User:Requestion/Talk:Hilbert-Hermitian wavelet

This is an archived mirror copy of the Talk:Hilbert-Hermitian_wavelet page. (Requestion 18:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC))

---

I'm not sure that the Hilbert-Hermitian wavelets are a special case of Daubechies' Morse wavelets, though they are certainly related. Jon Harrop

I deleted the incorrect statement that this was a reply to. Jon Harrop 01:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Jon, while I'consider this very interesting and will perhaps try it out in the near future, are you sure that this meets Wikipedia inclusion criteria? Any secondary sources discussing your find? I've only found Wikipedia, mirrors and the Wavelet Digest. --Pjacobi 18:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

These pages have been edited by many Wikipedians, so there is some interest in them (they are notable). Here are those secondary sources to my PhD thesis (the thesis is the secondary source for this page):

Silver transport in GexSe1−x:Ag materials: Ab initio simulation of a solid electrolyte by De Nyago Tafen, M. Mitkova and D. A. Drabold, Phys. Rev. B 72, 054206 2005

Structural characteristics of positionally-disordered lattices: relation to the first sharpdiffraction peak in glasses by J. K. Christie, S. N. Taraskin, and S. R. Elliott

Real and reciprocal space structural correlations contributing to the first sharp diffraction peak in silica glass by T. Uchino, J. D. Harrop, S. N. Taraskin, and S. R. Elliott, Phys. Rev. B 71, 014202 (2005)

A Wavelet Analysis of Medium-Range Order in Vitreous Silica by T. Uchino, J. D. Harrop, S. R. Taraskin, and S. R. Elliott at X International Conference on the Physics of Non-Crystalline Solids (Parma, Italy)

Use a citation database like the one at Physical Review if you want to find citations to my work. Jon Harrop 01:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Jon, why don't you add the references to the article yourself? If you have a peer reviewed paper not just a thesis that would be good too. Jmath666 05:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think tangentially-related references belong on the article. The four papers above were all peer reviewed. The third is the most relevant. I'll add that one. Jon Harrop 11:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for adding the references; it looks much better now. You are the one who knows what is relevant and what is not. Please note the placing of reference is important, the contents of the cited article should support the statement immediately in front of the citation mark. Again, you are the one who knows what is in there. Could you please add publisher, year, and perhaps ISBN for the "hardcover" book, and title and preprint info or URL for the "submitted" article. Also a link to your thesis would be nice. Just like in scientific writing, references should be verifiable. I am not into wavelets, but what if I felt like following through? Good references and a neutral way of writing are the mark of a serious article. It's great you have made a significant contribution and my congratulations to you, but it is hard for you to write about it impartially yourself - that's why there is WP:COI. Finally, your cause would be greatly enhanced by a published paper. If a thesis is good, most people make it into one or more papers. Jmath666 22:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the unresolved references to the various claims that the new wavelet is better to go your thesis, assuming that is where the information is. Please replace by the correct reference if not. This is an editorial change only, I have no knowledge what is actually in the thesis. Jmath666 01:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

How can Goupillaud's article from 1984 reference Jon's PhD thesis from 2004? I going to add the COI and the NOTABILITY tags. (Requestion 00:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC))

Morlet's paper does not cite my PhD thesis. It is the reference for the statement about the Morlet wavelet on this page. Note that the reference to my PhD thesis was most recently added by User:Jitse Niesen and not myself. Jon Harrop 01:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

You removed the COI tag and in the edit summary you stated "rm coi (was not self-citation)." That is not the reason why I added the COI tag. I added the tag because you created this page, it is about your PhD thesis, you claimed to have designed this wavelet, and you are taking an active role in editing it. That is a conflict of interest. Did you even read what the tag said? Don't remove the COI tag like that again. Instead address its concerns and/or discuss it here. (Requestion 07:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC))

Indeed, I added the reference to Jon Harrop's thesis a couple of days ago. I did think about deleting the article, but I had a look and found a couple of references. I had a look at one of them (may well have been the silver transport reference mentioned above) and saw that it is a non-trivial reference: the authors use the Hilbert-Hermitian wavelets in their analysis. Based on this, I think the notability threshold may well be met, and I decided not to nominate the article for deletion. At that point, the article needed a reference to explain what the Hilbert-Hermitian wavelet is and I added the thesis; perhaps a better choice would be one of the articles published out of the thesis.

Requestion, why did you add two templates? It seems that Template:Notability is superfluous because Template:COI already warns the article may not be notable. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the two templates have a bit of overlap. I added both because I feel that there are two distinct problems going on here. Jon has a conflict of interest with this article and this is a topic of my open spam investigation. I also want to stress the COI issue to the editors/admins that are going to be visiting this page. I deleted some link spam back on March 12 2007 but I didn't make the ownership COI connection until much later. So if I missed it the first time then most casual visitors will miss it too. The notability tag represents my concern for whether this page should even exist independent of the identity and the motives of who created it. So far this article is failing my notability test but have some more research to do before I make up my mind. (Requestion 21:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC))

Jitse Niesen is obviously very knowledgeable with regards this particular topic (wavelets). If he says "I think the notability threshold may well be met, and I decided not to nominate the article for deletion" then why are you still determined that the article will be deleted? I have been reading your posts regarding this issue for some time and it appears to me that due to a disagreement about a spam issue with Jon Harrop you are now determined that he is an evil person and that anything that he contributes should be immediately removed. I don't think there is anything he could do to address your concerns and it would probably be a waste of his time trying. Have you read the Physics Review papers? And before you start - no I am not Jon Harrop. Marie Mason 23:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Notability is just one of the issues here. Like I said above, I haven't yet made up my mind on the notability of this article and this is why we have a discussion. And how do you know that I'm not a wavelet expert? (Requestion 01:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC))

I would love to read your work. Please give the details of anything you have written. Marie Mason 09:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

What if, in reality, Requestion doesn't know his arse from his quadrature mirror filter? Jon Harrop 10:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Again [1], very charming. (Requestion 16:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC))

Can you provide any evidence to Marie that you are even the slightest bit qualified to talk about the contents of this page, let alone alter it? I notice that you have plastered several pages with spam whilst evading her simple question. Jon Harrop 09:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I could but it is recommended to WP:IAC. (Requestion 21:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC))

This is definitely WP:COI. Praise is best bestowed by others regardless if true or not. The only kind of writing where this is OK is a funding proposal - maybe he wrote some lately and took the text from there. At least he has shown some good taste and did not name it by himself like Rao. "all over the world" etc. is redundant and the claim to applications ought to be documented, so I am making it more NPV and putting some tags there in case the article stays. I am not qualified to comment on notability. Jmath666 04:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I work in this field and I know of at least two institutes using this wavelet to analyse their work outside the UK. Can't we as a group change the wording so that everyone agrees. Does the entire article need to be deleted?? Marie Mason 09:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Changing "The Hilbert-Hermitian wavelet was designed by Jon Harrop et al. (2004)" into a reference is a big improvement for the article. It significantly reduces the glorification factor. I'm concerned though how this article is being used as a self-promotional tool that is being leveraged by internal Wikipedia links. For example this edit [2] claims that the wavelet designed by Jon Harrop "supercededs" the Morlet wavelet. That's a strong statement. While it may be true, the wavelets designer really shouldn't be claiming this in an encyclopedia. This article is the sort of COI which is just ripe for more of this type of abuse. (Requestion 06:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC))

I could only afford to make such a strong statement because it is a mathematical result. The flaw with the Morlet wavelet was described by Morlet himself. Like so many problems in mathematics, fixing the flaw is hard but proving that you have done so is relatively easy. Moreover, my work was checked by dozens of people, both symbolically and numerically. The numerical results are easiest to understand and appear at the front and back of chapter 3 of my thesis.

There are practitioners out there transitioning to these new techniques. I think it is important to encourage that by referencing new material and stating what it improves upon. Paul Addison uses this stuff to [http: //www.cardiodigital.com/Publications/PWMAR04addison.pdf save premature babies], for example. Jon Harrop 11:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Describing the flaw is OK. The stronger statement of beiing superceded by the Hilbert-Hermitian wavelet isn't suitable for Wikipedia until it enters common knowledge in the field. Being just a mathematical result doesn't change anything -- as silly it may look for newcomers. An excemption is usually made for trivial mathematical results. Do you claim the development of the Hilbert-Hermitian wavelet was trivial? --Pjacobi 12:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

You can prove the statement that I made easily enough: calculate the time-frequency uncertainty of each wavelet at minimal variance. The exact results are given in [http: //www.ffconsultancy.com/free/thesis.pdf my thesis] (see figure 3.11) and the Hilbert-Hermitian wavelet is substantially better. Both the importance of low time-frequency uncertainty and low variance (high temporal resolution) are widely recognised in the field. See Daubechies' Ten Lectures on Wavelets, for example.

I see no merit in not mentioning the fact that the Hilbert-Hermitian wavelet was designed to address this flaw in the Morlet wavelet. Jon Harrop 13:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

We don't do science and we don't do proofs here on Wikipedia. Actually there is a policy called No Original Research which prohibits this. As Wikipedia editors we must take off our scientist hats and put on our librarian hats. We are trying to build an encyclopedia and it is humbling and unflattering work. This is why rules like WP:NOTABILITY, WP:VERIFY, WP:RS, WP:COI, and WP:NPOV are important to us. (Requestion 17:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC))

I don't see a mathematical result stating that the Hilbert-Hermitian wavelet supersedes the Morlet wavelet, nor do I see how this could be formulated mathematically. Section 3.7 of the thesis states that the Hilbert-Hermitian wavelet compares favourable to the Morlet wavelet in terms of temporal localization and time-frequency uncertainty. That can be mentioned. However, superseding means that the Hilbert-Hermitian wavelet is now used in all situations where previously the Morlet wavelet was used, presumably because the Hilbert-Hermitian wavelet is always better. That's a very strong statement, much stronger than "there are practitioners out there transitioning to these new techniques", and it needs to be supported by an independent reference. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Figure 3.11 illustrates the fact that the Hilbert-Hermitian wavelet has almost 3x lower uncertainty at the highest temporal resolution and is as good everywhere else. You can verify that result easily enough. Regardless, would you be happy to allow "the Hilbert-Hermitian wavelet was designed to address this flaw in the Morlet wavelet" in the article instead? How about "in the context of high-resolution time-frequency analysis, the Morlet wavelet is superceded by the Hilbert-Hermitian wavelet"? Jon Harrop 13:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I repeat, "the Morlet wavelet is superseded by the Hilbert-Hermitian wavelet" means to me that in all situations where the Morlet wavelet used to be used, now the Hilbert-Hermitian wavelet is used. That is different from the statement that the Hilbert-Hermitian wavelet is better. So, I won't agree with that statement, also not when restricted to a particular context.

The other statement you mention ("… was designed to …") is fine with me. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I already added that back. It has not yet been vandalized but, when it is vandalized, I'll be sure to respect the vandal. Jon Harrop 09:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Time-frequency Interpretation

By the way, the whole section on continuous wavelets is rather lacking at the moment because they are largely used for time-frequency analysis and there is no information on how you interpret a CWT in terms of time and frequency. This is a harder subject that is also covered in detail in my PhD thesis. The Morlet wavelet can be interpreted using Delprat's approach and the Hilbert-Hermitian wavelet can be interpreted using my own approach.

Once the basics are covered, it would also be useful to describe algorithms used to identify signal components from time-frequency representations. I recommend Carmona's work on this (also from Torresani's group). Jon Harrop 13:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Everyone can edit Wikipedia and that includes you. You can be be bold and just go ahead and do what you think is right, or, if you feel the change is significant enough that you want some feedback first, the place to make this suggestion is at the talk page of the afflicted article. Welcome on board, it's always great to have an expert here! Jmath666 22:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC) Never mind, you have been here for long time and made many great contributions, so you know all that. Just please keep in mind that it is hard for all of us to keep a neutral point of view when dealing with our own work yet we have to try. Jmath666 23:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for being reasonable. I genuinely appreciate it. And thank you for replacing the deleted link to my PhD thesis. And thank you for noticing that I wrote most of the content on most of the pages related to this one as well as Caml, OCaml, F#, functional programming, SML and various other topics.

For those of you who are here to make Wikipedia better, I suggest you try to find an expert in other time-frequency methods to criticize my statements about wavelets. From my point of view, the wavelet I invented is clearly better but the choice of whether or not to use wavelets in the first place is much less clear. I'd like to see more discussion of this on Wikipedia from people versed in Wigner-Ville, Choi-Williams, short-time FT, Newland transforms and so on. Jon Harrop 10:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome. I have replaced the link to your PhD thesis because, if it is cited at all, the link should be there. If it leads to your consultancy rather than the inactive site at Cambridge, this is not link spam. A refereed paper in addition would be much better (and if you do not have one you may want to write one). You still do not seem to quite understand. Wikipedia is not the place where you should discuss your discovery or expect a technical critique. Here you just copy and abstract from elsewhere. If you keep bringing in your point of view and cannot treat your work (and company) just as if it was somebody else's, you should not write about it at all, or you will attract the deserved attention of spam fighters, just as it just happened. The article is now reasonably neutral so they should back off. Jmath666 18:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Normally I would agree that the PhD thesis link should be there but this is a clear case of linkspam. (Requestion 20:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC))

Note that lots of people disagree with you, to the extent that the link has been put back. Jon Harrop 09:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

For more information see User_talk:Requestion/Archive_1#Jdh30_Warnings. I am a surgical spam fighter meaning that I go in and remove all the external links that have been added by a particular user. I attempt to minimize collateral damage and unfortunately the PhD thesis was part of the spamming. You might think this is crazy but it is actually the recommended procedure. (Requestion 20:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC))

Requestion, I appreciate your spam fighting work. I agree removing the thesis link was an appropriate thing to do at the time. Yes I have read User_talk:Requestion/Archive_1#Jdh30_Warnings before I decided to step in as a fresh voice assuming good faith. I do not think it is likely at this point that Jdh30 will go back to self-promotion and spamming again. If he does I am sure you will be on him again, with my support. I routinely verify citations and add links to original sources to improve Wikipedia so I have done that for the thesis also. You can see that I have also added links to some other papers he cites. (added) Let's say in good faith that there is a fine line between providing useful information about own work and what wikipedia considers spamming. Managing a conflict of interest is not easy. Jmath666 21:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that 41 external links which have been repeatedly added after ignored warnings sort of nullifies WP:AGF. Not to mention Jon Harrop's reporting User:Pjacobi and myself as vandals, the blanking coincidences, the false statements, and this combined Morlet-Hilbert-Hermitian-Thesis situation. This has been going on since March 2005 and before that on other forums. I see a pattern here and I believe the self-promotion and spamming will continue, and in fact it is if you look closely. You might want to check out User_talk:Requestion/Archive_1#Jdh30_Warnings again since it has been updated recently. (Requestion 16:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC))

Yes in a situation like this, edits from IPs or users without a substantial history of good mainspace contributions are routinely treated as if from socks regardless if they actually are and (Jdh30 please listen) there is no benefit in trying to fight that. This is Wikipedia immune system in action. Jmath666 18:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Then Wikipedia has an autoimmune disease. Requestion has damaged technical content and no amount of so-called spam fighting can justify that because the extrapolation is obvious: there will be no content worth fighting spam for. Jon Harrop 09:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

This is not personal. Jmath666 18:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Requestion is vandalizing only my work here, regardless of who references or quotes it and why. That is personal. Jon Harrop 09:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It is not personal. Maybe this will help. WP:SPAM says: "Many times users can be confused by the removal of spam links because other links that could be construed as spam have been added to the article and not yet removed. The inclusion of a spam link should not be construed as an endorsement of the spam link, nor should it be taken as a reason or excuse to include another." (Requestion 15:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC))

Requestion it may be handy if you can document the suspect edits on his talk page, chronologically, as you say the self-promotion and spamming continues (I could not find that), but [added] Yes this is a pattern of past linkspam which causes the links here to be suspect when otherwise they would be OK. However this page in itself now looks fine and [end added] I would like to limit my attention mainly to this page. I think you can handle this fairly. Thanks. Jmath666 18:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Requestion has already slandered me with baseless accusations on my own talk page. Please do not ask him to do it again.

To the best of my knowledge, these wavelet-related pages are now the only ones being vandalized. My contributions to the pages about functional programming seem to have reached fixed point, albeit by keeping the excerts verbatim and removing all reference to their origin. Jon Harrop 09:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Given the way how Wikipedia currently operates, all you normally need to do is treat your own results with the same kind of detachment as if you were writing the article based on some textbook. Ditto when linking to a website or a paper - you should treat your own stuff the same way as somebody else would who has no particular interest in it over some other. Normally, if you put some link to your own work between links to others and treat it fairly it will not attract attention. A part of treating it fairly is if someone deletes link to your work you should not revert (hey you would not care that much about somebody else's work either). That will attract attention. Now, given the excessive links and promotion you put in many articles in the past, some attention is unavoidable, and you get away with less than you normally would. Sorry. My suggestion is just lay down and if you must link to your work for genuine technical reasons, try do it in fair and detached professional manner. Jmath666 16:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Journal citation

Is this citation perhaps relevant here? Instantaneous frequency and amplitude identification using wavelets: Application to glass structure (PHYSICAL REVIEW E 66, art no 026703, 2002, Corr. 68 (1): Art. No. 019904 Part 2, JUL 2003) Harrop JD, Taraskin SN, Elliott SR. From the abstract: "The method is based upon the continuous wavelet transform (CWT) and uses a new wavelet that is a modification to the well-known Morlet wavelet to allow analysis at high resolution." Jmath666 03:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I saw that citation too. It predates Jon's thesis by a couple years and I think it is a different wavelet, possibly a precursor, but I haven't read that paper yet. So I don't think it helps establish notability. (Requestion 03:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC))

The wavelet described in that paper is a precursor to the Hilbert-Hermitian wavelet. If you want to know the details, it is all in my PhD thesis. The chronology is not reliable as, for example, Drabold et al. were using my wavelet before I published my PhD thesis. The relevance of that paper is only that is justifies a derived wavelet with improved properties. Anyone wanting to know more about what is wrong with the Morlet wavelet might want to read it. Jon Harrop 12:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Notability criteria

Jon Harrop's PhD thesis details the "invention" of 3 new wavelets. Section 3.6 describes the third wavelet, the Hilbert-Hermitian wavelet, which is the topic of this Wikipedia article. In Jon's thesis, the details of the Hilbert-Hermitian wavelet consist of 2 pages of description and derivation which is then followed by 5 pages of comparative analysis. It should be noted that the thesis' preface states "this dissertation is the result of my own work and contains nothing which is the work done in collaboration" which is a definition for original research. The goal of this thread is to list the relevant WP:NOTABILITY guidelines, review the references, and determine if the minimum threshold of notability has been met. The proposed WP:SCIENCE appears to be the relevant guideline. Two important quotes from the science guideline are "unless it generates a significant outside response by the scientific community or the population at large, focusing on such research in a Wikipedia article does not adequately conform to Wikipedia's policy on neutrality, in particular the section on undue weight" and "papers covering the contribution have been widely cited". Do the cited references meet the thresholds set by those two questions? Are there any other threshold tests that should be applied? (Requestion 23:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC))

I have found free download alternatives for the two linked references in the article:

• http: //www.phy.ohiou.edu/~drabold/pub/120.pdf for Silver transport in Ge_xSe_1−x:Ag materials: Ab initio simulation of a solid electrolyte
• http: //arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/040624 for Structural characteristics of positionally-disordered lattices: relation to the first sharp diffraction peak in glasses

The first article allocates half a paragraph and says "we have used the wavelet-based methods of Harrop and co-workers" and then mentions a "promising scheme" which references the ffconsultancy.com Mathematica notebook. There is no mention of the Hilbert-Hermitian wavelet. The coverage in the second article is just one sentence that states "recently time-frequency wavelet-transform analysis has been applied" with a reference to Harrop's thesis and 2 other articles were Harrop is a co-author. Again just a brief passing reference and no mention of the Hilbert-Hermitian wavelet. In my opinion these two articles fail to assert any WP:SCIENCE notability; the Hilbert-Hermitian wavelet isn't even mentioned by name and the wavelet related coverage is incredibly brief. I would question if these articles even qualify as reliable citations for the footnoted "studies of diffraction data" claims. (Requestion 02:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC))

From User_talk:Pjacobi#Another_response: "The research done in PhD work hasn't yet entered the established knowledged in the field. So bold inclusions of his conclusions aren't suitable for Wikipedia." (Requestion 02:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC))

The Google test for http://www.google.com/search?q=Hilbert-Hermitian+wavelet results in 93 hits. All the hits are either Wikipedia, a Wikipedia mirror, Flying Frog Consultancy, or a forum site like wavelet.org where Jon Harrop posted the term himself. So the net Google count is zero. A Google Scholar search http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Hilbert-Hermitian+wavelet also returns zero hits. The term "Hilbert-Hermitian wavelet" does not have any popular usage. (Requestion 02:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC))

I got the two Phys Rev papers cited in the article and confirm the information above by Requestion. Jmath666 05:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Note that Drabold et al. explicitly cited the commercial product they used that implements this wavelet. That product is also used by [http: //www.stellarwinddev.com/ Stellar Wind Development], [http: //www.lanl.gov/ Los Alamos National Laboratory], [http: //www.amphenol-tcs.com/ Amphenol TCS], [http: //www.unifr.ch Universite de Fribourg], [http: //www.drdc-rddc.gc.ca/ Defence Research and Development Canada], [http: //www.boisestate.edu Boise State], [http: //www.hevs.ch Haute Ecole Valaisanne], [http: //polymath-usa.com/ Polymath Research Inc.] and [http: //www.sfe.no/ Sogn og Fjordane Energi]. Jon Harrop 02:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the reference section of that paper does say "The code is available in the form of a MATHEMATICA notebook from Flying Frog Consultancy (http://www.ffconsultancy.com)." Not that it would make any difference but there is no specific mention of the "Hilbert-Hermitian wavelet" by name. I believe you that your product is used by the organizations you mentioned but that doesn't assert notability. I'm sure they use a lot of software. The notability threshold for a scientific concept is much higher than it is for a corporation or a piece of software. And these papers wouldn't even qualify as references for those lower thresholds. (Requestion 17:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC))

Feel free to change the name of the wavelet on Wikipedia if you have a better one. It has been referred to as the Hilbert-Hermitian wavelet in published literature for several years though. Jon Harrop 21:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

What does changing the name have to do with anything? We are attempting to determine notability. (Requestion 22:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC))

Notability has been substantiated. You are now objecting only that the name is not commonly used because the people who use this work either refer to it by reference (e.g. Drabold and Uchino) or use it via a product that implements it (e.g. the institutions I listed). Jon Harrop 09:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Like I said above, the fact that they didn't mention the wavelet by name doesn't make any difference,

It does if you only go by the name (e.g. by Googling for the name are disregarding products that use it because they do not cite it by name). Jon Harrop 04:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

it was just an interesting observation. I'm sorry but a couple extremely brief passing mentions do not substantiate notability. It is important to remember that we don't do original research (WP:NOR) and Wikipedia references are used very differently than academic journal references. (Requestion 15:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC))

This thread has gone stale which implies consensus. I am proposing deletion of this article on the grounds of lack of notability. (Requestion 17:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC))

Err, no it doesn't. This thread has cited numerous academic references and uses of this work, industrial users of this work and products that use this work. You've also asked for this work to be referenced from web pages, which I'm working on. Jon Harrop 14:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you disagree with the "consensus" or the "notability" part? As has been mentioned above in detail, none of those references satisfy the notability criteria of WP:SCIENCE. Also, any new web page references that you're working on are not going to help establish notability unless it is something major. For example; it would be notable if Scientific American wrote an article about the Hilbert-Hermitian wavelet but it would not be notable if someone blogged about it. We need to remember that scientific concepts have high thresholds for notability. (Requestion 16:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC))

You asserted that nobody replying for a week implies consensus. It does not: lack of evidence is not evidence of anything. Jon Harrop 09:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you understand how WP:CONSENSUS works. (Requestion 15:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC))

User:Petdoc removed [3] the expired {{prod|lack of notability}} tag on this article without an edit summary and without any comment on the discussion page. This signature edit [4] proves that Petdoc is a WP:MEAT sock of User:Jdh30. Note that the 80.229.56.224 IP address has been confirmed [5] to be Jon Harrop. The deletion rules state that a {{prod}} cannot be replaced once it has been removed. But WP:MEAT states that "meatpuppets used to e.g. sway a deletion debate need not be blocked; they should simply be ignored unless they get disruptive." How this conflict of rules applies to the consensus of a notability debate, an expired prod tag, and whether the prod deletion is deemed "disruptive" needs to be determined by an administrator. (Requestion 21:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC))

No. I'm, not Jon Harrop but am willing to accept I may have a similar IP. I agree with Marie Mason that this entire article should not be deleted and that sufficient changes have been made. I also agree with her that it is pointless arguing with you, Requestion. If an admin wishes to contact me to confirm that I am my own person and not a sock then I will be happy to give them any info they require. However, I am not prepared to get into debate with you as I find you to be a bully. I will abide by any wiki rules.

As an aside - thank you for writing to me at my user page. I did not realise those links were contentious (my fault as I should have checked the edit log), I saw two blogs listed in the links section and thought I'd add the other blog that I use as an F# resource. The other site I linked to is a free (popular) article but I concede that it is part of a subscription only journal (I admit I subscribe - sorry). I won't put the links back - sorry to cause offence. Strange that you alerted me to this though when it was [User:Femto} that deleted my contributions. I would have expected him to tell me off about it. Petdoc 00:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

So that's your rational for removing the expired {{prod|lack of notability}} tag? Please see WP:NOTABILITY#Notability is not subjective. "I like it" is not a relevant reason for determining if a subject is notable. About your personal individuality, I believe you. I wasn't suggesting that you were Jon Harrop. Did you read WP:MEAT? The external links that Petdoc mentioned above refer to this edit [6] that added two of Jon Harrop's websites. (Requestion 02:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC))

I doubt that the sentence you quoted from WP:MEAT applies. Proposed deletion is not a deletion debate and the tag can be removed by anybody. Jon Harrop could have removed the tag, and I don't see why Petdoc would be prohibited from removing the tag. Anyway, it's now at AfD. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 03:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The selection of tags currently up there just looks like general disgruntlement at my work. Can we remove some of the other tags? Lots of people are looking at this page and I think it is a shame that they are forced to plough through this crap to read the actual article. Jon Harrop 04:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Jon, you do not get to remove the COI and NOTABILITY tags like that. Removing them requires consensus and they are both still valid concerns. Nothing has changed since they were added. This is the second time you have attempted to remove them. (Requestion 06:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC))

This notability conversation has moved to the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hilbert-Hermitian wavelet page. (Requestion 18:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC))