User talk:Delicates

Hi Delicates, and welcome to Wikipedia.

Thankyou for finding the time to sign up and contribute to our little project. If you're in doubt about anything, you might want to check out some of these pages:

Welcome, newcomers - a general introduction, and a good starting point
The help centre and FAQs
The Manual of Style - a guide to the community's writing conventions

It's also a good idea to sign the new user log and add a little about yourself.

When contributing to a talk page, you can sign your name by typing four tildes after your comments, like this: ~~~~. (Just so you know, some people won't pay attention to unsigned comments).

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask me at my talk page, or at the Help desk or Village Pump.

Above all, make sure you be bold when contributing, and have fun!

– T.P.K. 06:19, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

binary prefix

why did you "revert" the kibi, mebi table? - Omegatron 14:20, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

The major reasons are:

Expressing values as "= 1000⁶ × 1.152 921 504 606 846 976" rather than "= 1 152 921 504 606 846 976" only complicates things and hinders readability, without any real benefit.
I'm not sure what you mean. Guess I need both version in front of me at the same time. - Omegatron
I remember why I didn't like this. The original format more clearly showed the error between the two. 15.29% in this case. A list of percent errors would be better, though. I am going to try my own revision of the table and you can see if you like it. - Omegatron
The column "Meaning" was pulled out of the sky. "binary mega" is absolutely wrong. It implies that there are 2 different kinds of "mega" which is not the case. In contrast, the original spec provides "Origin" such as "megabinary" for each prefix.
There are two different meanings of mega- - Omegatron
Two? You sure? Not three? ;o) I know of only one meaning of mega which has been defined in 1874. :o) - Delicates 21:30, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yep. There is the defined standard meaning, and there is the widely-used, widely-accepted, but technically incorrect meaning. - Omegatron 22:56, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
Widely? I beg to differ. I take it you're talking about only these two niche uses: Megabyte and Megabit. Two uses is hardly "widely". And you might actually want to read Megabyte, because it isn't two meanings there either. :o) - Delicates 23:11, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The prefix name should stand before the symbol for it.
Yeah. - Omegatron

Plus plenty of other less significant typographical and presentation corrections. Delicates 16:19, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Are you sure they make it better? I will go look again. - Omegatron 21:17, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

First, I was thinking of the kilo- mega- table, but you changed the kibi- mebi- table. I have no problem with your changes to the kibi- mebi- table.
I have therefore changed my mind about making my own version of the table :-)
I think the "= 1000⁶ × 1.152 921 504 606 846 976" format was a little more obvious about the difference between the two, but it could be made much more clear in some different way.
Yes, there are more than one meaning for each of the kilo- mega- and so on, though only one is official. - Omegatron 23:24, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

It would be nice if the standards org adoption information from [1] was added to the Binary prefix article. Right now it just says "strongly encouraged by the IEEE and CIPM" or something. - Omegatron 19:08, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

whitespace is good

http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?WhitespaceIsGood :-) - Omegatron 21:13, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Space dividers instead of commas in numbers?

Hi, I'm just wondering why you change commas to spaces in numbers - is this in Wikipedia's manual of style? ··gracefool |☺ 04:02, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is the standard international notation for dividing numbers in groups of three in order to facilitate reading in scientific documents, due to the fact that while in English a dot is used to separate the integral part of numbers from the decimal part, a comma is used in many other languages. Thus, the BIPM (which also maintains SI) has declared in 1948 and re-confirmed in 2003 that "Numbers may be divided in groups of three in order to facilitate reading; neither dots nor commas are ever inserted in the spaces between groups". The use of non-breaking space prevents the number from breaking up during "word wrap". Delicates 12:57, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia's style guide says to use commas, though. :-\ Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Numbers_2 - Omegatron 19:08, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Correction: English Wikipedia's style guide, which admits being against international standards, and advises to follow them for scientific articles. Do we consider Terabyte a scientific article? Delicates 09:31, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Binary prefixes

Please don't "spell it out" in the edit comment.

If you have a good citation for this, put it in the article. So far, you haven't done so.

I know it's annoying, but this and other articles on large numbers have had constant problems with people simply putting in extrapolations, speculations and assertions without citing sources. It does appear that the third edition has issued, but I'm not personally going to pay $219.00 for a copy and I don't have easy access to a library where I can check it out.

Can I assume you have access to the third edition? If so, please add the citation. If not, then please cite whatever source you used that says that the third edition includes -zebi and -yobi. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond clarity external links

Please read our guidelines on external links. In particular links normally to be avoided include:

Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain once it becomes a Featured article (all)
Direct links to documents that require external applications (such as Flash or Java) to view the relevant content (GIA)
Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services (HerDreamDiamond.com)

These are clearly inappropriate per the guidelines and should be removed. Thanks, Gwernol 14:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree on GIA, EGL link probably could be placed into References section. HerDreamDiamond is a tough one. Diamonds are a valuable commodity, as such their price is of high relevance to the article. The hardest task is to give readers an idea of how diamond pricing works. I couldn't find any better resource than HerDreamDiamond on the matter. The link does serve a real and needed purpose. Another example: I added this link to the Diamond cut page. I find it to be absolutely outstanding and of great value, even though it resides on a site that sells diamonds. Thoughts? Delicates 14:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monika Hájková

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Monika Hájková. Thank you. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Monika Hájková

I have nominated Monika Hájková, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monika Hájková. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Epbr123 (talk) 06:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]