User talk:DavidPaulHamilton

New MOSNUM policy to address more than just binary prefixes[edit]

Since you voted on a proposal to no longer routinely use the IEC prefixes (kibibytes & KiB), I thought you’d be interested to know that the best we could muster at this time is a more general principal here on MOSNUM. I’m sorry I couldn’t deliver anything better at the moment. However, I hope you will agree that it speaks to the basic principal underlying that whole debate. Greg L (talk) 03:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will read the proposal when I am not tired.DavidPaulHamilton (talk) 23:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Bondwell is being edited[edit]

It looks like Bondwell is being edited to revert your changes. Fnag aton 13:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fnagaton and David, please, show a little respect towards other editors. It wasn't just me who considered use of KiB in Bondwell most appropriate, even more so because the sources use these units inconsistently such as using "Kb" which actually means Kilobit. I cleaned the article and made it consistent. The original editors, all until Fnagaton came along, agreed on using KiB. All you, David, did was reverting edits. You could have contributed (more) to the article as I did but you didn't. I kindly request that both of you stop converting KiB to KB and restore the originally used units. Thank you very much. --TimTomTom (talk) 14:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is better using KB. DavidPaulHamilton (talk) 14:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Better"? Sorry, but is that supposed to be an argument? The previous authors considered KiB to be "better". It's not only better but also clear because it has only a single meaning. So would you, please, restore the version which is considered "better" by the original authors and the overwhelming majority? Thanks. --TimTomTom (talk) 14:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IEC prefixes are not used by the majority so KB is better. DavidPaulHamilton (talk) 14:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed tag[edit]

David: You should know, before you get further embroiled in an edit war over the {disputed} tag, of this complaint against Omegatron for being an involved administrator taking sides: Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Failure_to_accept_consensus_by_involved_administrator

Greg L (talk) 04:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David: regarding your recent removal of the disputed tag, claiming that it is resolved and to see the talk page, all I see on the talk page is a claim that the Wittiquette alert is resolved (although I'm not sure I believe that). I see no claim that the dispute over the "Follow current literature" section is resolved. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 03:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SheffieldSteel said Consensus is not all editors in 100% happy agreement, and never has been. It only takes one editor, refusing to abide by consensus, to post a "disputed" tag. How, then, can such a tag prove that there is no consensus?DavidPaulHamilton (talk) 08:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David: I would suggest that asking all three of the following from Jimp/T-bird et al: 1) Leave "Follow current literature" as posted alone, and 2) not put a {disputed} tag on it, and 3) edit in good faith on "Fifth draft", is a bit much. I think this is one of those "pick two and call me in the morning" propositions. I suggest you leave the {disputed} tag in place as long as the issue is being actively worked on in good faith at "Fifth draft". It's clear as glass that you think "Follow current literature" was properly draft with a proper consensus. I do too. As ShefieldSteel said, “Consensus is not all editors in 100% happy agreement, and never has been.” It is preferable nevertheless, to have the major opponents happy with "Follow current literature"—if that is at all possible. If if helps, perhaps you can post a notice on Talk:MOSNUM stating that your acquiescing to allowing the {disputed} tag to temporarily remain in place should not be construed as implying that you believe the tag is proper. Greg L (talk) 21:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I'll be relatively inactive for the next two days as I'm down in college town for an FDA clinical trial at the moment and am temporarily on a Windows machine. I'm all thumbs on this damned thing. I just boosted the refresh rate on the monitor from 60 Hz to 75. Working at 60 Hz for very long would waste me in short order. Greg L (talk) 21:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.P.S. I see that Classicaio (an obvious sock puppet of NotSarenne/217.87...) put the {disputed} tag there and was blocked two hours later (on my earlier request). Nevertheless, I think we should leave it. There is no point motivating him to blow another of his bogus accounts just to put the tag in place. Of course, anything else he does should be reverted. Greg L

(talk) 21:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It looks like it has calmed down now.DavidPaulHamilton (talk) 12:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Block[edit]

You have been blocked indef as a sock of Fnagaton. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

DavidPaulHamilton (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I wish to appeal the block on the grounds that one of the admins looking at the sock report was not sure and the other blocking admin did say there was reasonable doubt. That I happen to be interested in a subject shouldn't be grounds for mistaking my identity with another editor especially when I am interested in subjects Fnagaton has never shown an interest in. (looking at my edit history I also edit at times Fnagaton has never edited indicating we are two people with different schedules) I wish to continue to help improve Wikipedia as I have been doing. I am requesting the reviewing admin ask for a checkuser to be done to help resolve the issue.

Decline reason:

This account started its participation on Wikipedia with several edits in MOS discussions, and most of its further edits were also related to MOS disputes. Very symptomatic. I've seen no-one else who started contributing from such obscure area. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 14:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.