User talk:JohnHarold

June 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 01:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 01:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Suspected sock puppets/HowardFrampton for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. A13ean (talk) 01:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

“Paul Frampton”
I'm looking for an interpretation of your actions which interpretation assumes good faith. Frankly, it's not easy.

In any case, the intention of Wikipedia is not to present “wiki-profiles”; it is to evolve into a proper encyclopedia. Your editing behavior has not been helpful towards that end. The likely result in the near term is for you to be indefinitely blocked from any edits what-so-ever. That will mean not simply that this account (User:JohnHarold) will be blocked, but that every other account under which you have or will be confirmed to have edited will be blocked. Any attempt to evade the block would further convince the administrators that the block should remain in place.

I, for one, don't relish such an outcome. I see it as lose-lose. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 04:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolution of the sockpuppetry case
WP:SSP/HowardFrampton resolved with the administration concluding
 * I dont see any discussions where the accounts have been used to convey, alter or create an illusions of consensus. What I see are multiple accounts from an inexperienced user that have edited at different times with a more likely scenario's of lost passwords or deliberate changes of names after biting of a new comer with a conflict of interest. The multiple accounts have been block with the exception of the most recent account to edit

I am glad that a less dire result obtained than that which I expected. Please avoid creating any more accounts at least until you have read Sock puppetry. (Possession and use of multiple accounts is not, in fact, forbidden; but some uses of such accounts are.) BTW, I'd bet that Gnangarra would be willing to switch just which account was the unblocked one, if you'd prefer to surrender User:JohnHarold in favor of a different account. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 05:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

March 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page Paul Frampton has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. Shadowjams (talk) 09:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Continual editing of Paul Frampton autobiographical page
Paul, your continual editing of your own page is extremely unwise; I would strongly advise you to read Autobiography. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Autobiography
Paul, this continual autobiographical puffery is most unwise. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Autobiography
Paul, your continual editing of your own page is extremely unwise; I would strongly advise you to read Autobiography before making any further edits. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:19, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at AN/I
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Possible legal threat. Thank you. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:36, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

August 2016
Your recent edits to Talk:Paul Frampton could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content, not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 17:01, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved. Katietalk 18:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Template request
Hi, and thanks for your good work. Hopefully you can work out the block (above), and then keep from editing the legal info in the article but still share points you think should be looked at on the article's talk page. If you can work those points out and return to edit possibly more sourced information on your pov can be included. Maybe at some point you can talk to some of your colleagues about doing constructive edits on Wikipedia pages on their fields/specialties. But specifically, I came here to ask if you could take a look at the Particles template to see if everything is in the right place and if you have suggestions for additions or changes. Thanks. I'm not an admin here, but maybe if, as I said, you promise not to edit the legal data in question and instead leave suggestions or edits on the talk page, the block can be lifted. Randy Kryn 18:38, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Suggested rule regarding individual profiles:

THE SUBJECT OF A WIKIPEDIA PROFILE MAY EDIT IT FREELY.

I am a world-expert in at least two things: theoretical physics and my own life story. In this rare case of having a Wikipedia editor who seems mentally unhealthy (OCPD) and certainly has an obsession with me, it is not helpful to factual accuracy of my own Wikipedia profile. Thanks to the free NHS, I myself have received useful help for a physical ailment (COPD). I have read that the NHS is pushing mental as well as physical care so this editor could surely get his. There is a second problem for him. One of my US lawyers recently visited me in Oxford so I took the opportunity to ask him about maliciously uploading defamatory material on the World Wide Web knowing it to be inaccurate and misleading. The answer in the US is a definitely winnable libel lawsuit therefore it is certainly winnable in the UK where the libel laws are much stricter. urgently needed treatment for OCPD

REASON FOR THE RULE: Wikipedia editors do not know the truth about the subject’s life story – how can they?

Print media:

NEWSPAPERS DO NOT NECESSARILY PROVIDE FACTUALLY ACCURATE SOURCES.

An example is the New York Times article that the Wikipedia editor keeps obsessively uploading. I stopped counting at 25 times. Although the NYT article starts well by describing me as a “world-renowned physicist”, the remainder is factually inaccurate especially the tampered evidence used by the prosecutor at the trial. The writer who works in Buenos Aires knew my conviction was a miscarriage of justice, but dared not contradict the Argentina verdict. That would certainly have ended every employment opportunity in Argentina, and probably endangered herself. Not long ago, somebody in Buenos Aires about to testify against the president was murdered.

Wikipedia editor revisited:

I do not know him well personally and talked to him only once for 30 minutes, unaware of his connection with anything as obscure as Wikipedia. I do remember being surprised he was not well informed about cutting-edge knowledge of his own specialty. If he did aspire to make groundbreaking discoveries, it would need thousands of hours of hard work. This Wikipedia activity is insufficiently distinguished for a fellow of an Oxford college. Coincidentally he is employed as a fellow in the same college, out of thirty-eight possibilities, where I was once a student. I was tutored by two different college fellows, both of whom were relatively productive physicists. It is a good college which would be well-advised to reconsider the suitability of this person.

This talk page:

Before today I had never seen this talk page and it is a surprise to discover people discussing me. It is a pleasure to meet you. I hope integrity and factual accuracy will win out over gossip.

My Wikipedia profile:

My most recent edit is factually accurate.

Back to work, Paul Frampton


 * Hello Paul Frampton, I can appreciate that you would like to see the entire story about your Argentina adventure disappear from Wikipedia. But perhaps a better outcome (as well as easier to achieve) would be for Wiki to avoid repeating demonstrably false or poorly sourced information, and for your side of the story to be fully and accurately represented.


 * Could you tell me: (1) In your book 'Tricked', do you specifically discuss how the prosecution used tampered evidence at the trial? And, (2) did the North Carolina appeals court reviewing your case, state any findings concerning the trial in Argentina, or your conviction there? Some editors have been speculating about what the court might have said, but I don't see any sign that anyone has gone to the court records to verify.


 * Thanks very much for any information you can provide. I hope we can resolve this to your satisfaction, so that you don't feel the need to take legal action. JerryRussell (talk) 23:28, 22 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi. There's a Wikipedia page, Contact us - Subjects, which offers useful advice on how the actual subject of an article can get material corrected, including via confidential email if required. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:41, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

--UTRSBot (talk) 09:17, 6 September 2016 (UTC) --UTRSBot (talk) 14:12, 10 September 2016 (UTC) --UTRSBot (talk) 13:50, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Particles
Hi. Lost in the above was my request: "But specifically, I came here to ask if you could take a look at the Particles template to see if everything is in the right place and if you have suggestions for additions or changes. Thanks." If you could check out that template when you have a chance? Thanks again. Randy Kryn 23:34, 4 October 2016 (UTC)