User talk:Jonathan A Jones/Archive 3

Huberty
Hello Jonathon -- I'm organizing some protection for this article and perhaps some discipline for the miscreants. Unless you are an admin. Rhadow (talk) 17:13, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm not an admin, but at least one admin seem to have some idea of what is going on.  Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:15, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|alt=|link=]] This is your only warning; if you template a regular again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 20:40, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Given that you are a regular you might wish to review this comment from an admin before restoring inappropriate material at a BLP.  Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:46, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * And? The material I restored was about Hurricane Harvey, not any "videotape controversy." Further, I'm aware of discretionary sanctions, as there is on BLPs and a host of other issues. It is not an injunction to prevent my countervandalism. So you know, Wikipedia still hands out official boomerangs if you really wanted one. The number one reason they've been so popular (like that scene in Hudsucker Proxy) is because folks get themselves in a rush unnecesarily. You might also read the essay I linked to because clearly you're not familiar with the use of Uw-dttr4im. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 20:57, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oops: I meant this comment from a different admin; thanks for pointing out my slip. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:20, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Michael Portillo
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Michael Portillo. Smerus (talk) 11:04, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Roger A. Pielke Jr.
I took another pass at the wording of the "labels" idea. Let me know if it's heading in the right direction. The problem is (as you note) that the cited source itself just says that un-named people say it, so the best we can directly say is that a reliable source says "it is said". It's WP:V that the source says people say it, so I think wikipedia's standard is met if we can explicitly say that a cited source is the one who is weaseling. DMacks (talk) 04:27, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Definitely an improvement: we need to be clear that any weasel words are theirs not ours. The text feels a bit clunky, but I can't think of anything better at the moment. Thanks, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:52, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's clunky, and likewise couldn't figure out a decent way to un-clunk it:( DMacks (talk) 22:09, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I've made a minor change, without really tackling the underlying clunk. Further discussion (if any - I'm not sure there's a lot more to say) should probably move to the article talk page. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:21, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

March 2018
Your recent editing history at Bhimbetka rock shelters shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Banasura talk 15:32, 17 March 2018 (UTC)


 * And I'm a spammer recently blocked for 24 hours. This is a new editor pushing a pov pretty clumsily. Doug Weller  talk 16:05, 17 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks: that was pretty obvious from his behaviour, though I hadn't seen his recent edits on his talk page. That mixture of arrogance and incompetence is something special. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:13, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * And he's been blocked. Quicker that I expected, but not much. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:33, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

You r prejudiced
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Swandancelake (talk • contribs) 18:12, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * And he's been blocked . Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Banasura
Thought you'd like to know. Doug Weller talk 19:10, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Not a surprise. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:40, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Mohammad bin Salman – image and OR sentence
Hi Jonathan A Jones, another fairly pointless image has been added to Mohammad bin Salman (diff) following the  which you looked at. It’s from the same website – Tasnim News Agency. It only actually features Mohammad bin Salman to the extent that there’s a small picture of him within the image itself.

The sentence it’s alongside (the second sentence in the ’Relations with other nations’ subsection - “Since becoming Crown Prince, bin Salman has…”) is also poor as it makes sweeping generalisations based on old media reporting, and possibly drifts into the territory of original research by using several sources to make a statement not made in any one of them.

If you have a moment would you mind having a look at both of these? Thank you very much. Tarafa15 (talk) 11:17, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Unlike the previous case these don't strike me as self-evidently wrong, so I prefer to leave the decision to the regulars on the page. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:00, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for taking a look.Tarafa15 (talk) 12:21, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The same editor has added yet another image (here) to the Controversies section. I think what’s clear is that in the absence of a reliable source making (or even quoting) accusations of this sort against the subject instead of against the coalition, the editor has again turned to an image. Does this section really need two images of protesters? I’d be grateful for your thoughts. Thanks. Tarafa15 (talk) 10:14, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Again these strike me as marginal, so I prefer to leave the decision to the regulars on the page. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:40, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for having another look.Tarafa15 (talk) 16:03, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * For the avoidance of doubt, I only intervened in the first case because the issue was raised at the BLP noticeboard and the decision was straightforward. If the matter requires judgement then I am not going to get involved, so please do not raise such issues here.  And if the matter is simple then you are better raising it at the BLP noticeboard anyway.  If you don't get a response there after 48 hours then feel free to post a note here pointing me to the discussion there: but if you keep raising borderline cases then I will simply ignore future requests. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:22, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Conflict of interest in Wikipedia
Hello Jonathan A Jones,

Tutorials are stated to be a part of masters taught programs such as the ones cited in the sentence. The University of Oxford knows very well what a tutorial is, and in what way they employ that word on their documents. The citations are from the official Oxford website and academic departments. By stating that tutorials are not a part of post graduate education, and by continuing to remove such factual information, you are stating then that the University of Oxford's website is being misleading or incorrect? No where does it state that the taught masters courses are not similar to the tutorial system. Quite contrary, it states that papers are discussed in the tutorials, in addition to lectures and group seminars. I ensure you, despite your obvious prejudice and direct connection to the undergraduate elitism of oxford (conflict of interest?), many postgraduate programs offer the tutorial system. The key word is many, which is also employed in the sentence.

If you can find me a reputable source ( the oxford university website themselves) that state that the tutorials offered in those specific cited programs or in all masters degrees are not in tutorial style, then your claims would be justified.Lastnightawake (talk) 13:51, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm intrigued as to why you think my conflict of interest should play out in the rathere exotic way you seem to imagine. But in any event this conversation belongs on the article talk page, not here.  Though you might want to look up the difference between primary and secondary sources before saying anything more. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Case of Latifa and only primary sources
Since you seem to show grave concern to cases that are only based on primary sources and don't offer much of secondary sources I invite you to have a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latifa_bint_Mohammed_Al_Maktoum_(II), which is strongly connected to the Herve Jaubert article. This article is beyond poorly sourced and overquotes what is essentially the same source via proxy sources countless times. More or less all information in this article is only dependent on a (!)youtube(!) video of the person in question. Furthermore almost every "secondary" source quoted has as its only source said youtube video and a website of the company "detained in dubai" that is strongly involved in this case, too, and therefore a primary source.

Please do this as a favour to another physicist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:E914:6C00:F1AB:EEE7:6B05:1757 (talk) 09:49, 16 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Take it to WP:BLP/N if you are concerned. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)


 * And so I did. I previously posted a concern toward this article at the neutral viewpoint board because the article completely ignores statements made at newspapers concerning the UAE's stance on this topic. Needless to say my concerns have been ignored. I hope not this time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:E914:6C00:F1AB:EEE7:6B05:1757 (talk) 10:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Given the style of your edits I am not surprised. You need to stop edit warring, learn a few basics like signing your posts, and then present your case properly. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:04, 16 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I never had this problem editing articles on physics or mathematics where all my edits were always uncontested and accepted since they were correct. So could you give me input on what is the most glaring issue that you refer to as "present properly". Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:E914:6C00:F1AB:EEE7:6B05:1757 (talk) 10:12, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Rating of Importance WikiProject University of Oxford
Hi, I replied to your post yesterday, but somehow the history updated, but not the current version. I tried again today and the current version of the talk page does seem to have updated.81.86.211.166 (talk) 09:54, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks, saw that. Will reply at some point.  The project is not very active at the moment so you may not get much response, but still the right place to raise the questions.  Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:54, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I posted on your page today because my post on the talk page yesterday did not update properly, not to chase a response from you.81.86.211.166 (talk) 13:46, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Mark Wnek
You might wish to contribute to the discussion as to whether this page should be deleted Cdosteovsky (talk) 18:09, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I'll sit this one out. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:13, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Conference of colleges in University of Oxford Article
Hi, I have just set up an account rather than using an IP address. I was trying to improve the grammar of the original sentence and summarise the two roles outlined in "What is the Conference of Colleges?" in http://www.confcoll.ox.ac.uk/html/main/about_the_conference.html The first role is "to act collectively on issues that matter to them. This may range from sharing information and good practice to acting together to procure expert advice or services." I don't think that the latest version "to act collectively in dealings with the central university" covers acting collectively in other areas. I have posted this on your page as it is a very minor part of the whole article.TSventon (talk) 14:12, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for getting in touch. I'm not convinced that either version is quite right.  (Full disclaimer here: I was a member of Standing Committee of Conference so I know exactly what they actually do.)  On most issues they simply share information and good practice.  On issues dealing with the central university where a collective approach is essential (such as the distribution of fees) they act collectively.  When the colleges need legal advice on a common problem they will sometimes buy this collectively, although colleges that wish may also get their own direct advice.  It's rare for them to act collectively otherwise, and this requires a substantial supermajority in a "binding vote".  How to say all this in a few sentences and source it is a more interesting question, but you shouldn't give the impression that acting collectively is the norm except on dealings with the university. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:19, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation, I thought you might have more direct experience than I do.TSventon (talk) 15:06, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

The rationale behind the portmanteaus 'Doxbridge' deserves mention in the Oxbridge article
In the section 'Related terms', the portmanteaus 'Doxbridge' -- referring to Durham, Oxford, and Cambridge -- deserves recognition as a more prominent example than the other examples mentioned ('Woxbridge' and 'Loxbridge'). Indeed, 'Doxbridge' can be found mentioned in many more articles online than either 'Woxbridge' or 'Loxbridge', some of which were cited in the original edit.

Furthermore, in the main article, the grouping of Oxford and Cambridge under the term 'Oxbridge' is justified using a number of meanings (see 'Meaning' section). Similar meanings are behind the argument for 'Doxbridge', including that the three institutions are the three oldest universities in England, that Durham also ranks highly academically, that they share similar social characters as collegiate universities, that Durham also has historic architecture, and that Durham shares a similarly high proportion of privately educated students. Because these facts draw comparison with the contents of the 'Meaning' section above in the article, their inclusion is relevant. The removal of this information makes the Wikipedia article less informative and so it is improved with its inclusion.


 * So find some reliable secondary sources that support your claims. Until then I suggest you read Verifiability. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:44, 21 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The original edit linked to multiple articles that discussed the 'Doxbridge' portmanteaus. The following were also liked: 1) Durham as the third oldest university in England, link to Wikipedia article on the subject; 2) UK academic rankings, link to Wikipedia article on the subject; 3) Durham is a collegiate university, link to the Wikipedia article on the subject; 4) Durham's historic architecture, the Castle and Cathedral are UNESCO World Heritage sites, neither Oxford nor Cambridge can claim this level, a citation can be added; 5) Durham's high privately educated student body, link to the Wikipedia article on the subject. The 'meanings' used drew comparison with the meanings for the 'Oxbridge' term and were linked to sources.


 * See above, but add Wikipedia is not a reliable source to your reading list. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:56, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

St Benet's Hall
Greetings. Thanks for editing St Benet's Hall. Please note that the Hall does indeed designate the current Master as interim on its governance page (https://www.st-benets.ox.ac.uk/governance). Also, Campion Hall does not have a single common table, but a series of separate tables, even when one central table may be larger. I lived one year in Campion (2012-2013) and I was a member of SBH (2012-2016). St Benet's is unique, as far as is known, in that it maintains one single table as a rule (https://www.st-benets.ox.ac.uk/our-common-table). The only other example might be All Souls College, but its table is for Fellows only as it has no students. --IACOBVS (talk) 01:58, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If you want to say things on Wikipedia then you have to find a source that supports it when challenged. You have partly succeeded on the question of "interim" as the sources we now have are directly contradictory, but you have made no progress on the question of the supposed uniqueness of the common table. Note that you need to find a source that actually says that this practice is unique. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:17, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I concede your points on unsourced commentary (that I have made here). I have been at this for some time, but I am hardly an expert. There have been articles on the 'one table' and some website mentions, but I am fine to delete the claim. Also, FYI the Interim or Acting Master has reportedly had his tenure extended for three years inclusive. I do not think there has been an announcement yet. I think he may be designated Acting Master (2018-2021) when it is released. This is only friendly talk by the way. Happy editing. --IACOBVS (talk) 00:21, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Tara Chambler
No comment on the new user's edit summary behavior on the Tara Chambler article, but the material seems to be from Wikia/Fandom, and if so then it merely needs attribution to be a valid reuse of text under their CC-BY-SA license. Bakazaka (talk) 19:03, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but then it wouldn't be properly sourced, and it doesn't belong in the article for a host of other reasons. But thanks anyway, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Professor Andrew Wiles
Hi, according to the biography on the website developed and maintained by St.Andrews University (http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Wiles.html) and Encyclopaedia Britannica (https://www.britannica.com/biography/Andrew-Wiles) Professor Andrew Wiles graduated from Merton College, Oxford with a Bachelor of Arts (B.A) degree, not MA. Sorry. I just double checked the degree system in Oxford and Cambridge. You are right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 油腻叉烧 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Acting Master of St Catherine's, Oxford
Hi, you updated the articles for Roger Ainsworth and List of Heads of Houses, University of Oxford with Penny Handford (acting). Do you know if these should now read Peter Battle (pro-master)? (See https://www.stcatz.ox.ac.uk/professor-peter-battle-elected-pro-master/.) Having read the announcement I am not sure if pro-master is equivalent to acting master.TSventon (talk) 13:11, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks right to me. Penny Handford was vice-master and so became acting master until something else was sorted out. You would have too ready the Catz statutes to be completely sure but this seems correct to me. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:15, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Editing
Dear Jonathan, would you help edit the page, the information regarding his professional and student background is accurate http://webarchiv.bundestag.de/archive/2007/0206/mdb/mdb15/bio/B/bismaca0.html After receiving his Abitur in 1982 he completed his two years Militar service at the Bismarck Kasern in Wentorf, Germany. In 1985 he concludes his training in Capital Markets Investing at Citibank and works for Shearson Lehaman in New York, USA. In 1988 he receives his "International Trade" Diploma from UCLA, Los Angeles, USA. In 1989 he is requested by his father to return to Germany. Between 1989 and 1992, he worked for the company Investor Treuhand in Düsseldorf. Since 1993 he has worked for the Princely Bismarck Administration. From 2003 to 2005 von Bismarck was founding president of the Federal Association of Economic Development and Foreign Trade (BWA) and in 2005 he founded the Bismarck Business Council and Economy. He has also worked as a consultant to Guggenheim Partners, Osborne Partners and APCO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Friedrichsruh-Aumuhle (talk • contribs) 13:50, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Discuss this at the article talk page not here. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:51, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

FYI
I range-blocked that IP. DMacks (talk) 13:13, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Michael Hutchison (priest) proposed article deletion
Sorry for nominating the article for deletion a second time, I didn't read the instructions properly and so I wasn't aware that it's frowned upon. Would you mind clarifying why you think the article should remain? werewolf (talk) 17:39, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, nevermind, I see that you've improved the article, so I change my position on it. Happy editing! werewolf (talk) 17:41, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I removed the original WP:PROD because the stated reasons "none of the references in any way supports the statements made; there is neither any evidence that this individual ever lived" were simply incorrect: the Bertie reference supports all the key facts, and there is no doubt that the individual actually lived. With the edits I have now made I think that the subject meets WP:BASIC and should be safe. Happy editing! Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:07, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Judith Curry BLP stuff
Thanks for playing defense on this. As you likely know, she was "encouraged" to take early retirement from her longtime faculty position at Georgia Tech, because of her defense of actual science (vs political science). Despite that, she's had a positive impact, with her congressional testimony and such. I know her from her website, and just missed meeting her a few years back at a conference, and respect her courage, and grace under pressure. "Anti-science", indeed!

You may know I was permanently blocked from editing climate science topics here a couple years back, despite (or because?) that I actually know something about the topic -- I'm a geologist who has been interested in paleoclimates since student days. The "climate activists" have (temporarily, I hope) won the PR battles, at least among "progressives." But evidence continues to accumulate that, not only does CO2 do no great harm, it likely has largely positive effects. Plants love it, and animals (including us) prefer warmth to cold. This is pretty obvious stuff. Best regards, --Pete Tillman (talk) 21:06, 4 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi, along a similar line - BLP in climate area, would you care to weigh in at this BLP/WP:FRINGEBLP AfD?


 * aka Pete, We can't have anyone who really knows some science be allowed to interfere with alarmists (sorry, "realists"). -- Yae4 (talk) 12:11, 8 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, I've noticed that here (& elsewhere!). Science does self-correct, but it can take awhile. In the meanwhile, all that money pissed away on windmills & solar is gone, gone, gone. . Sorry, Dr. Jones. Feel free to delete this. Cheers, --Pete Tillman (talk) 16:42, 8 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that I only rarely follow up suggestions for pages I might want to look at - I prefer to stick to my own somewhat esoteric collection of interests - so I don't have a lot to say on this beyond recommending that everyone should read Tendentious editing from time to time. It's quite comprehensive and thoughtful, providing lots of helpful advice on how to conduct yourself if you find yourself in a dispute. I don't delete stuff from my talk page unless it's obviously offensive or inappropriate, but this section will eventually drift into the obscurity of the archives. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:36, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Relevant discussion on WT:HED
A discussion which may be relevant to you is currently taking place on WT:HED (section) on the wider picture of WP:BOOSTERISM across university articles. Please see the relevant section if you wish to contribute, as any consensus made there may end up impacting articles on topics you have contributed to, and it would be sensible to get involved earlier rather than going through any discussion it again if it affects those pages. Your views and input would be most welcome! Shadowssettle(talk) 16:51, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

on the added section in zamzam well article failing WP:MEDRS
The article is a review article hence a secondary source. International Journal of Food Properties is a reputed enough journal published by Taylor and Francis Group. How is the cited article failing the WP:MEDRS guidelines? Touhid3.1416 (talk) 16:36, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If you serioulsy believe that an article including the sentence "Recently, quantum biophysical semeiotics experiments have offered new evidence about the existence of a connection between water memory and healing information, exactly following Emoto's interesting hypothesis about the changes to water crystals achieved by music and songs." is a WP:RELIABLE source for medical claims then make you case at the article's talk page, not here. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:43, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

New RfC about governance description of a few U.S. universities
A few months ago, you participated in an RfC asking how we should describe the governance of the University of Pittsburgh. That RfC was closed as "no consensus." Another editor has opened a new RfC asking a similar question for this and a few other universities; your participation would be welcome. ElKevbo (talk) 00:48, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello there
My section deleted at University were not copied from Twitter. The mistake I made was to add them to the antecedents because they were truly antecedents. Kwesi Yema (talk) 10:13, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Much of the text is identical to a January 2020 Twitter thread . That doens't mean you copied it fom there, but if you didn't then there's clearly a common source which you boith copied. the level of detail is inappropriate for that section and the sourcing is poor. But feel free to start/contributre to a discussion at the talk page if you think this should be included. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:53, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes it is identical to a January 2020 thread? But the source is older than that. That means that the Twitter page rather copied from the source and not the other way round.The sourcing may not be the best but no way is it poor. And it is in the antecedents section and antecedents mean the initial starters of what medieval University evolved on. Totally the right section. Kwesi Yema (talk) 12:29, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Controversial topic area alert
—  Newslinger  talk   15:22, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

About Universities before 1500's
Istanbul University called as "darülfünun" durinng early period of school and this type of school is very similar to western universty system. It reformed in 1776 according to western universities. In 1933, its only name changed to university. So its true information. I will change when you write. Tarik289 (talk) 23:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Please discuss this on the article talk page not here. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 05:53, 20 October 2020 (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. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

--Drevolt (talk) 03:12, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Laurence Fox
No I didn't mean to take out both. Apologies and thanks for that. Britmax (talk) 11:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Footnote University of Bologna
I have added a footnote to the wiki page of the University of Bologna, related the mobility of professors between 1000 and 1800. I think this footnote is relevant as it confirms a trend that is still observable today. This footnote refers to a ‘neutral’ text, published in a scientific review. The content of the footnote is objective and summarizes the result of a data-based scientific research in which no value of judgement is expressed. I do not see why this bibliographic reference cannot be maintained and would like to understand how I can improve it so that it is not removed. Thank you very much for your help and advice.Maruzzella15 (talk) 08:26, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Looking at your contributions it's obvious that you are a classic single purpose account only here to push the work of David de la Croix whether directly or indirectly. Your attempt to introduce the RETE website into a range of webpages is a classic example of citation spamming. But as you have been told repeatedly further discussion should be held at the article talk page, not here or elsewhere. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * After stealing some ideas for my User page from yours, I had a look at this paragraph, then saw that Maruzzella15 had been busy adding his spam footnote to numerous other pages, including the one for Aix-Marseille University (the university that I'm associated with). He doesn't seem to have paid much attention to your comment! Anyway, I fixed the the one for Aix-Marseille University.  Athel cb (talk) 15:53, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

What are you doing, Jonathan A Jones?!
Jonathan, you keep reverting old information that has existed in the Zamzam Well article before I edited it. How do you justify your edits? You only need to use the talk page if you make a major change. Except for the extraction of new information in the last paragraph from the same sources that existed before I edited the page, there was no significant change. Xpërt3 (talk) 11:47, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Read WP:BRD. There is no consensus for your changes. Stop edit warring. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:34, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The topic about Zamzam having benefits/no benefits has nothing to do with the discussion. The discussion ended a long time ago. I don't think you understanding what the main point I'm trying to convey to you. I want to bring back old information deleted by another user with French Ministry of Health info. Please check the talk page and see what I typed in response to your misunderstandings. Xpërt3 (talk) 14:24, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You repeated the claim that Zamzam water has beneits in an edit today . Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:43, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That is not part of the main discussion though. The revert dispute is. Now regarding the separate topic, I based my statements about the benefits of Zamzam water on government studies conducted by other countries, as well as studies done in medical journals. I will eventually bring this topic up again to the talk page when I feel comfortable in doing so. I was merely reacting to your argument that the edit was "astonishingly unwise," with which I disagree. Xpërt3 (talk) 14:49, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Please stop commenting here and make any further comments on the article talk page. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:06, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This situation would never have evolved into an edit war if you read with your two eyes correctly. It's also not a good idea to stray too far from the main focus of discussion. Furthermore, your edits/reverts should be more comprehensive and detailed so that writers can understand the justifications of your changes. Anyways, I hope you learned a few things from this experience. I certainly did. Xpërt3 (talk) 15:45, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The only person edit warring here is you. Now please stop commenting here and make any further comments on the article talk page. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:50, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Quantized Inertia
You mention here only 5 sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Quantized_inertia#Quantized_inertia I listed there many more sources. Haven't you noticed them? They are labeled now as: "List of potential sources ——Serial 10:43, 11 June 2021 (UTC)" 88.145.197.201 (talk) 19:27, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Also why have you left this in the Qunatized Inertia article: "Quantized inertia has been criticized as being pseudoscience by astrophysicist Brian Koberlein,[7]", when this source is unreliable according to Wikipedia (see WP:FORBESCON).88.145.197.201 (talk) 19:45, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I suggest you raise your questions on the article's talk page. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:18, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Where the Toys Come From
Hi, I hope I made everything right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Where_the_Toys_Come_From Tehonk (talk) 16:23, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Much improved. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)