it is that "pico" (for "peak") refers to a mountain top, meaning the tiny piece of the mountain that sticks out at the top, and I believe the colloquial meaning (for "a little bit") originates from this interpretation. I don't have a source. It's just my understanding of the Spanish language (and I speak the language fluently). If you insist on a source, I think we must go back to the more general "peak, beak, little bit". Perhaps we should do that. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 20:51, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this definition of "pico" by the Real Academia Española, though not a source for my opinion, helps clarify the various meanings. Definition 6 is the mountain peak. Definition 10 refer to "a little bit". Dondervogel 2 (talk) 20:58, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Jonathan Pershing, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 02:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@McMatter:Are you really suggesting the subject lacks notability? Anyway, I have no intention to edit the draft further. I leave that to others. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 07:10, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They very well could be notable, but a single connected source is not enough to establish it and instead of someone marking it for deletion, draftifying is a better option until it can be expanded enough to actually demonstrate how or why they meet WP:NPOL, WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 17:40, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I find that keeping a stub in MAIN space provides an incentive to improve it, while moving to DRAFT space means no one will see it and therefore no one will improve it either. Let's just agree to disagree. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 14:06, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dondervogel 2. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Jonathan Pershing, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 03:01, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mcmatter: advised that "draftifying" was the best way to make sure the article was improved. I never understood how a draft article would ever help. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 11:08, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dondervogel 2. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Jonathan Pershing".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:38, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: I don't understand why you're spamming me with this. The subject is clearly notable and the article belongs in WP mainspace, not in DRAFT. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 12:19, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, discussion pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Template talk:Quantities of bits, 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. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:26, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your post on Template talk:Quantities of bits: it's appreciated but I don't think it's the right place for that. Please let's keep personal conversation to our talk pages. ;-) --Zac67 (talk) 19:26, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry. I didn't realise it was inappropriate. Should I delete that part of the post? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 19:46, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see that LC has resumed his disruptive editing. I plan to stay away until that is addressed. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 04:37, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Zac67: Hmmm, the ANI thread seems to have stagnated. The templates have also gone quiet, so I shall tip-toe back into the discussion in the hope of making some progress. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 11:28, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, very underwhelming... As it seems, the admins are unmotivated meddling with a perceivedly "fruitless discussion" and the aggressive tone/manner/harassment issues went under. Maybe we should try to gather some attention at the Wikipedia:Village pump, as suggested. --Zac67 (talk) 11:44, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind where the discussion takes place, provided it remains civil. I made an attempt to restart the discussion at the template talk. I have no objection to trying the Village pump if you wish to try that. I don't have the energy to start that myself but I would support such attempts by others. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 11:48, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Zac67: fyi [1] [2]. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 10:37, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With this edit you commented in a reply to me the following: You seem to imply you invited him to the discussion because you are confident he will support your position. I had replied, asking Where did I imply this?. Can you explain your comment as I've already asked? —Locke Cole • t • c 21:28, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will consider responding to your questions once they are expressed as questions (or requests, but not demands) and when you learn to assume good faith. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 11:33, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so to be 100% clear here, you don't get to set conditions on casting aspersions. Explain your comments or remove them. These are your only choices. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:15, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And just to be clear, my original comment above was a question. But as you're now making more aspersions about me at AN/I, it is now a demand. I will take your lack of replies as evidence of your continued misbehavior and note it at AN/I going forward. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:49, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will feel able to respond when you rephrase the demand as a request on the template talk page and if you work towards a consensus on Template talk:Quantities of bits. Agreeing a baseline version would be a good place to start. The baseline version does not have to be the same as my proposal, but you do need to persuade other editors why your proposal is a better starting point. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 12:04, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will feel able to respond when you rephrase the demand as a request Again, you don't get to set conditions on casting aspersions. on the template talk page and if you work towards a consensus on Template talk:Quantities of bits Why would I ask a user conduct question on a template talk page? What does the template have to do with you casting aspersions? And for the latter part, you don't get to hold answers for your behavior hostage to meeting your demands. That's literally not how this has worked. Ever. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:42, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for notifying my status of visualizing fractional barn cross sections. I have removed the "square decayoctometer" thing.

--MULLIGANACEOUS-- (talk) 04:29, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:08, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Abishe (talk) 21:41, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please ignore my labeling of your edits as vandalism, as what you did does not constitute vandalism in any way, shape, or form. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa!!!!!!! As you can see, I reverted it back to your version. 2603:6011:7501:7862:BD9C:D5BA:A7C9:359D (talk)

re [3]: how does this not fall under XAM2175's "Further discussion here will be completely unproductive"? How can one know a post by me would be equally acceptable? Anyway, the edit you reverted is trolling. Also, it is not helpful in the discussion. I still propose removal. DePiep (talk) 11:53, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I still consider it inappropriate to delete the post, even by the editor who posted them in the first place. If that editor chooses to withdraw the remark, the best way to do so would be to strike through them. My 2c. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 12:07, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you understand my reasoning, my es? Looks like you missed the essentials. You have not replied to my Whatif-question here. DePiep (talk) 12:55, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for standardizing Free-space optical communication; do you happen to know if there is a guideline written anywhere about preferring bit/s over bps? I'll propose officially adopting it at WP:COMP if not! Tule-hog (talk) 01:46, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is such a rule. You can find it at MOSNUM. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 08:12, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, while editing that article I noticed several occurrences of "metre" and several others of "meter". I prefer to harmonise but was unsure which to use, so I left it mixed. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 08:16, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article is flagged for using AE, yet the flag's a bit dated. So the choice is "meter", see MOS:ENGVAR. --Zac67 (talk) 11:21, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Decibel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page RMS.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]