User talk:Jonathanbishop

Welcome to wikipedia --88.107.63.28 20:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. Bbb23 (talk) 01:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Jonathanbishop


A tag has been placed on your user page, User:Jonathanbishop, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be blatant advertising which only promotes or publicises a company, product, group or service, and which is a violation of our policies regarding acceptable use of user pages; user pages are intended for active editors of Wikipedia to communicate with one another as part of the process of creating encyclopedic content, and should not be mistaken for free webhosting resources. Please read the guidelines on spam, the guidelines on user pages, and, especially, our FAQ for Organizations.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. VViking Talk Edits 13:31, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I wasn't involved in your block. I was considering a topic ban proposal at WP:AN but that doesn't make me involved, it makes me informed. You might want to read WP:NOTTHEM Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 16:25, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * In all of my professional bodies anyone involved with the original decision/discussion would not be allowed to have any involvement in an appeal. When decisions on appeal are made it is not normal for those with prior knowledge or experience of the issue to make the decision. You have a conflict of interest because of your past involvement with me --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 17:08, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The policy you are talking about is WP:INVOLVED. Clearly my actions are the same any other admin would do, at the very least. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 17:50, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... I am entitled to fair comment, such as to refer people who visit my article setting out my side of the story on how I was blocked. In terms of my user page it is a CV and the ISBN numbers use Wikipedia's own internal referencing system which I do not profit from. Why the hell don't you just delete any mention, any edit history, absolutely any conceivable reference to me on Wikipedia? --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 16:01, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Is User:Vanjagenije saying that if this was written in the first person it would be fine? --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 18:48, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No. I was just saying the it was clearly (self-)promotional.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  18:51, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It contained a biography that I have published on other websites . Are you saying that because I am accomplished in academia and professional I am self-promotional but if I was flipping burgers at McDonalds boasting about the numbers of burgers I flipped each day and customers I managed to bang that would not be self-promotional? Would you be happier if I found badges that say the same but not as wordy? --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 19:21, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If you managed to read that out of my words, than we have a serious problem in communication. By the way, the page that you linked is tagged with "Copyright © 1988-2016, IGI Global - All Rights Reserved". So, that means the content cannot be copied to Wikipedia per our WP:COPYRIGHT policy (specifically WP:MYTEXT). One more reason for it to be deleted.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  19:52, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I provided them with that bio, I own the copyright to it. You are doing what you are doing on purpose to make life difficult for me. Stop trying to control me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 19:54, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Unblock request - Number 3

 * Are you sure you read WP:NOTTHEM carefully? In this request, you managed to mention as many as nine times.  Vanjagenije   (talk)  19:55, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I provided you with evidence that User:JzG was linked with a malicious website but it was removed. I showed concern for other users. What more do you want?! The fact remains that it was his malicous actions that resulted in me being blocked. I am not willing to deviate from that version of the truth. You are asking me to say something I do not believe. You are asking me to lie in order to be unblocked. Is that acceptable behaviour? --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 20:01, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Then you are unlikely to be unblocked. Many people have explained exactly why the material was removed. You are continuously ascribing motives to Jzg that are unfounded. The content was not removed because of *who* posted it, it was removed because it was unreliably sourced/self-published and not suitable for any use to which it was being put - to be more specific, it was promotional spamming as wikipedia uses the terms. That the main source for the material is a website that has in the past attempted to link itself with more prestigious organisations - to the point where they were formally notified to stop - is entirely in line with your (and the other two editors) editing. The fact citations/material was being posted by different editors who were effectively all single purpose promotinal accounts very often indicates they are either the same person, or as closely associated as to make the distinction irrelevant. Where an editor has a pattern of posting inappropriate material, it is *routine* to look at all their contributions to see there are not problems elsewhere. This has been explained to you in plain English now. You can either say 'I understand, I wont make any more baseless attacks, attempt to promote myself or my work' and you *might* be unblocked by an admin. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:15, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * There you are making false statements again, backing up User:Jzg's allegations that I added content with accounts that I didn't. Why are you expecting me to lie that I am happy with User:Jzg making false and malicious statements about me? I am not willing to admit that I added content without an account other than my own. I am not willing to say I did something I didn't do in order to be unblocked --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 20:22, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Your Talk page is not a venue for continuing the personal attacks that, in part, led to your block. I have therefore revoked your access to this page. See WP:UTRS for appeals.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:25, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

--UTRSBot (talk) 20:47, 19 September 2016 (UTC) --UTRSBot (talk) 23:11, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


 * At this point I think we need to seriously consider the possibility that User:JonathanBishop is not the actual Jonathan Bishop, but an imposter bent on embarrassing him with all this bizarre, self-destructive behavior.  E Eng  03:46, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it is likely him. His behaviour here is not out of character with the actual Jonathan Bishop's. I could go into more detail but it would be edging around BLP issues. You can take a look yourself if you follow the rabbit hole from the COIN investigation. There is a WP:NOTTHERAPY issue which would explain a lot of the behaviour and makes it less bizarre in context. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:43, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Legal Threat - Block extended.
JzG has sent me a letter sent to him, seemingly by Jonathan Bishop. I have reviewed and it seems authentic. Unquestionably, it is a legal threat and attempt to chill discussion. Until posted here again with an update, it should be assumed he can not be unblocked due to this ongoing legal threat. I'm adding this to his block, but doing so here rather than to the block log, so that I can explain more fully. All other issues aside, the block should not be lifted while this legal threat is outstanding. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 20:48, 30 September 2016 (UTC) --UTRSBot (talk) 23:35, 15 July 2018 (UTC)