User talk:Jonathan A Jones/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Jonathan A Jones. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

John Hood controvery

Thank you Jonathan. Interesting to note that the author of this article took my comments above completely out of context. My comment, "I hope that won't cause too much trouble" was made in reference to my own edits to my own entry on wikipedia, not the entry for John Hood. The time and date stamp of my comments makes it clear -- these comments were made by me weeks before I even became aware of the John Hood article. I regret that the author of the news article did not contact me through my talk page for comment and give me due opportunity to respond to the allegations prior to taking my remarks entirely out of context. BFD1 19:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks, Professor. I appreciate the support. Regards, BFD1 14:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

That was good of them. Pity it's not on their website. Can you tell me whether they offered any editorial comment in return? Thanks very much. BFD1 15:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Battle of theTitans cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Battle of theTitans cover.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

A new Oxbridge user box

Jonathan A Jones...I am currently in the process of writing a user box for all of the colleges that are part of Oxbridge. This template is meant to replace your current college template. Please take a look at the work in progress and comment on it. My main concerns are college abbreviations and color choice. I am using scarf colors for the colleges. Thank you. - LA @ 17:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD Nomination of Oxbridge

Hi, I nominated Oxbridge for deletion since it reads entirely as WP:OR. You can find the discussion here. Coldmachine^Talk 22:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Tamsin Dunwoody

Hello Jonathan, you reciently reverted a modification I made to Tamsin Dunwoody's page, where I entered that she featured in the Burke's Landed Gentry. I am unsure why you did this, since, my modification clearly isn't vandalism. I understand the dangers of making a political statement (given the current byelection) - which I tied my best to avoid, however if you believe I should cleanup the post, then I am happy to take onboard any comments. Many thanks. Richard East —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.212.205.141 (talk) 18:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Libertarian Party

Thanks Jonathan for your comment. Both existing notability rules and my own suggestions have one thing in common - aiming to keep notable groups in, and non-notable groups out. I know a little about the LPUK from blogs and web-sites, but until they stand in more than one election, or contribute more to the political culutre in the UK, they are no more a part of the political scene than the "Beauties For Britain" party who stood in Crewe. I have every faith that the article will one day be re-written, but then again WP:Crystal advises against such long-term assumption, Thanks for your comments, though doktorb _words^deeds 18:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 07:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Oxbridge advice

Hi Jonathan, I just found your userpage through Wikiproject Oxford and noticed that you previously attended Corpus Christi College, Oxford. I am applying to Oxford and am considering Corpus Christi and Magdalen as Colleges. I am leaning towards Corpus but was told by a teacher at school that Magdalen carries 'a more prestigious name'. I don't know whether there is really any truth in this assertion and moreover I don't know to what extent the value of the Magdalen name, if superior, would benefit me in my subsequent career (I intend to pursue a career in business). Anyhow forgive me for being obtrusive, I just wanted to hear the advice of a real Oxonian as I don't know of any myself and because none of my teachers at my college attended either! Many Thanks - James.

It could be argued that Magdalen is more prestigious; it is certainly older, richer and more famous. Will that help or hinder your career? No idea. But note that if you are applying for an undergraduate degree then applications closed two weeks ago. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Honorary Fellows of Brasenose College, Oxford

Category:Honorary Fellows of Brasenose College, Oxford, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Cgingold (talk) 16:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Peer review of Oxbridge article

I've done a series of edits to extend and clean up the Oxbridge article. I was aiming to include all the essential points that others would otherwise add later, but in the smallest practicable stand-alone form: more crisp and focused than Oxbridge rivalry, for example. I'm now too closely involved to judge the result. As you were active on this article last year, would you care to review it? Thanks in advance - Pointillist (talk) 09:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

St Augustine's High School, Redditch

Hi Jonathan A Jones/Archive 1! An article you have been involved with has been tagged by its parent project as needing either a little attention to style, updating, or further development. If you can help with these minor issues please see Talk:St Augustine's High School, Redditch, and leave any comments there.--Kudpung (talk) 01:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Restored material on Libertarian page

Hi, I think on balance you are probably right; it is a limited statement and the source does (mostly) support it. However this sentence "Several prominent libertarian politicians are in the Conservative Party" really does need a source. Please consider rewriting or removing that sentence or providing a source for it. Many thanks. Setwisohi (talk) 18:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Seen the change. I think that that is better. Regards Setwisohi (talk) 10:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Photographer's Barnstar
		For twice going out of your way to take photographs to improve Buildings of Jesus College, Oxford (about a rival college, indeed!) a barnstar is humbly offered with my thanks. Bencherlite ^Talk 16:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

your view

I respect your view [1] of course, and certainly understand it. May I ask though how much experience you have had with the working of Arbcom? I would not want WMC to be Arbcom for a minute, he would only be one vote on the committee but the current mix of indecision, and inability to be a bit more abrasive when needed with people who deserve it, makes a lot of the project very mediocre with too much compromise for the sake of keeping contributers at the margins happy. I don't want an Arbcom of Hawks but just one has to improve the quality of the discussion there. --BozMo talk 12:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

As you suggest my experience with Arbcom is not huge, but my experience of WMC is substantial, and my true opinion of him is significantly more negative than my comment suggests. Frankly I think the man's a menace, but it did not seem helpful or constructive to be quite that open on that page, especially as I am involved in significant editing of Climatic Research Unit at the moment. I have no problem with hawks, but T Rexes are a different matter. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

your view

I respect your view [2] of course, and certainly understand it. May I ask though how much experience you have had with the working of Arbcom? I would not want WMC to be Arbcom for a minute, he would only be one vote on the committee but the current mix of indecision, and inability to be a bit more abrasive when needed with people who deserve it, makes a lot of the project very mediocre with too much compromise for the sake of keeping contributers at the margins happy. I don't want an Arbcom of Hawks but just one has to improve the quality of the discussion there. --BozMo talk 12:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

As you suggest my experience with Arbcom is not huge, but my experience of WMC is substantial, and my true opinion of him is significantly more negative than my comment suggests. Frankly I think the man's a menace, but it did not seem helpful or constructive to be quite that open on that page, especially as I am involved in significant editing of Climatic Research Unit at the moment. I have no problem with hawks, but T Rexes are a different matter. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Rollback

I've ticked a box to give you "rollbacker" status, for what it's worth, so you'll notice an extra option in your watchlist and page histories. Probably a good idea to read Wikipedia:Rollback feature before you use it, so you know what to do and what not to do with it! Regards, Bencherlite ^Talk 20:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that

I didn't mean to save the picture, only preview it. Thanks for the help in labs today, see you next Thursday. Regards, a wannabe physicist —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.52.81 (talk) 21:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 22:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Anti-science

FYI, I gather that anti-climate science types don't like being called "denialists"; "sceptics" doesn't work because they aren't sceptical, they're dogmatists; "contrarians" is too wishy-washy; so as they reject science and seek to attack it for non-scientific reasons (whether ideology, political advantage or for profit), "anti-science" fits, just as it does for creationists and suchlike. My outlook is to be sceptical of everything, especially claims coming from highly partisan non-scientists with an obvious ideological agenda. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO, there are distinctions between climate sceptics and climate change deniers - both of which are different from climate change believers. They are two distinct groups. Climate change deniers are, broadly speaking, politically or sociopolitically oriented, tending to focus on the impact of climate change policy. They generally deny that changes in climate occur at all. Climate sceptics on the other hand are specifically interested in the separation of science from policy or advocacy. The principle motivation for climate scepticism is the perceived (real or imaginary) perversion of the scientific method by climate scientists. Climate sceptics question such things as: the validity of treating computer model projections as if they were observed experiments; the validity of using proxies which are demonstrably unreliable; the integrity of, or quality of, surface temperature station readings when located in urban locations; corruption of the peer review process; corruption of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) policies and procedures; the application of Precautionary Principles (policy) by scientists (science) and; the general corruption of the integrity of sciences by climatologists and some environmental scientists. Additionally, climate sceptics generally reject climate deniers' claims for the same reasons they reject many climate scientists' claims - their lack of a strong scientific basis in support of their assertions. Climate sceptics assert that a core and essential tenet of science is to maintain objectivity and remain dispassionate. Their claim is that climatologists have not met this obligation. I hope this helped to clarify these distinctions. Simon Hopkinson (talk) 01:24, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The Gore Effect AfD

You previously commented on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Gore Effect. A new version of the article has been created at The Gore Effect and has been nominated for deletion. If you have any views on this, please feel free to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Gore Effect. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Bob Ward

I have knocked up a quick stubbie for ward [3] Can you ok the refs and we`ll shift it to mainspace for further work mark nutley (talk) 17:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your edit correcting my mistake! (I read all the sources but missed the difference between Bob Watson and Bob Ward) Regards Nsaa (talk) 22:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Uninvolved?

I'm doubtful that you are uninvolved [4] William M. Connolley (talk) 20:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you really worried by this edit [5]? Whatever; I've moved it. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. No, it wasn't that edit William M. Connolley (talk) 21:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I would ignore WMC's complaints, Johnathan. At least two other editors currently in the "uninvolved" section have edited the article in the past; William only complains about those who he disagrees with. In this particular case, if you were not currently involved with the content under dispute at the time you placed your vote, then you're an uninvolved editor. Fell Gleaming ^talk 14:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

That was my understanding of the term, and so I find WMC's comments somewhat opaque. However in the spirit of good faith I was happy to move my remarks with the caveats I have added. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

BNC's Principal

I've put together a short article about Sir Noel Hall, who was Principal 1960-1973. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any biographical info online at bnc.ox.ac.uk, so I wonder whether you would care to take a look at it just to check that there aren't any major errors or oversights? He retired long before your time, of course, but I expect there will have been a thorough obituary in the 1983 edition of Brazen Nose which might be available in the BNC library or via the college secretary. I haven't found anything via OLIS and unfortunately I don't expect to be in Oxford again this year to do a search myself. I hope you don't object to this request! - Pointillist (talk) 11:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll see if I can turn anything up. You might also try asking Joe Organ. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I've left a note on Joe Organ's talk page as you suggest. - Pointillist (talk) 14:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Status report on Joe Organ's page now. Thanks again - Pointillist (talk) 16:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

weblog vs. blog?

Hi Jonathan

It's semi-trivial, but why would anyone care if we link to weblog vs. blog?

I only changed it because I think "blog" is an ugly word, and seems inappropriate for a semi-technical website. But I don't care enough to argue -- just [idly?] curious.

Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC) -- "Women Demand Female Pamplona Bull Run, With Cows" --Reuters, 7-9-07

As you say it's not a huge point, but I prefer blog as (1) it's the main article, and thus the nearest thing wikipedia has to an official position on the question, and (2) blog is used in the remainder of the article, so you should really change all or none. Plus if you want to use weblog you should pipe it rather than relying on the redirect. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

NP, I'll leave it be. But why pipe rather than redirect? It's vanishingly unikely that weblog will ever point anywhere but blog? Again, semi-trivia; I'm just curious, and I respect your opinions on Wiki technical matters. TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The decision between redirects and pipes is complex, and I may well have got it wrong. I'm basing this on Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(linking)#Techniques which seems to distinguish between links to pages which don't currently exist but might exist one day (which should be handled by redirects) and links using alternative names for a page where there will never be separate pages (which should be handled by pipes). Thus you should use a pipe rather than a redirect for weblog unless you believe that weblog will be split off from blog at some point. But this is all terribly subtle and not terribly important in most cases. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Jonathan. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 17:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

qq

Hi Jonathan,

Do you have a view on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jonathan_M._Gregory which seems to be on academic notability?--BozMo talk 20:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Not really. Coordinating Lead author on the TAR strikes me as plausible grounds for academic notability, but not a watertight case. Would need to think a bit more before venturing a formal opinion. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Jesus College TFA

Thanks! Your photos were extremely helpful and made a world of difference to the final product. Best wishes for the "summer holidays" in Oxford, Bencherlite ^Talk 17:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ron Daniel

The article Ron Daniel has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DGaw (talk) 21:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Medieval Muslim universities

Hello. You commented here that "medieval Muslim universities" would be useful. Did you you mean that "List of oldest madrasahs in continuous operation in the Muslim world" should be moved to "medieval Muslim universities" or a separate article should be created for the subject?VR _talk 02:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I think an article with the content described there could well be useful. I do not think its title should include the word university. I do not think the list article has any current use except just possible as a list of medieval madrassahs, and it should be either returned to that form, deleted or moved. Hope this helps. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I did propose a compromise where the title would include the term "higher-learning" instead. But do you think the list article should be moved (i.e. redirected) to the article we describe?VR _talk 16:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

There are two problems here: (1) getting the right title for the putative new article, and (2) resolving the ongoing controversy over the name of List of the oldest madrasahs in continuous operation in the Muslim world. My suggestion would be to (a) leave that article with that name and pretty much the current content, and (b) create a new article something like History of institutions of higher learning in the Muslim world. That seems to me to be the route most likely to get to a good outcome while avoiding the potential for edit wars. If the new article becomes stable and well sourced then one might think about how to tidy up. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I find the current title to be overly broad since madrasa could refer to anything from an institution of higher learning to a children's school. What is your opinion of the title "List of the oldest Islamic institutions of higher-learning"? We already use this formula to describe Ancient institutions of higher learning and the name of that article is agreed upon by many users.

Regarding "[History of institutions of higher learning in the Muslim world". Are you ok with "Medieval Islamic institutions of higher learning", at least as a start? I feel that a more focusses article would be easier to build and could later be expanded.VR _talk 17:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

My suspicion is that any attempt to change the name of the existing list is just going to prolong the squabbles, so I would just "abandon" the list page and build the page you want with the title you want. I wouldn't object to your suggested name. At some point once everything is stable just propose that the list page be deleted as a pointless stub. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I'll take your suggestion and create a separate article under the neutral name suggested above. Although I won't abandon the list page, but I want to urge GunPowder to join mediation.VR _talk 21:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

AfD and PROD notifications

Hi Jonathan A Jones,

Back in November, you got either an AfD or PROD notification, which was part of the template testing project's experiments. If you could go here and leave us some feedback about what you think about the new versions of the templates we tested (there are links to the templates), that would be very useful. (You can also email me at mpinchukwikimedia.org if you want.) Thanks! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 22:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:BLP warning

You should know better than this. Turning "deception" into "fraud" is a serious WP:BLP violation. It's one thing for anons to do things like that - they may be ignorant of policy. You don't have that excuse. Guettarda (talk) 14:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

That's a very strange point you are making. I reverted to a previous text containing the phrase "obtaining documents from The Heartland Institute, a conservative think tank, by fraudulent means". This is is sourced to Gleick's own statement that "I solicited and received additional materials directly from the Heartland Institute under someone else's name". Are you seriously arguing that "soliciting materials under someone else's name" is not "obtaining documents by fraudulent means"? You would appear to be confusing the word "fraud" ("An act or instance of deception, an artifice by which the right or interest of another is injured, a dishonest trick or stratagem") with its specific legal meaning in certain jurisdictions. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

You admit that the thing you accused him of has specific legal connotations. And, it's not in the source. So regardless of what you had in mind, it falls afoul of policy. I'm quite willing to accept that it may have been an honest oversight on your part. But that doesn't mean what you did was acceptable. Guettarda (talk) 14:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

A return to WP:AGF. Excellent. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Physics professor in Argentine jail by: Hannah Strange, The Sunday Times From: The Sunday Times March 26, 2012 12:00AM Increase Text SizeDecrease Text SizePrintEmail

Physics professor in Argentine jail by: Hannah Strange, The Sunday Times From: The Sunday Times March 26, 2012 12:00AM Increase Text SizeDecrease Text SizePrintEmail Share Add to DiggAdd to del.icio.usAdd to FacebookAdd to KwoffAdd to MyspaceAdd to NewsvineWhat are these? A RESPECTED British physics professor is languishing in a notorious Argentine jail as he tries to convince investigators that 2kg of cocaine found in his suitcase were planted on him in a honeytrap plot. Paul Frampton, 68, who teaches at the University of North Carolina, was arrested at a Buenos Aires airport on January 23, US State Department officials said last week. He claims he was set up after travelling to South America to meet “a well-known model” he met on the internet.

Professor Frampton, who has three degrees from Oxford and is Luis D. Rubin Jr. Distinguished Professor of Physics and Astronomy at UNC, insists that he is confident he will be exonerated. The drugs, he says, were built into a piece of luggage without his knowledge.

“I am innocent,” he told US media. “I will not be convicted. It is just that the Argentine justice system is very slow. There is easily enough evidence that I didn’t know there were drugs in the bag, and that will come out, I hope sooner rather than later.”

...Professor Frampton said he had fallen victim to a set-up involving a supposed representative of the model, with whom he had been conversing for several months on the internet and hoped to marry.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.3.175.87 (talk) 20:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

It stops after "on the internet" for me, and then asks for login credentials. I suggest you find a source that people can verify. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Arms of Oxford colleges

Don't any of them have crests or supporters?? --- Ehrenkater (talk) 19:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Not usually, though Nuffield has a crest; the heraldry of Oxbridge colleges is a bit unconventional. User:ChevronTango is quite well informed on this sort of thing. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:35, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Wolfson and St Cross also both have a crest. Christ Church is also often seen summounted by a galero, as is the arms of St Benet's, though only when depicted as the arms of Ampleforth, not the PPH. ChevronTango (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC).

St Hugh's College Crest

Please don't undo the restoration to the College Crest without any explanation,

As Webmaster and ICT Officer for St Hugh's College, the previous version of the crest was produced by the College itself. A few years ago St Hugh's College went through a branding exercise to remove the multiple (and I mean, many different) interpretations of the College crest. The crest of a College is part of its identity as both an organisation and a charity, so it is in our best interest that it remains consistent across all media and this includes Wikipedia.

Although I support the production of higher quality, standardised SVG images for crests but this should really be raised via Conference Of Colleges and be done with the input from the Colleges and PPHs.

Kind Regards,

Simon Wedge

ICT Officer & Webmaster, St Hugh's College — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shugit (talk • contribs) 18:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear Simon,

Your comment reveals profound misunderstandings about Wikipedia policies, the basic principles of heraldry, and the governance structures of the University. I really don't know where to begin.

Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:14, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear Jonathan,

I do not appreciate the tone in your response, I am well aware that Wikipedia prefers to use images under a Create Commons license, and that the basic principles of heraldry mean that anyone can interpret the description of a coat of arms in a different way.

When I originally uploaded the image in 2010 it was approved for use on the College Wikipedia page under the classification of a logo, this was to avoid people from modifying it whenever they felt like it. This was an attempt to reduce the amount of unauthorised variations of it.

This appears to be something that has now changed as it appears to no longer be valid as a logo (although I don’t know why this has changed all of a sudden), but this is a matter of clarification which is on-going and I will change it as necessary.

Most Colleges now operate using business practices which include the concept of a "brand", this is designed to improve the perception of the College in the eyes of both investors, visitors and future students. This extends to how a crest is used on a website or publications to a letterhead and how it is used on all College merchandise. This is why I mentioned the Conference of Colleges as it may be something that would be of benifit to all Colleges and PPHs under "sharing information and good practice", which is one of the roles of Conference of Colleges.

Excluding any issues with the currently uploaded crest what makes ChevronTango crests any more valid than one provided by the College itself?

Regards, Simon --Shugit (talk) 21:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The answers to your questions about images can all be found in the copious links placed on your talk page by Bencherlite. I strongly suggest you read these before attempting to take this issue any further. It is important that you understand the key concept that the fact that your preferred image is claimed to be official is in most cases specific grounds for avoiding its use on Wikipedia.

And please don't try to lecture me on the role of Conference of Colleges. Free hint: look up the list of people with the right to attend meetings of Conference. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:50, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

As I said, the issues with our existing crest are on-going (they were only added today, unfortunately I have other responsibilities within College which required my attention).

Believe me the last thing I wanted to do was give the impression I was lecturing you, rather I wanted to clarify why I mentioned it. As someone who is knowledgeable about this area, if encouraging adoption of SVG versions of crests is not something that can be suggested at Conference of Colleges, then what suitable forum would you suggest?

Regards, Simon --Shugit (talk) 22:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

If I may interject here. There's no doubt in my mind that this is an issue that is cross collegic. The reason I began the project of emblazoning all the CoA's in SVG format was so that they were all uniform and available to everyone. I agree that perhaps the Conferance of College's should pick up on this and be encouraged to build there CoA's off the template I've Provided. Simon has kindly provided me with the exact colouring St Hugh's use as part of their brand and I have no issue with correcting my version to match them. I would contest the complete removal of St Johns and the other colleges as I'm happy to work to any guidlines the colleges themselve lay out (for free I might add). The key thing I'd like to see is Vector Images for all the colleges that conform to a relatively uniform template that the colleges themselves are happy to use. In that respect my work is ongoing. I am a mere student however so carry no weight in any official arguments that may arise from this. That said, I'd happily throw in my thoughts if I were asked. - Ed ChevronTango (talk) 22:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Congratulations, Jonathan A Jones, you've recently made your 1,000th edit to articles on English Wikipedia! Thank you for your tireless efforts to improve Oxford-related articles, and for all your contributions to the encyclopedia. Keep up the great work! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 23:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Re: Kingball

Apologies for not replying earlier - I have not been logged in for over 6 months. The rules I uploaded were those in use in 2008, and I believe are thus fairly recent. However, it is quite obvious that each yeargroup adopts different variations on the rules, and there is no 'consistent' set, or one that has developed in a consistent way over the years. It may also be the case that there are two basic sets of rules (i.e. two conflicting name sets for the squares) such that each yeargroup adheres to one or the other while adding some minor variations. If this is the case, two alternative rule lists may best suit the article. I assume you are yourself an OW, and as such you probably have specific ones which you knew in your time. It may thus best fit consensus to have a description similar to the one I have laid out alongside one similar to what has existed in other revisions of the MCS article. Hope this is helpful. Mister Zoo (talk) 01:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for this. My knowledge is second hand, based on a current upper-fourth former, and the "rules" I know best would be the 2008-2010 versions. My real point is that there is no such thing as "the rules of kingball" and any attempt to define a set will just result in endless arguments between generations. One way to minimise this is to make clear that the rules as stated are the rules from one particular year. I'm happy to go with 2008 as the main version for the moment. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Oldest universities

Hello. You have shown in the past an interest in the subject of the oldest universities. I am therefore notifying you of an ongoing discussion concerning the topic here. Regards. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Allen Hill Blue Plaque in Oxford.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Allen Hill Blue Plaque in Oxford.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 10:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

First ever Oxford Wiki Meetup

You are invited to the first ever Oxford Wiki Meetup which will take place at The Four Candles, 51 George Street, Oxford, OX1 2BE on Sunday 4 November 2012 from 1.00 pm.

I hope as many people as possible will be able to attend so that we can make this a regular event. If you have never been to one, this is an opportunity to meet other Wikipedians in an informal atmosphere for Wiki and non-Wiki related chat and for beer or food if you like. Experienced and new contributors are all welcome. This event is definitely not restricted just to discussion of Oxford related topics. Bring your laptop if you like and use the free Wifi or just bring yourself. Even better, bring a friend! Click the link for full details. Looking forward to seeing you. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Ductile iron pipe

Greetings Jonathan, I hope that this message finds you well. You kindly offered your assistance in addressing bias in the Ductile iron pipe article in the late fall, at which time I asked if you would mind my reaching out to you with further new content for that article in future. I am just now returning to this article with new material and wished to see if you would be willing to review my suggested content. Specifically, I would be most grateful for your impartial opinion regarding new content I have offered for "Industry associations". If you can, please reply here: Talk:Ductile_iron_pipe#Industry_associations. PiperOne (talk) 14:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Done. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Jonathan, you have my thanks again for your assistance. If it is not too much of an imposition on your time, I may return to ask for your review of more new content soon. PiperOne (talk) 16:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Your instincts are good enough that you should consider just making these edits yourself and declaring your COI in the edit summary. I'm watching the page and will revert you if you do something silly! Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the vote of confidence! Although I appreciate this, my concern is that edits I make to the page may be viewed by others as problematic due to my conflict of interest, so I would much rather be overcautious and have an independent editor such as yourself review my suggestions. On that note, I have one final ask to address the bias in the article and although it is a little more complicated than the previous requests, I hope that you will be able to review and offer your opinion. In this latest request, I have offered new content for the article's introduction and proposed the creation of a new heading within the article, under which all discussion of corrosion and lifespan can be placed. If you have the time available, please can you read the new material and reply here: Talk:Ductile_iron_pipe#Addressing_issues_with_introduction PiperOne (talk) 20:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Done. You might want to give some thought as to whether the current section ordering is optimal. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you again, Jonathan. Those are all the changes I have for the article for now, however, if I do have more in future, I hope I may return to ask for your assistance. With regards to the order of sections, I am not sure what would be optimal for this type of article but will give this some thought. PiperOne (talk) 20:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

hello

Hi, the page i edited lacked a lot of information about the singer so i wanted to improve it, added songs and world tour info from previous edits which i checked with the references. even used the given references at the bottom of the page, the previous edit history and other wikipedia articles about Bangladeshi singers as templates and reference, including but not limited to http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Mehreen_Mahmud http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Samina_Chowdhury http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Nancy_(musician) http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Runa_Laila http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Mila_Islam http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Momtaz_Begum http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Fuad_al_Muqtadir http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Bappa_Mazumder

compared to the above articles (which mostly are filled with uncited, unverified content), i think mine was much better and well cited. i believe there has been some misunderstanding, otherwise isn't it a bit strange to remove verified information about a singer's songs and tours and so on? i'm sure the other articles would have been changed first? thank you! Faisal961 (talk) 18:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

ok, got the point. i had copied and pasted from previous, now fixed it. you may want to correct the articles listed above also! Faisal961 (talk) 11:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

List of oldest universities

Hello, please join me at Talk:List_of_oldest_universities_in_continuous_operation before reverting -A1candidate (talk) 18:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Oxford Investment and Finance Society for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Oxford Investment and Finance Society is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oxford Investment and Finance Society until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. - Pointillist (talk) 22:09, 6 June 2013 (UTC)