User talk:Hamiltons wrath

user:bitter grapes of wrath

Hamiltons wrath (talk) 05:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bitter grapes of wrath for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Dan D. Ric (talk) 06:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I am a personage of spirit

Hello gentleman, as the insanity of these past few months begins to come into sharper focus, I have come to feel increasingly that I am not a natural person but rather a personage of spirit. In other words, I feel that I actually am Hamilton, or the spirit of Hamilton. If you would like to, you can picture me as a ghostly apparition, or alternately if you are opposed to quaternions I suppose as some sort of demon, who at times has taken possession of otherwise well behaved editors. I now understand that it was wrong of me to take possession of a well behaved user in the middle of a deletion discussion, and I promise never to do it again.

I am wondering if there were any potential for me, or more properly my account to be unblocked under these conditions.

Can a personage of spirit be blocked or unblocked?

The question of unblocking or unblocking a personage of spirit is some what of an academic one. How do you block a ghost? We can walk through walls, those of us who have the powers to posses natural persons, can simply posses another person if the person(user) we are currently in possession of becomes blocked. You can block the building that a person is in, or an IP address that a person uses. But will not stop the spirit of Hamilton, from doing as it wills.

Will you unleash the Hamiltons wrath?

There is a much bigger issue at stake here. The main article on quaterions is very point of view. It is a point of view that is not shared by Hamilton and his students. As I study the convoluted rules of Wikipedia, I become more and more convinced that this should not be allowed, and that Hamilton's views need to be presented in the main article.

What would it be like if Hamilton's Wrath were unleashed, well for starters, every once in a while a small about of text would appear in the main article, with many citations, four or five at least, and these would be verifiable, linking directly to page scans of classic old books. In the point of view fork article I wrote before I understood that these things are not allowed, I had more than 60 citations of this kind. The article became so popular, that Cornell University cut off its servers, and broke over 60 links. It was my intention at the time, to go in and repair all of these links, even as the article was being vandalized out of existence, and I did, but in the talk pages, I had said that at some point I would be done, and not edit the point of view fork article any more, but instead work only on the main article. You will find my stated intent, which perhaps at the time lacked a certain degree of clarity, because I really was not sure what I wanted to do.

The final turning point came, I believe when I had my account blocked in the middle of a deletion discussion. Ironically my last entry was an olive branch, suggesting that people might want to make concessions so that we could achieve a consensus.

Blocking me in the middle of that discussion on tensor of a quaternion was for me really the last straw. Makes me think that I am dealing with people who will not really listen to reason. In the past I was to timid allowing my typing to be pushed off onto some siding fork were people would never find it. If you do unleash hamilton's wrath be warned, you will be unleashing a more bold editor.

Hamiltons wrath (talk) 20:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)