User talk:Frost/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

NTFS

Hi, I noticed you undid one of my edits to NTFS, saying it "wasn't constructive".

In what way was this edit "not constructive"? I saw that the article used incorrect units, fixed them to use the correct units, then it got reverted back to the wrong units. They referenced MOS:COMPUNITS, which I read, only to find out that the section of the referenced policy itself discussing a prohibition on IEC binary prefixes is rooted in the very short-sighted notion that "the majority of sources do things this way, so we do things this way".

I am an engineer and policies like these are severely troubling to me. It is well known that many of Wikipedia's policies (WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:V) backfire in cases of an incorrect majority, and this fact is well known to both people within and outside of Wikipedia. Specifically, if the majority of sources state things that are inaccurate, incorrect, or misleading, Wikipedia will inadvertently perpetuate that.

What's even more inexcusable is the fact that your article on the byte even explicitly mentions that the use of "KB", "MB", etc. to refer to powers of 1024 is "confusing and incorrect", yet in your policies you knowingly insist that things must be done this way. Is it not obviously apparent that this is massively hypocritical?

The computing industry suffers from a long-standing misuse of units and prefixes, and the MoS's opposition of use of the IEC prefixes is making things worse, not better. 208.114.63.4 (talk) 15:18, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

IEC units are bad. Few people actually use them, their presence in reliable sources are nearly non-existent except often to point out how nobody uses them, the public at large doesn't really appear to know about the units, and as Wikipedia follows what reliable sources say, we're almost always the "last" place to see anything major changed (with few exceptions). This is, of course, by design. If our articles constantly changed with the winds of politics, committees, or what have you, it would lead to confusion and edit wars over things like "megabyte (MB)" vs. "mebibyte (MiB)". Most of us have better things to do with our lives. If in 20+ years (and with a period where Wikipedia mandated the use of IEC prefixes) the world at-large didn't proceed to adopt these "new" units, forcing them down our readers throats won't magically "fix" the rest of the world. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:30, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

So you know that the commonly-accepted practice is incorrect, yet you still continue to use it nonetheless?

Maybe the reason why there are so many pages of flamewars with regards to this is because people are trying to point out that this policy of yours is factually flawed yet you refuse to actually fix it. Every time someone tries to point this out, the mob (and from the threads I've read, I know you in particular are especially infamous for this kind of gatekeeping) constantly bombard people with the same old, tired "no one else does this so we shouldn't" non-argument. It is utterly incomprehensible to me as to how Wikipedia does not understand, or refuses to accept, how short-sighted and illogical this "approach" is.

This is not a matter of "forcing [something] down people's throats". This is not a subjective matter. This is a matter of being stubborn, complacent, narcissistic, and egotistical, and trying to deny such behaviour even when the evidence is extremely clear. 208.114.63.4 (talk) 12:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

So you know that the commonly-accepted practice is incorrect, yet you still continue to use it nonetheless? No, I know what our reliable sources use, and we use what they use, not what some standards body attempted to force on society over two decades ago. WP:COMPUNITS is WP:V and WP:RS just being fully realized, and there's a small but vocal sector of the community that just can't seem to accept that we're not going to publish original research just because they really really really want us to... "no one else does this so we shouldn't" non-argument... so, you're new here? WP:V is the long-form version of that "non-argument", and it's policy.

This will be my last reply to this as nothing is getting changed on a user talk page, if you genuinely want to try to change things, WT:MOSNUM is over there. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:55, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

No, I know what our reliable sources use, and we use what they use, not what some standards body attempted to force on society over two decades ago.

Yes, and countless people have tried to point out how this becomes improper in cases like these, to no avail, simply because you guys clearly refuse to change your ways no matter how stupid they are.

WP:COMPUNITS is WP:V and WP:RS just being fully realized, and there's a small but vocal sector of the community that just can't seem to accept that we're not going to publish original research just because they really really 'really want us to...

Yes, and in cases like these WP:NOR is inadvertently perpetuating confusion and misinformation. It's not that we don't understand the policies, it's you refusing to fix a known issue "just because". Why is this so hard for you to understand?

so, you're new here? WP:V is the long-form version of that "non-argument", and it's policy.

No, I'm fully aware of WP:V. I'm also willing to accept that "VeRiFiAbIlItY" and "ReLiAbLe" have lost their meaning entirely (since in a lot of cases the sources that are deemed "reliable" are only given that status because someone or a small group of people forcibly shoved that notion down everyone else's throats) and that this fact is very well-known to both people within and outside of Wikipedia.

And finally, I dare say this, but WP:V has clearly become "all verifiability, no truth". 208.114.63.4 (talk) 19:40, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

I should've used a better edit summary/talk note, but your edit was inappropriate in the sense that it went against the MoS and you restored it after being reverted, instead of taking to the talk page (following WP:CYCLE). Going with the majority of sources is precisely the standard and common practice on Wikipedia. Frost 08:45, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

New pages patrol May 2025 Backlog drive

May 2025 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
On 1 May 2025, a one-month backlog drive for New Pages Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:25, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Ambient pop albums by American artists has been nominated for merging

Category:Ambient pop albums by American artists has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 20:57, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Western Bears

Hi Frost. Could you please move the page Western Bears to Perth Bears? I now there was some opposition in an RM, but the argument against was to wait for the official name to be announced. And it appears Perth Bears will be the official name. Cheers Servite et contribuere (talk) 08:03, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Servite et contribuere. Sorry I couldn't do it earlier. I see a new RM has started. Frost 04:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Frost That's OK. The RM is all but poised to be approved anyways Servite et contribuere (talk) 04:05, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Russell Mael

Hi, I know this is a few weeks old, but I noticed the edit you reverted on Russell Mael, and I'm just letting you know I'm 99.999% confident it was vandalizing (just say Chein Mael out loud), so I'm not if you caught that. Kinda funny though.

I dunno how reporting vandalization on IP accounts work, if it's a stoppable thing, but you seem to have experience with this sort of thing. Fundgy (talk) 20:01, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

I didn't call it vandalism because labeling something as that requires more obvious malicious intent, and at the time the pun didn't register in my mind. But agreed, it's a little funny thinking of it now. @Fundgy Frost 04:07, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Freedom is peace page

Hi Frost, just seen you've reviewed the page Freedom Is Peace and I wonder why you put a tag bearing unreliable sources. All the sources mentioned in that page have their appropriate links and are renowned (top!) sources in the international jazz community (already listed in Wikipedia, All About Jazz, Jazz Hot, Marc Myers, Scott Yanow etc.). I've seen that you removed a couple of more quotes/links that I put, but no problem, as they are enough now :-) So, please, let me know if something is still wrong or inappropriate (as I cannot see anything unreliable or uncorrect - no problem to get it removed, in case) and, please, possibly remove your tag. Thanks. Best! Robmag (talk) 14:30, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Robmag. I added the tag because Lajazzscene.buzz doesn't show signs of a good source. It uses a Wordpress theme, it looks poorly designed, it is not used in another Wikipedia article, I couldn't find any information about its writers or tell if it's actually affiliated with Scott Yanow or just a fan site using his name. Frost 06:42, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello and thanks for your prompt feedback. You're right, Lajazzscene.buzz has a poor design but it's the classic and real jazz magazine from Los Angeles. It used to be a printed newspaper untill a few years ago and now it's only released as a web magazine. Yes, it's absolutely affiliated with Scott Yanow, who regularly writes articles there, as you can see at the page https://lajazzscene.buzz/about/, where you can find that he also runs a specific format "Jazz Around Town by Scott Yanow". In that same page you can also find some guest writers, the Archive with the past issues etc. So, no misunderstanding, it's an established and known "magazine" in the jazz community, even if it's sad to say, that's the only jazz "magazine" that comes out on a regular basis in Los Angeles with such a modest format. Robmag (talk) 10:52, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

If you think the tag should be removed, you may start a discussion about it on the article's talk page. Frost 05:13, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

What was inaccurate

She's a criminal and horribly overweight. Why is this not relevant or accurate? I can quote obesity rates....and the she's a criminal illegal immigrant by her own admittance? 204.195.164.51 (talk) 04:49, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

If you're referring to Greisa Martínez Rosas, your edits were reverted because you did not add a source and nothing in the article suggests the person was an illegal alien. Frost 07:40, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Undiscussed moves needed to be reverted

Hi! This user by the name of YeedyYaada has just made a bunch of moves that might be controversial and were undiscussed: Special:Contributions/YeedyYaada. Specifically moving pages regarding Virat and Kohli in reference to the Cricketer. Since I cannot, can you please revert these as undiscussed moves? Thank you Servite et contribuere (talk) 18:26, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

The moving will take some time. For now I have redirected both "Virat" and "Kohli" to their respective disambiguation pages, and have removed the hatnote. YeedyYaada (talk) 02:20, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

@Servite et contribuere, done. @YeedyYaada, contested moves should go through WP:RM. Frost 03:42, 24 May 2025 (UTC)