User talk:RasterTragedy

There have been two problems with this account: the account has been used for advertising or promotion, which is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, and your username indicates that the account represents a business or other organisation or group or a web site, which is also against policy, as an account must be for just one person. Because of those problems, the account has been blocked indefinitely from editing. Additionally, if you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for your contributions to Wikipedia, you must disclose who is paying you to edit.

If you intend to make useful contributions about some topic other than your business or organisation, you may request an unblock. To do so, post the text at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:CentralAuth to search for available usernames. Your new username will need to meet our username policy. Replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason to be unblocked. In that reason, you must:
 * Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the kind of edits for which you were blocked.
 * Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.

If you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal this block. To do so, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the text at the bottom of your talk page, replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason for thinking that the block was an error, and publish the page. Alexf(talk) 17:23, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

The username policy says that "plain domain names (without,  , etc.) are sometimes acceptable, such as when the purpose is simply to identify the user as a person"; that seems to be the case here. The website is not commercial. Maybe Alexf can comment on that part of the block reason. That said, while your recent edit only fixed a missing anchor in an existing link, I believe it was you who added that "existing" link in the first place (and you linked to your website on every page you ever edited). I'd be willing to unblock (unless Alexf has additional comments regarding the username) if you acknowledge your conflict of interest and agree not to add links to your website to articles (proposing such links on articles' talk pages is OK). Huon (talk) 00:43, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * As per the filter log, he continues to spam his website. If the user agrees not to link to it and that s/he understands the conflicts of interest issues involved, I would not have a problem with unblocking. -- Alexf(talk) 00:51, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

@Huon: Yes, I did add that existing link in the first place, because after I discovered my name on Wikipedia I realized that I was quoted a bit out-of-context (“[…] agrees that ClearType may look blurry at 96 dpi […]”). This quote goes on to refer to method C from this Typophile post http://www.typophile.com/node/33005#comment-197660 wherein I describe three ClearType methods named A, B, and C. Out of these, C tends to the be blurriest, because the fractional pixel positioning/fractional advance widths make it impossible to minimize blur with “hinting.”

This is what I agreed to, not that ClearType may look blurry in general. Therefore, I narrowed the scope of my agreement on 17 March 2011 (“[ClearType with fractional pixel positioning]”), and since I did not want to overbear the Wikipedia ClearType page with pages of minutiae of why method C makes it impossible to minimize the blur, I added a citation to the relevant section of my website, just in case anyone cares to follow-up.

@Huon, @Alexf: The only other page where I updated a citation to my resource is the page on font hinting (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Font_hinting), simply because I was convinced that said page deserved an update to the presentation I gave in 1997 on bi-level hinting, which was subsequently published on the Microsoft Typography website, and which meanwhile has moved elsewhere beyond my control. Other Wikipedians have cited my resource e.g. on the Dutch or the French page on font hinting and on other pages, and the W3C lists it on their homepage https://www.w3.org/TR/2018/CR-css-fonts-3-20180315/ without my ado.

In either case I honestly didn’t perceive my actions as spamming since I did not try to sell fake handbags or sunglasses and the like (one of the reasons my former host no longer worked out for me), and hence I have a hard time understanding how I “linked to your website on every page you ever edited” or “continue to spam his website.” But, if understand @Huon and @Alexf correctly, to follow proper protocol, I should have proposed adding links on the respective talk pages first. I’d be more than happy to do so if this helps any future controversies.
 * I'm included to support unblocking as well given that RasterTragedy has agreed to the conditions above (to not canvas hit site, etc) I don't see a problem with updating the two existing references, given that he is a recognized subject matter expert in the field. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:31, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

@Alexf: Please don’t hesitate to let me know if there are any other pieces of information required to convince you that I acted in good faith, not in an attempt to be a “serial spammer” nor to “game the system.”