User:Requestion/Talk:Jdh30

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello Requestion/Talk:Jdh30, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --Shanel 22:48, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Warnings

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policy for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. ffconsultancy.com (Requestion 17:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC))

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

This is your last warning. The next time you insert a spam link, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted as well, preventing anyone from linking to them from any site that uses the MediaWiki spam blacklist, which includes all of Wikimedia and Wikipedia. [http:// spam.ffconsultancy.com] (Requestion 15:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC))

The third and final warnings were awarded here User talk:62.139.48.100 and User talk:134.219.116.11. Note that the spamming of ffconsultancy.com has been spread out over 5 different IP addrs and accounts. (Requestion 15:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC))
Please stop trying to promote your book like you did here [1] with that digg.com link. Wikipedia is WP:NOT for advertising and you are displaying a WP:COI with this continued self-promotion. (Requestion 18:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC))
The final warning has been violated again here [2]. (Requestion 04:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC))
Another final warning violation here [3] of Jdh30 adding a ffconsultancy.com external link to his book. (Requestion 19:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC))
Note that I was reverting your deletion of links to our site that other people added. Jon Harrop 05:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Just curious, could you provide us with links to the edits of those other people? And why should it matter, when their links were inappropriate just the same?
I do not believe the links were inappropriate (e.g. citing a benchmark result, the formal description of a wavelet etc.). Jon Harrop 18:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Regardless, insisting on the inclusion of a link to your own company is a conflict of interest and no excuse for an edit-war. Femto 14:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Just as removing all references to my personal work is vandalism. Jon Harrop 18:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to blank out (or delete portions of) page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Note that blanking and removing warnings is considered vandalism and this is the second time that you've done that. (Requestion 19:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC))

Please stop spamming my user page. If you want to get me blocked then take it up with an admin but don't spam Wikipedia with empty threats. Jon Harrop 20:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
While, technically, removing warnings from one's talk page is not vandalism as defined by policy, selective blanking of current warnings is definitely considered bad-faith by many. And yes, those warnings are not empty threats, you're one link away from a block. What you do is a clear Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Continue the pushing of links with which you are affiliated or which promote your books, and you will be blocked. Femto 22:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
With all due respect, I was one link away from a block about 50 links ago, I didn't add all of the links that are being attributed to me and of course I am affiliated with my own PhD thesis. Jon Harrop 05:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Not entirely true. Jon Harrop added all but possibly 3 links that I am attributing to him. The 3 external links I referred to were added by low edit SPA's. I've layed it all out at User_talk:Requestion/Archive_1#Jdh30_Warnings. Now it is possible that other people added ffconsultancy.com links in the past but I didn't delete those links and I have no knowledge of those links. (Requestion 18:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC))
Wrong: Counter example 1. The first of the two links that you deleted was to freely available articles on our site that give far more detail than a Wikipedia article could or should, and was misclassified by you as "link spam" despite the fact that it was added by a third party. You then went on to spam that user's page with threats about blocking them from Wikipedia despite the fact that they had done nothing wrong. The only coherence in your vandalism is that it is targetting my work, even when referenced by other users.
A week later, you started vandalising the same page in the same way again, here (counter example 2) and here (counter example 3). Each time your vandalism was reversed by a different person.
When I reverted your vandalism myself here, you branded me a spammer for readding a link to my own site and then you continued to vandalise Wikipedia, targetting only my work.
Fortunately, several other people have stepped in and helped me to. For example, on the Wikipedia page about my Hilbert-Hermitian wavelet, you deleted the only reference to the original material describing this research (my PhD thesis). Jitse Niesen kindly undid your vandalism.
There are dozens of examples of you deleting content and spamming talk pages in this way and your own user talk page is full of people complaining about you deleting content that they have added. In summary, you do not contribute content to Wikipedia and you are pissing off the people that do. Jon Harrop 05:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Umm, regarding 'Counter example 1' — I'm sure you'll come up with a rational explanation, and we're all going to laugh how silly it was ever assuming the IP could in any way be related to you — but why in the world would any unaffiliated third party even bother to edit your links — just to add an URL parameter that can only be of any use to the owner of the site for tracking incoming traffic from Wikipedia?
Stop weaseling around already. Femto 14:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I suspect the links were copied from my blog and altered. Note that the URL is different, since we had restructured our site. Jon Harrop 18:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
That is... I don't really mind when spammers try to weasel themselves out. That's to be expected. It's when they play the pissed off victim and start accusing other people, this is where I draw the line. Femto 15:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, you can kiss goodbye to my contributions. Jon Harrop 18:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
All three of the IP addresses in the counter examples resolve or trace to Great Britian which is ffconsultancy.com's home base. Like Femto mentioned, Jon's first counter example is a 2 edit SPA with a special interest in ?wikipedia tracking tags. The second counter example is a 1 edit SPA out of Africa but traced to GB. The third counter example [4] is in fact Jon Harrop and the signed signature in this old diff [5] proves it. That's three strikes, you're out. (Requestion 16:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC))
Note that we use Google analytics to track referrals, so a ?wikipedia tag is completely useless to us. Jon Harrop 07:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, that must explain why you've been using the ?usenet tracking tags since December 2006! [6] (Requestion 23:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC))
You don't understand how the spam warnings work. The spam warnings are combined and shared amongst your various accounts. Requestion 06:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC))
I only have one account. Jon Harrop 03:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Warnings refer to persons, not accounts. There were earlier warnings for edits from IPs that are clearly associated with you. Femto 14:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
You seem to be accusing me of being everyone in the UK and even some people in Africa and Japan now. Jon Harrop 18:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Who said anything about Japan? The African IP (62.139.48.100) is an Egyptian domain (.eg) that traces to the UK. A domain is often not hosted in the country of origin. An interesting and unusual detail from the whois says "country:EU # country is really somewhere in African Region." Not sure exactly what this means but the IP traces to the UK which means the IP is in the UK hence my humorous "out of Africa and traced to the GB" comment. (Requestion 19:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC))
Someone from Japan contributed a link to ffconsultancy. I found another from Australia as well. None of these are me. They may have been someone affiliated us, but I doubt it. As for the African one, I can't see how that "traces back to the UK" but I am glad to see fans covering the globe. I do concede that your "out of Africa" comment was funny, although not as funny as me giving you the whole hand because I couldn't find my finger. Jon Harrop 07:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Stop being evasive and please answer the questions. Japan and Australia have nothing to do with this. The African domain is being hosted in the UK and that sort of thing happens all the time. Your 3 counter examples are sinking. (Requestion 23:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC))
I am not being evasive. You are accusing me of being many people who are clearly distributed across the globe. I'm just trying to point out that this is unlikely to be the case. Jon Harrop 02:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I am refuting your counter examples. All three of those IP's are in the UK. Nothing here is distributed across the globe. (Requestion 07:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC))
There is nothing to suggest that the IP you quoted is even from the same country as me. It resolves to Egypt. Now that other people are refuting your accusations (even though you believe at least one of them is me), there seems little point in discussing your conspiracy theories any further. Jon Harrop 10:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
How many times do I have to say this? That IP is registered as an Egyptian (.eg) domain but it traceroutes to the UK. That means it is physically located in the UK. This is not unusual and it happens all the time. It is extremely common with small island nations for example. (Requestion 17:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC))
No, you're just seeing a route that goes through Europe. When traffic traceroutes past Europe you are seeing a FLAG Telecom server that explicitly states its country as "EU # country is really somewhere in African Region". Note that the UK is not "in African Region" and neither am I. Also, Egypt is not a "small island nation". Please stop posting these ridiculous accusations on my talk page. Jon Harrop 10:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
You got your first warning long before the diffs you referenced. You have actually been spamming Wikipedia for more than a year. The Special:Contributions/90.192.139.124 and Special:Contributions/62.139.48.100 users in the diffs are both 1 or 2 edit SPA's that I suspect are you. Finally, the reason my talk page is full of complaints is because I am a spam fighter and people get really angry when their spam is deleted. (Requestion 06:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC))
No, people get angry when you delete the content they added. One man's spam fighter is another man's vandal. Jon Harrop 03:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Links are not content. If you want to accuse other editors here of vandalism, kindly provide evidence. (And no, a reversion of an edit [7] used as vehicle for adding another self-reference and putting blame on other editors does not count. You were free to reinclude the paragraph without the silliness, that's perfectly fine with me.) Femto 14:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Then disallow all external links from Wikipedia. Jon Harrop 18:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AIV Report

Thanks for your report at WP:AIV. I've removed it for now since the intent of the board is to prevent clear and obvious vandalism. Your dispute with Requestion would seem to be more of a content dispute over external links. I must say that a cursory look at the links you are providing, especially the one that links directly to a live 'purchase' page for a book that you apparently authored would seem to conflict with our external link policy. The article itself seems to have many other problems that would lead one to think that the link is status quo, so I can see where you're coming from. There are several places you can go for dispute resolution; I be happy to point them out if you're interested. You can also run your links through Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Spam to see if some of the other specialized editors will agree on the merit of your links. Kuru talk 04:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Kuru. My dispute with Requestion is one of many such acts performed by Requestion. I was rather dismayed to find hundreds of links to free videos (nothing to do with us or OCaml) removed elsewhere by Requestion. His talk page cites dozens of such cases. So I'd like my accusation of vandalism to be viewed in light of all of these other conflicts as well. Jon Harrop 18:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello Kuru and any other other admin that might be visiting. So I'm an anti-spam vandal? Well check out these dual beauties [8] and [9] that I received from two different senior spam fighters. And I didn't get those for spamming either! (Requestion 19:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC))

[edit] An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button Image:Signature_icon.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 18:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Civility

Your comment attacking Requestion was singularly unhelpful and loses you a lot of respect. We try hard to treat each other with respect, especially when engaging in conflicts (see Wikipedia:Civility). I'd appreciate it if you could refrain from making such comments in the future. Yours, Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't making a joke. If you want to contribute to Wikipedia, you have to conform to Wikipedia's rule, and this is one of them. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not looking to gain the respect of anyone here. I only came to contribute. Best of luck looking after my pages... Jon Harrop 22:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A loss

hey Jon, It seems a terrible loss for wikipedia to lose yet another of its highly qualified contributers. Is there any way that your problems here could be worked out? Even if your problems with particular users cannot be fixed, perhaps there is a way for you to continue to contribute. thanks for your time--Cronholm144 08:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind disseminating high-quality information for free provided the sources (my original work) get proper attribution because readers who are impressed with the quality of work will then give me consultancy contracts. If people like Requestion and Femto delete all references to my original work then I can no longer justify the enormous time and effort that it takes to write this content. Jon Harrop 09:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

How about you take them to a request for arbitration. Then the issue can be resolved permanently and then the three of you can move on to creating great articles--Cronholm144 09:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what a "request for arbitration" is. As KSmrq says below, Wikipedia will always err on the side of letting anyone contribute to any topic. So I shall definitely continue to create great articles, just not on Wikipedia. Jon Harrop 10:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

A request for arbitration is basically a discussion aimed at resolution of a dispute. When it is done the issue is settled. I understand if you want to leave, but I would encourage you to try there before outright leaving--Cronholm144 10:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Requestion has been called a bully by numerous users previous to this issue. Just take a look at his user page. He brags about 'wearing people down' on the spam fighting page. Numerous users (who contributed decent articles) have left wikipedia because of Requestion. However, he gets away with it because he's buddies with admin. Femto especially comes to his rescue frequently. Jon Harrop should not have to contend with this sort of blatant harassement.
I think Jon Harrop's contributions to various internet resources have been very important and worthwhile over the years and as I know something about wavelets decided to stick up for him on the Hilbert Hermitian page. I have received nothing but harassement from Requestion ever since. He has called me 'meat' - whatever that is. I have already made it very clear to him that I have no wish to enter discussion with him.
I feel that the Hilbert Hermitian notability issue could have been resolved a long time ago had Requestion not been involved in the discussion. His comments are not constructive. Also, looking at his user contributions - he never actually contributes anything to articles he just deletes other peoples' work. It's much easier to delete than to contribute. Marie Mason has left the wiki after becoming exasperated with Requestion.
As long as there are people like Requestion running around the wiki unchecked then why should people take the time to contribute.
I read so many incorrect articles on the wiki that it's a shame to lose someone like Jon Harrop but I don't blame him for leaving at all.Petdoc 11:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] KSmrq

Greetings. I have a special interest in qualified science editors, and it has come to my attention that you have gotten entangled in some running conflicts that have interfered with your desire to contribute. This is quite common for experts and professionals. One reason it happens is because the other parties may be unprofessional, inexperienced, or immature. Another is because professionals misunderstand Wikipedia.
If you will forgive me for intruding, I have a few suggestions.
Wikipedia is a strange beast, which must be approached cautiously and on its own terms. The English language is employed in peculiar ways on policy and talk pages, leading to disorientation and miscommunication.
In academic publishing the reviewers are qualified in the field, your published words are immutable, and credit to your name is the coin of the realm. Wikipedia is exactly the opposite. A fellow editor may barely speak English, know nothing of the subject, and be belligerently anti-social; anyone can change your words at any time; and only the edit history associates your name with your work.
Wikipedia also tries to protect itself from abuse. For example, because Wikipedia articles tend to rank high in search results, some people try to attract visitors to their web site by misusing Wikipedia as an advertising medium. Other people have an exaggerated sense of their own importance, or the importance of the topic of their obsession; they misuse Wikipedia to promote themselves, their work, and their agenda.
In sensitivity to these issues, editors must be careful. For example, although I edit anonymously, I tend to stay away from topics too close to my professional publications. Partly this is to avoid any appearance of conflict of interest (like citing books for which I receive royalties), and partly because it is too painful for me to watch my carefully written text erode over time. Other editors have described similar choices. Thus Wikipedia is stifling the potential of real experts to maintain the stance that "anyone can edit". While unfortunate, this is unlikely to change soon.
Nevertheless, we find ways to contribute. Perhaps you will as well. --KSmrqT 09:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please stop

[10]

This is your last warning. The next time you insert a spam link, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted as well, preventing anyone from linking to them from any site that uses the MediaWiki spam blacklist, which includes all of Wikimedia and Wikipedia. Femto 14:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your Userpage Deleted as Advertising

Your userpage is not to be used as advertising or as a pseudo-article. It is available for personal information about yourself. When adding personal information please remember that Wikipedia is not MySpace. Your userpage is for anything that is compatible with the Wikipedia project. It is a mistake to think of it as a homepage: Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, or social networking site. Please see Wikipedia:Introduction and Wikipedia:User page for more information. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 16:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Finale

For anyone who is interested, my rebuttals have been deleted from Wikipedia along with the histories but other people's slander remains. I was happy to contribute to Wikipedia when readers could see that I wrote the contributions, but if my work is to be abused in this way then I can no longer justify contributing. Jon Harrop 23:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)