Ignacio.Agulló
I reverted your change because I feel that such a major change in the article requires that we establish that WP:CONSENSUS has changed. Hence, this is the "R" stage of WP:BRD. I strongly encourage you to begin a discussion on the article talk page. Thanks! Jeh (talk) 10:39, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- Here we are again. You apparently ignored my advice above to bring the issue to the talk page. Your claim that a couple of minor civil lawsuits resulted in a "legal definition of the gigabyte" is flatly wrong; read the cases. They both ended with the defendants settling with the plaintiffs. That means there was no legal precedent established and certainly no "legal definition of GB" that is binding on the entire United States—no actual decision by the courts at all, in fact, other than acceptance of the terms of the settlements, which apply only to their particular cases.
- I have started a section on the article talk page regarding this issue. If you still want to argue for your claim, please discuss it there (and bring some better references). Jeh (talk) 19:24, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
October 2014
edit
Hello, I'm Jeh. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Gigabyte, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Although you provided a source, your source does not support your claim, as I explained above. A lawsuit that is settled out of court (which is what happened with that one) does not result in any "legal definition" nor any binding precedent. The only thing the judge decides in such cases is to approve the terms of the settlement. Also as I noted above, I started a section on the article talk page pertaining to this question. If you want to argue for your position, please do so there. Thank you. Jeh (talk) 17:47, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
- In addition, please do not claim that the deletion of your previous edit was done "without a reason" (as you did in your edit summary). My edit summary was "these lawsuits do not in any way establish a "legally set" value for the GB. Drive makers continue to market drives using GB=10^9". If that isn't providing a reason, I don't know what would be. I also came here and pointed you at the article talk page, inviting further discussion. Your "User contributions" shows that you know how to use article talk pages; please join the existing discussion there. Thank you. Jeh (talk) 22:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC)