| Revision as of 19:33, 5 August 2010 editBoute (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users509 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:38, 5 August 2010 edit undoFloydian (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, IP block exemptions, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors38,594 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
| Sorry you see my latest message as "repetition". It clarified that you missed the dB in the formula, which sheds a different light on the reasoning. Also, it specified what the other editors found objectionable as "nonstandard", namely x dB = 10^{x/10}, which as you said is high school algebra. These two things are new observations. I hope that you reconsider, and grant me the courtesy of an informative reply. ] (]) 19:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC) | Sorry you see my latest message as "repetition". It clarified that you missed the dB in the formula, which sheds a different light on the reasoning. Also, it specified what the other editors found objectionable as "nonstandard", namely x dB = 10^{x/10}, which as you said is high school algebra. These two things are new observations. I hope that you reconsider, and grant me the courtesy of an informative reply. ] (]) 19:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC) | ||
| ::I'd personally recommend ignoring Wtshymanski. Give them the same treatment they find so acceptable to give to others: crap. Seek outside opinions from civil editors if you actually want the dignity of being responded to. This person is more concerned with keeping the page blank. - ''']''' <sup>]</sup> <sub>]</sub> 20:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:38, 5 August 2010
If only it would stay blank.
Sorry you see my latest message as "repetition". It clarified that you missed the dB in the formula, which sheds a different light on the reasoning. Also, it specified what the other editors found objectionable as "nonstandard", namely x dB = 10^{x/10}, which as you said is high school algebra. These two things are new observations. I hope that you reconsider, and grant me the courtesy of an informative reply. Boute (talk) 19:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'd personally recommend ignoring Wtshymanski. Give them the same treatment they find so acceptable to give to others: crap. Seek outside opinions from civil editors if you actually want the dignity of being responded to. This person is more concerned with keeping the page blank. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ¢ 20:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)