User talk:Kbrose: Difference between revisions

Editor talk

One of my changes to Metric prefix was simply a link to the existing article about a notable person mentioned in that section. I'm reinstating that one, as it's not covered by your reason, and I think it's in fact indisputably proper.

On the main one, I disagree, but rather than edit-war 🙍 I'll take it to the Village Pump. I'll {{ping}} you from the entry. Please ping me if responding here. --Thnidu (talk) 00:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Megabit

I'm surprised you removed my content from Megabit. I was mostly trying to clean up and add content to the article, including additional references and external links. The distinction between conventions used in embedded memory specifications and telecom data rate specifications is indeed an important one to make.

For example, if somebody wants to know how much digital capacity is in an 8-Megabit ROM chip, the answer is 1,048,576 bytes. The same goes for EEPROM, SDRAM, Flash, etc. (as I mentioned in my edit). I work for a company that designs Automatic test equipment. We have to put these chips in a lot of our schematics. The technical specifications (not just marketing) for both Volatile memory and Non-volatile memory chips commonly uses Megabit or Mb to describe 2^20 bits, and Kilobit or Kb to describe 2^10 bits, which is why I included links to several datasheets.

Here's another example from a fairly well reviewed book, "Embedded Controller Hardware Design"

https://books.google.com/books?id=u4ePo0rvab4C&pg=PA108#v=onepage&q&f=false

I imagine that the engineers who designed the controllers in your car follow the same 'incorrect' conventions when using the word Megabit. The reality is that nobody uses the word Mebibit, or Mibit to describe these things. It's really just humorous trivia.

The video game cartridge reference is valuable, because that is probably the most commonplace usage of the term Megabit when talking about digital storage in embedded applications. I didn't bother touching that section much, but there are plenty of cross-references that could be added there too. Nintendo 64 Game Pak, ROM cartridge, etc. All of these follow the same convention of 1 Megabit = 2^20 bits.

Obviously Megabyte, Gigabyte and Terabyte are much more common words used to describe digital storage nowadays, and most hard-drive manufacturers specify their capacity using SI conventions (which conveniently results in bigger looking numbers). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.112.34.211 (talk) 08:08, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I know you intend well and I don't disagree with the facts that the old measurements are still used, but this is the topic of several articles on WP, and in the talk pages of many articles, but the standards organizations are all united in their recommendations, standard development, and practices. The industry has investments in tooling and education and such and it will take some time to convert to the new units, but the process is underway. All WP articles show first what the standards organizations recommend and that is the way it should be. You can raise your objections on the article talk pages please. Kbrose (talk) 18:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

You reverted my edit to internet

That's fine but I do think that videogames should be mentioned somewhere in the internet article. Shall I put a mention of it in there somewhere? Ping me. -DangerousJXD (talk) 23:50, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you bring up the question on the article talk page where other editors can weigh in? Kbrose (talk) 23:57, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Internet traffic cleanup

Thanks! I did some things (forgetting to log in... (Or actually not sure if blanking even really bad sections ("Cost of Internet traffic") is safe when logged in...)). It looks significantly better now. MoHaG (talk) 17:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Ernest K. Warburton (US Air Force)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Ernest K. Warburton (US Air Force), and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.militarybios.com/biography/BrigadierGeneralErnestKWarburton.html.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 15:14, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The content is in the public domain as it originates from a US government site, as noted everywhere in the article and the talk page. Kbrose (talk) 15:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Regarding your reverting of my edits to HTTPS URLs

I noticed you reverted many of my edits that changed the URLs' protocol from HTTP to HTTPS or protocol relative, such as this and this. There are three reasons why I make these changes:

• It is the consensus to "use HTTPS links for HTTPS only sites, protocol relative links for sites that support both HTTP and HTTPS, and HTTP links for sites that don't support HTTPS at all". Please see the discussion here.
• If a user uses HTTPS to view Wikipedia, which is the default for registered users, and if the outlinks are insecure, the Referer header is not set. Some people consider not sending Referer is undesirable and Wikimedia Foundation is trying to fix this issue. One way is to ensure that wherever possible, the outlinks should be secure (i.e. HTTPS or protocol relative). Please see meta:Research:Wikimedia referrer policy. User:Tgr (WMF) from Wikimedia Foundation even recommended using Edit filters to "warn editors when they are adding insecure DOI references". He also commented "avoiding insecure outlinks from secure pages is desirable for privacy reasons as well".([1]) So there is nothing wrong with my edits to convert insecure links to HTTPS.
• Your comment "if they enforce it then there is no need to do this rubbish" is wrong. When I say "enforce" I mean the websites redirect HTTP to HTTPS. If this is the case, then a direct link to HTTPS is much better than let it redirect, since if HTTP is used, man-in-the-middle can still modify the users' traffic and redirect them to malicious websites. Avoiding a redirect also increases performance. Chmarkine (talk) 00:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)