User talk:31.48.184.177

Joanna Lockwood forwarded me (namely Bill Fairclough) all the emails you have sent her once she first independently posted the draft article about me on Wikipedia. [Anyone can contact by email through my websites.] As I have used the links in those emails etc and then enjoined in the "talks" about this article (for reasons already volunteered openly and transparently at the outset of my contact) it comes as no surprise that IP addresses used appeared to be linked because they were and so Wikipedia reached the wrong conclusions about alleged abuse of IP addresses. There has been no attempt to obfuscate matters by Joanna Lockwood or I through the use of either different or similar IP addresses or anything else for that matter.

Joanna Lockwood and I are still shocked by your decisions to block me and my related IP addresses and refuse to publish the article because any basic simple analysis of the timeline of what contact there was with Wikipedia will show that there was no attempt to mislead Wikipedia. Indeed, Wikipedia has reached the wrong conclusions and as a result published misleading and arguably defamatory information relating thereto which of course will be and has been read by many others including those whom have been asked to comment on whether blocking me and/or deleting the article is fair and just. It is in fact unfair and unjust but trying to show that to Wikipedia's admin team involved in this case has failed because, inter alia, it appears Wikipedia had already reached a decision and as previously recorded in all the talks about these issues:

1. It has been now been pointed out more than twice that Wikipedia deleted (about a dozen) external references in the original article submitted by Joanna Lockwood while simultaneously flagging the draft article as being bereft of external references. 2. Wikipedia twice failed to respond properly to any of my four reasonable requests for comments once I enjoined in the "talks". In addition, it seems (unless you can prove otherwise) that Wikipedia admin representatives had deleted external references without bothering to read them. Wikipedia is not the only website with timed visitor data. 3. Wikipedia has ignored my reasonable and justifiable points made in my comments on Heliotom's comments this morning that: (a) Wikipedia admin representatives had misinterpreted the article as being about me as a non notable author when in fact it was about me as a notable businessman and intelligence agent. (b) All of Heliotom's other comments were biased and judgemental and would mislead anyone who read them just as the wrongful statements made about abuse through clusters of IP addresses are equally misleading and inaccurate.

Joanna Lockwood and I remain astonished that Wikipedia can publicly wrongfully accuse me (and Joanna Lockwood) of having committed illegitimate acts. At least an apology for that is requested and we hope that once Wikipedia has looked into these matters thoroughly and properly that it will reverse its decisions relating to bans and the proposed deletion of the article which surely must be capable of being rewritten where required even if shorter to conform to Wikipedia's "standards" if a little help were to be offered. Joanna Lockwood, like many aspiring Wikipedia writers, thought she was being helpful and would be helped, not treated in such a degrading manner as she has been. 31.48.184.177 (talk) 20:12, 26 March 2018 (UTC)