User talk:Jonathan A Jones/Archive 2

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

This is your first warning for edit warring on multiple Wikipedia pages. Do not violate the 3RR (three-revert rule) rule in the future. If you continue to do so, you will be suspended. Abesam (talk) 17:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I have declined the report as malformed to start with, and probably inaccurate to boot, since I can't see a breach by you of 3RR on those lists of university by date or what-have-you anyway. BencherliteTalk 17:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks Abesam for the reminder. Thanks Bencherlite for the decision. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I had earlier edited List of UK universities by date of foundation and have categorized the dates into date of foundation and date of royal charter to prevent edit warring. I am not sure that you have got the message, as I can find you changing the dates of foundation of certain universities frequently which has lead to edit warring with fellow Wikipedians. So kindly prevent the same from happening in the future. I am certain that the University of Strathclyde was founded in 1796, because the date of foundation of any institution is decided by the date of foundation of the most stable institution from which it came. And since the Andersonian institute has got a remarkable place in history of Scotland and it is well suited to be considered hence. Also after checking in the university website, the date of foundation can be concluded as 1796. The date of royal charter however is 1964. Regards Abesam (talk) 12:43, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * First, may I remind you that your previous attempt to report me for edit warring was summarily dismissed as described above. You present no evidence whatsoever that I am engaged in an edit war now.  Please stop making these bizarre allegations.


 * Second, your description of how universities are categorized on List of UK universities by date of foundation is inaccurate. Universities on this page are categorized by the date on which they became a university, with the dates of notable precursor institutions being noted in the tables.  A moment's glance shows that your proposed treatment of Strathclyde is completely anomalous: you have made no attempt to move, for example, Manchester, Newcastle, Aston, Surrey, Bath, Bradford, Heriot Watt, Salford, or Dundee back into the nineteenth century, although by your supposed argument they all belong there.  What about Liverpool John Moores University which traces its origins back to 1823?  Why do you apparently only care about Strathclyde? Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:07, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

The only reason that I care about Strathclyde is because, based on your edit history, you have chosen to make edits against Strathclyde particularly. I am not making any allegations against you whatsoever, But your edits against Strathclyde does not seem to have a positive or proper motive. I have no association with Strathclyde whatsoever, But I do feel that since you are associated with Oxford, your edits against a Scottish university specifically might not be in the best interest. regards Abesam (talk) 18:15, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * None of my edits have been in any way against Strathclyde; they all have been about keeping consistency between articles and following agreed patterns within individual articles. Where necessary my edits have been backed up by clear and accurate edit summaries, and I have added further detailed discussions on talk pages.  I am at a loss to see where you are coming from.  I would urge you to read WP:AGF and especially WP:AOBF before writing any further on my talk page. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:33, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Strathclyde
The latest edit has been made by Strathclyde university representatives and has been done so after careful historical analysis and consideration. Any attempt to undermine the University's reputation and name in the future may result in a defamation lawsuit. The university was founded in 1796 and there is ample evidence in the university archives to support this fact. Defamation of our university in a public domain database is not what we would like to see often. Regards,130.159.158.192 (talk) 11:27, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Are Strathclyde University representatives in the habit of making ungrammatical and meaningless threats? Really, this is just making you look silly.  Please feel free to discuss this question at the appropriate talk page, where you can present this supposed "ample evidence".  Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:59, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Removal of Leuven university
When a university is temporarily closed down because of a foreign occupying power it shouldn't count as not continuous. Otherwise you should remove more universities out of this list, e.g. University of Pavia, Jagiellonian University, ... Dirk math (talk) 22:10, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * See Talk:List_of_oldest_universities_in_continuous_operation. Do feel free to discuss the case of other universities on the talk page, though you may find it helpful to glance through the archives first.  Jonathan A Jones (talk) 22:59, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Then read this: The continuity was even sanctioned by the pope. Dirk math (talk) 23:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * So make your case at the talk page. The current consensus is against you; doesn't mean it can't change but you will have to make the case if you want to change things. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 23:14, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Charles R. Burton
I haven't a clue what you've done to the threading of the discussion on this page, but it does not follow the prescribed formats for discussion as outlined at Talk page guidelines and on other pages. Please don't do it again. Viriditas (talk) 01:26, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Looking at it closer, it appears you are trying to replicate the old skool style of threaded discussions from yesteryear by trying to avoid narrow nesting. I suppose you intended to do this in good faith and I now understand it.  But it could be very confusing to other editors. Viriditas (talk) 01:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * They have changed the layout guidelines again? Oh great. Anyway, thanks for the link. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:53, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Wrt Charlie Burton and William M. Connelley
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Yopienso (talk) 06:32, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I have replied there. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:42, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Corpus tortoise
Just wondering why you seem to favour removing all references to tortoises and the tortoise fair - I'd say they're more prominent than the bees, albeit less 'historical'... Best91.85.208.0 (talk) 11:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I have nothing against the tortoise, but it doesn't belong in that section. The article needs a "student life" section, where I would expect the tortoise fair to fit in nicely. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:59, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, though I'm not especially well qualified to compose a section on student life. What do you reckon to a 'Festivities' section, covering the May Ball, Tortoise Fair, Burns Nicht, and Corpus Christi Day?91.85.208.0 (talk) 10:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I have added a recent traditions section, and put your tortoise text (slightly improved and with a reference) there. Feel free to add other stuff if you can find reliable sources for it. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:33, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

"Verifiable links"
Sorry to disturb but this verifiable link works at all (to replace the original dead link), and a better link of the report was found and added. Thanks! Biomedicinal (contact)


 * Thanks; it was the link to file:///C:/Users/Doomsday/Downloads/1MPs_educational_backgrounds_2010_A.pdf which I was complaining about. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Vulture fund
Your recent edit added a "citation needed" tag to vulture fund's lead section. Are you going to argue that this doesn't qualify for WP:BLUE? Remember, you don't need to cite that the sky is blue... Best, Meatsgains (talk) 07:41, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You do realise that there is actually a page Why is the sky blue? But I'm curious as to why you suddenly felt the need to add this term to an article which had somehow coped for years without it. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's why I put brackets around WP:BLUE, to direct you to the existing page. Your wikilink, Why is the sky blue?, is a disambiguation page which lists articles associated with the same title. Not sure what your intention was behind that.


 * It was added back because the adjective describes the subject much more accurately. To argue that the article "coped for years without [the term]" does not give justification for not including it on the page. Meatsgains (talk) 09:05, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Who added it back? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:27, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


 * What do you mean? Sorry, I'm confused. Meatsgains (talk) 10:09, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Nice to see there is something we agree on. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:29, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Flagging my page when it's now been corrected finally and neutralized since
Hi, Jonathan, I had written this below on the message board which you had written on where my corrections on my own information has been put into question. I really don't know how to use this all very well, but here is the discussion if you would like to "talk" about the article on me:

Hi, listen, I'm Doan Hoang, and I'm not going to sue you, but could stop giving me a hard time? I tried to fix some incorrect information on my page (which a fan named Robert from Boston originally put up and wrote to me about it, not me.) When I recently tried to change it several times this year, AngusWOOF kept changing it back to the wrong info. It was REALLY, really, annoying after hours of trying to get it right. Can you imagine if it were you, that you saw information about you that wasn't true or was out of date, worked to change it, then someone undid your work? I didn't know how to use Wikipedia before. I didn't know there were talk pages. I didn't know you could undo someone's changes (and unfortunately, editors keep undoing facts about me. Now with this post up now, people are changing stuff even more and writing about how suspect this article is because it is now finally all true and correct.

This is one major issue I have with Wikipedia. The most reliable source (me) is now flagged as unreliable, and when the info was wrong, it wasn't flagged (!) Can you just leave it alone and take down this post? I'm sorry I gave AngusWoof a hard time, but hopefully, you can understand why I might. Nothing is wrong now with the article now. It's been gone over with a fine tooth comb. I'm just someone who survived a war, lived to tell about it in a PBS documentary, and I didn't want incorrect information about me out there. People, journalist, fans, etc. started to ask me about these things that weren't correct. I thanked AngusWoof for attempting to fix this problem. I would appreciate it if you would please just remove the flag and leave the article as it was without the flag now that it's finally more correct. I would appreciate that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junotcat (talk • contribs) 23:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The best plan would be for you to post your proposed edits to the talkpage of the article, particularly those that correct any inaccuracies. Or you can indicate there which version you regard as the accurate one and what is wrong with the others. Other editors can then evaluate the edits and, as appropriate, include them in the article. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:24, 3 August 2014 (UTC) The article on me is currently fine I guess except I just want it back to not having a COI flag on it as it was before and it would be nice to have my short films listed. Short films are a major category in film festivals and awards, such as the Academy Awards. I have had shorts of mine win prizes, but someone, I believe AngusWoof removed my short films and wrote that they are unimportant. I can live with that, despite it being annoying. The article has now been gone over by several editors who are not me and seems to fit Wikipedia standards according to the ways listed. (I've annoyingly had journalists and other people tell me I only did 1 film due to IMDB and this article, who don't seem to believe me when I tell them the truth! What a bizarre world we live in!) If you could stop from trying to protect the public from truth, Jonathan A Jones, and others, maybe some people could not be given misinformation. Thank you! Đoan Hoàng (please note the incorrect spelling of my name without the marks.) User:Junotcat — Preceding undated comment added 23:37, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Please don't copy this sort of drivel onto my talk page: I am perfectly capable of reading it where it belongs. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:55, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikibio additions
I took your hint re Fred Pearce's nice writeup of your FOI request, and added a few other bits. I also started out as a chemist, but went on to geochemistry and mining geology.

When I get the time/energy, I'll add your 2 textbooks and a few of your papers. If you'd like to pick out your best/most influential, that would be a help. If you prefer, I'm at pdtillmanATgmailDOTcom

Thanks for your Wikipedia contributions! Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 03:28, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I stay away from that page for obvious reasons. But if you want to know which papers I think are most important then the list at my Brasenose page is about right; if you want to know what my readers (mostly pesky biochemists) think matters then see the list ordered by citation counts at .  We're working on the 2nd Edition of the NMR textbook at the moment, but that won't come out until 2015. Regards, and thanks again, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Good Job with Tim Worstall
Would you mind coming over to Gonzalo Lira where some minor edits need to take place.

Lfrankbalm (talk) 22:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)lfrankbalmLfrankbalm (talk) 22:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Merge discussion
Hello Jonathan,

Where should we take the Distressed securities merge discussion next to get it resolved from an uninvolved admin? I understand where you are coming from with your reasoning, but I would like an uninvolved third party to determine what steps need to be taken next. I posted a comment on the ANI board for assistance last week but never received a respond. Best, Comatmebro  ~Come at me~ 21:53, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Popular Alliance
I have nominated Popular Alliance (UK) for deletion. Thanks doktorb wordsdeeds 14:43, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Faculty / academics
Hello - your experience might be useful at Categories for discussion/Log/2015 January 21 and other discussions on that page! BencherliteTalk 19:57, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input - I don't particularly mind which term is used, but it's good to get it right. On a semi-related note, is there a quick way (preferably online) of finding out whether "Professor X" at Oxford is one of the statutory professors or has a personal title of distinction (such as your good self?) (And am I right in thinking that it's either one or the other?) Going through the "academics" category, I find various people who are referred to as "Professor of Something" at Oxford.  If it's an obvious one (a Merton Professor of this or a Regius / Chichele Professor of that), no problem, but not all of the SPs have such names, so they get hard to spot... BencherliteTalk 21:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * To add to the fun, there are now four main categories of Professor at Oxford. The old main lecturer grade has now been renamed Associate Professor in the American style, and so all old style ULs, CUFs and ULNTFs can be addessed as Professor (technically speaking the grade has been renamed, but the underlying post remains as a UL, CUF or ULNTF).  Next up are the "Titular Professors" such as myself, who are really on the Associate Professor Grade but have the Titular Grade of Full Professor.  Titular Professors can apply for merit pay, and as of last term automatically get a new zeroth merit increment.  It's very hard to tell Associate Professors and Titular Professors apart: Physics has a total of 76, but I don't know how many we have of each.  Then there are the RS4 professors, who would have been called Personal Chairs or Ad Hominem Chairs in the old days, and are now really quite common, and Physics has 14.  Finally there are the Statutory Chairs, of which Physics has 9.  The key distinction is that Statutory Chairs are positions which are refilled on retirement or resignation (perhaps with brief suspensions), while RS4s dissapear with the postholder.
 * Telling them apart is difficult, but I could probably tell them apart in most cases (except that Associate Professors and Titular Professors are almost indistinguishable, unless somebody is specifically described as Associate Professor). If you're the X Professor of Y you are probably a Statutory Professor.  If you're just Professor of Y you are probably an RS4 or a Titular Professor, but could just be an Associate Professor.  The best bet is to find the corresponding College Fellowship: if you're a Professorial Fellow then you are probably a Statutory Chair; if you're a Senior Research Fellow then you are probably an RS4; if you're a Tutorial Fellow then you are an Associate Professor or a Titular Professor.  But if you're a Supernumerary Fellow you could be an RS4 or an Associate Professor or a Titular Professor.  Complex, I'm afraid. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 22:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Paul Frampton
Hi. Hope you're well. I came across this article through STiki. It seems the article's subject has returned under a new username to remove the crime convictions from his page [], which I've reverted. Thought one of the main independent contributors to the page should know. Cowlibob (talk) 10:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'm afraid this is pretty typical behaviour from Paul Frampton.  In the interests of full disclosure, note that I actually have a substantial conflict of interest, and it has sometimes been suggested that I am too protective of Paul's reputation, but in practice the right way to handle this (1) is obvious, and (2) has been very heavily discussed at the BLP noticeboard, so in practice I'm pretty confident that I'm doing the right thing. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe independent was the wrong word, when looking through the page's history you seem to have been level-headed in your approach which I think matters more than having a conflict of interest. Cowlibob (talk) 13:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

oldest university
Jonathan,

I just want to present university history in the world based on an objective view. I truly thing (so as the UNESCO, the world Guiness book, and almost all international institutions) that you cannot understand university in its narrow definition of a European institution. Otherwise it is a vicious circle.. I am the first of everything since I decide of the rules... it doesn't make sense.

Moreover, I am a product of European Universities and the truly believe in their international influence but you cannot say that Karaouine was only a medarsa until the 1960... and intentionally delete the paragraph I have written where I explain that Jewish philosopher studied there and even a Pope!! Karaouine was as much a university as the European religion-focused first universities in Europe. It just didn't know the Renaissance period after that.

I will put again my paragraph below yours without changing the title if it is what disturb you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Youmehim (talk • contribs) 14:01, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * These topics have been debated endlessly at the talk page, and I suggest you review that discussion before embarking on your edits. In passing I would also note that your edits were ungrammatical and unsupported by sources.  Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Spin chemistry
Hello! I've noticed that you are a physicist/physical chemist with biochemistry interests. What can you say about the field of spin chemistry, with emphasis on biochemical applications?--5.15.185.115 (talk) 16:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * And your relationship to 5.15.181.104 and 5.15.53.245 is what precisely? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Does it matter? If I say I'm the same person, you won't answer the question about spin chemistry? I wanted to post a PS saying that I've seen the Oxford Univ ext link in the spin chemistry article when an edit conflict occured--5.15.185.115 (talk) 17:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Answer the question please. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for attempting to correct the Neutron magnetic moment article. You may not be aware that just before you began that process, I entered an incident report Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents.  This anonymous editor is an amazing waste of time.  Bdushaw (talk) 21:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Listing of Universities as Diploma Mills
Hi Jonathan, thank you for adding additional information to the Diploma mill Article about Univ. Nacional and Atlantic Univ. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diploma_mill The issue I see is that the Article itself directly implies that schools listed there are Diploma mills. There is no arguing the fact that back in 2007, the SEP in Mexico issued a list of schools it did not recognize. However, there is a distinction between the SEP in Mexico not recognizing a school and it being a Diploma mill that sells degrees and requires little or no academic work. Unaccredited institutions are frequently incorrectly grouped together with diploma mills despite facts and evidence supporting that the unaccredited school is not a diploma mill. I do not think that is the intent of the article something should be done to remedy this issue.50.204.115.99 (talk) 23:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Please hold any discusssion at the appropriate talk page. Thank you. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 06:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Offensive edit summaries
The edit summary mentioned was not offensive, but merely included a request including a justification for edits. Please do not pre-empt hostilities with messages on my talk thread. QuickClown (talk) 01:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Suggesting that I would delete a sourced edit simply because I entirely properly deleted an unsourced edit on a BLP is offensive. Please don't do that again. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:16, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Your attitude is both extremely distasteful and overly pedantic. I would advise you to neither think too much into comments which were never intended to be offensive, only defensive, as well as not to take yourself too seriously. If you wish to advise me on appropriate uses of the minor edit tag, then please do so in a more approachable manner. QuickClown (talk) 01:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I strongly advise you to familiarise yourself with the basic elements of wikipedia policy before your hamfisted attempts at enforcing your misconceptions lead you into genuine difficulties. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:06, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

How very altruistic of you. Duly noted. QuickClown (talk) 01:55, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Matt Ridley
Well done! Chemical Engineer (talk) 17:59, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. With most of the sources I have added there is some question of how independent they really are, but at least there has been some minimal editorial oversight. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Arman
Hi I am Arman. You have reverted my article. Well you are American people. You don't know about our civilization very well. For example if I say I have to shorten the Abbasid empire you will not understand anything. So in cases of racial and historical things the consensus does not work actually. In these cases you should make the article first and then discuss about it. Please if you have any objection about my article talk with me about that in the talk page.Arman ad60 (talk) 19:13, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The fact that you think I'm American tells me everything I need to know about your competence at basic research. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:16, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

St Gregory the Great Catholic School Oxford
Thanks for reverting the page on St Gregory the Great Catholic School Oxford following some attempts at vandalism. I'm Rodger Caseby, the Vice Principal, as you guessed. While there is a conflict of interest in me editing the page, I was originally attempting to correct the vandalism. I noticed that the page is out of date, so I'd like to take up your offer of moderating any changes I make. I'm new to Wikipedia, so how does this work? Rhcaseby (talk) 17:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC) Rhcaseby (talk) 17:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for confirming. Correcting obvious vandalism is never a problem, and updating out of date details is usually fine.  The problems start if you want to change major statements or the tone of the article.  If you want to do that the best thing is to propose a change on the article talk page and then let other editors decide what they think and implement the proposed change if they wish.  Note that I usually don't take an active role in updating the article (I just watch it for vandalism), but since I watch the page I would be happy to assess any proposed changes. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:54, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Help
Hello there! I came upon your Ellie Highwood and IPCC drafts recently, and wished to ask for your permission to expand them. Would that be OK? Regards, FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  00:35, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I would be delighted if you took over Ellie Highwood as that has made no progress since I started it (I have done two other stubs, Elspeth Garman and Cait MacPhee in the meantime). The IPCC is a subject I avoid, and the stuff in the sandbox was just me learning about reference formatting, so I have deleted all that. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Excellent! I'll do my best and will let you know when I have a decent draft. Cheers, FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  16:26, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Out of curiosity, what are your views on the IPCC? FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  14:37, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * As I said it's a topic I avoid on wiki, but you can find many of my off-wiki comments easily enough. Start with the link from my user page. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:51, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I finished my work with the draft, which you can now find at Ellie Highwood. I believe it's a decent start. Thank you for providing its backbone! Regards, FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  19:11, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks good - thanks for finishing it off! Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:31, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Paul Singer. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  19:49, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Lester Coleman
FYI, the person making substantial undiscussed changes to the article is not me. Check the history:. If the WP:SPA continues with this I am intending to either block him or protect the article. Guy (Help!) 20:29, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, wait, I see now. There was an intermittend version, actually the earlier edit by Looie to which you reverted, was correct, so thank you for that. Guy (Help!) 20:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry, I realised afterwards that my edit summary was confusing - I hoped that you would work it out so thanks for doing so! Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:46, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Xenia Deli
Hi Jonathan, The article Xenia Deli has changed considerably. Your comments at Articles for deletion/Xenia Deli (2nd nomination) have been helpful. I would appreciate it if you could take another look at it and let me know your opinion. --Odysses (○) 18:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Replied there. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Jonathan, Thank you for your positive and constructive contribution at the above discussion. Your comments contributed to the improvement of the article. Keep up the good work. -- Odysses (○) 10:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

G. Kogelen Govindasamy
Hi Jonathan, I noticed that you've made some major edits to the G. Kogelen Govindasamy article, resulting in much of the info being deleted. I understand that you had honest intentions, but unfortunately, this has upset Dr. Kogelen himself, and he requests that the article be deleted as soon as possible. How would I go about doing this ? I've never attempted to delete a Wikipedia page before. In the meantime, I will blank the page. Best regards, Aero777 (talk) 11:06, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't blank the page; that would get you in trouble. I can start a deletion discussion later today.  Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:07, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, many thanks ! But Dr. Kogelen insists that he'd like it deleted within the hour, and that the choice is not entirely up to him. I appreciate your kind co-operation. Aero777 (talk) 11:10, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand that it may often take days until a Wikipedia article could be deleted. In the meantime, would it be alright to at least remove the notability tag from the page ? It's the main cause for concern. I do apologize for all this trouble. Aero777 (talk) 11:19, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm in favour of speedy deletion (WP:G7), as I'm sure both myself and Jonathan are on the same page here. Aero777 (talk) 04:37, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * , do you have any objections to deleting the page? Since you and Aero are the only contributors, I think it would be fine to courtesy speedy WP:G7 the page as long as the two main contributors are fine with it. czar  03:58, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with speedy delete; I had forgotten that G7 was a possibility. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:26, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Done Eye close font awesome.svg czar  12:42, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Maps
Hi, I want to include some maps in some of the articles. I want a consensus for that. Please come to the talk pages of Achaemenid empire and Parthian empire.Arman ad60 (talk) 11:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Paul Singer
Hi there. Well, excuse me if I bother you but I would like to know, why did you undid my edition on Paul Singer? Eh, I would like you to give me a clear explanation and clarify this, you basically told me (Through WP:NOYT) my source/reference is not reliable, but it actually is, you should just watch the video, it's in English and subtitled in Spanish. (Which, I'm thinking right now I should have clarified that when adding it). I don't see a real reason for your reversion. If you, consider it's not reliable it's other situation. Thank you and good day. Ezequiel Matias Acosta (talk) 19:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:NOYT is perfectly clear: "YouTube and other video-sharing sites are generally not considered reliable sources because anyone can create or manipulate a video clip and upload without editorial oversight, just as with a self-published website." Furthermore WP:BLPSPS also applies here: "Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see below)." Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks
Can't we have such list of forbidden words in future? Thanks for guidance any way AksheKumar (talk) 02:11, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Excuse me sir
Hi, yes. sorry.

Please do not undo verification edits on Oxford University if you have no consensus of facts
You cannot just delete something if the sources are acedamic sources for the article. I am sending you a warning of of undoing PPR edits. If you continue to undo you will suspended.

The facts about Oxford University, Oxford, England:

1. First English speaking institution - StudyEnglishToday News by M. Boyanova 2007 "Oxford University is the 1st English speaking institution":

2. Oldest:

3. 1st English-speaking institution: <

4. Oxford University is an education institution — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.128.15.231 (talk • contribs) 2010-08-06T07:31:10

A page you started (John Bowers (lawyer)) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating John Bowers (lawyer), Jonathan A Jones!

Wikipedia editor Wikicology just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Thanks for your contributions. Kindly expand it to make it more meaninful and significant."

To reply, leave a comment on Wikicology's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

RfC: Inclusion of predecessors and successors in officeholders' infoboxes
Hi, I'm writing to inform you that I've opened a new general Request for Comment concerning whether predecessors and successors should be included in the Infobox Officeholder template, further to my RfC concerning Michael Portillo specifically. The new RfC can be found here: Template_talk:Infobox_officeholder. Thanks, Specto73 (talk) 19:19, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Keele University
Hi Jonathan, regarding removal of the COI template here, you're right that no mention was made at the article talk page. I've rectified that now--the conflict of interest has been long term and pretty obvious, and a lot of clean up by several editors has been necessary. That said, if the conflict is no longer evident in the article's tone, there's no need to restore the template. But I'm not real pleased with that editor's persistent removal of templates they don't like, and I'd encourage watchlisting this for the future. Thanks, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:06, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:32, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

University of Siena
The article is based on ONE source inserted by one contributor, a book published in 1895. We are in 2017. It should be considered original research, being that it's generally accepted the 1240 as year of foundation. 1408 is the year of In Apostolicae Sedis specula, a Papal bull that confirmed the privileges to the university of Siena as studium generale. I'm fixing the paragraph with more sources. --Chiorbone da Frittole (talk) 14:57, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Obviously if you can find sources of the same quality as the book by Hastings Rashdall then you should feel free to edit the text, but you will need proper sources. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:09, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Barry Clarke sockpuppet
I'm assuming you already got a ping, but I wanted to make sure you were aware of Sockpuppet investigations/Barryispuzzled. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 00:43, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. You won't be surprised to hear that I share your suspicions about these accounts.  As far as I recall the original (December 2016) IP was probably a friend of Paul Frampton, but that all went quiet fairly quickly. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 06:44, 21 July 2017 (UTC)