Talk:Jonathan A. Jones

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 09:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion

The article is a probable WP:COISELF and lacks any significant contribution to be considered as notable. The primary source for Marlow awards doesn't say if it is the same person or for what it was specifically. Every postdocs would have a something specific to their fields, but a thesis alone wouldn't make a biography notable. The other one is some sort of challenge to some center to reveal their proprietary research data. Overall, this looks like a WP:NOTWEBHOST profile. 162.244.81.174 (talk) 15:47, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

The Marlow Medal is an important medal of the Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC) and I think there is no doubt that he won it in 2000. Someone at Oxford would not get away with putting that on his CV if it was not correct and J A Jones is listed on the RSC web pages. Unfortunately there appears to be little information about the winners on the web before about 2010. It has nothing to do with postdocs. It is for physical chemists under the age of 35 and is considered one of the most important awards of the Physical Chemistry Division of the RSC, which was originally the Faraday Society. I am not making a judgement whether this article should be deleted; only that you have to have better arguments if you want it be deleted. Why not put it to AfD and try rather than discussing it here? --Bduke (Discussion) 21:27, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I see that you tried but messed it up. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:29, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I support the case for deletion of this article. It is vain and self-promoting. (213.205.198.243 (talk) 08:08, 20 July 2017 (UTC))

This person is a run-of-the-mill fixed-paradigm researcher like thousands of others and has done nothing notable. There is no demonstration of significant originality to merit an encyclopedia article about him. I agree with the last contributor that this is a vanity article. Delete. (Cumonaveago007 (talk) 08:12, 20 July 2017 (UTC))

I am somewhat knowledgeable about quantum computing and I support this deletion proposal. The man did little of consequence. In some cases (his "NMR is Quantum Computing" claim), he did more harm than good. 2A0D:6FC0:916:C900:1051:9D06:30A9:564B (talk) 06:38, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Usually, the best way to end the uncertainty about deletion-worthiness is to test it out. If it survives then everyone can move on. (Conquistador2178 (talk) 15:49, 20 July 2017 (UTC))

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jonathan A. Jones. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130922044742/http://www.bnc.ox.ac.uk/323/about-brasenose-31/academic-staff-150/professor-jonathan-jones-457.html to http://www.bnc.ox.ac.uk/323/about-brasenose-31/academic-staff-150/professor-jonathan-jones-457.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

University Lecturer positions

With regard to the recent edit [1], note that the University of Oxford stopped using the position of University Lecturer some years ago, converting all existing ULs to Associate Professors, and ULs who were titular Professors became Associate Professor (titular Full Profesor). See Academic posts at Oxford for more details. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:29, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

How about now? FWIW I think this is straightforward enough you'd be OK fixing this yourself. BethNaught (talk) 14:08, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm never quite sure wqhere the border of COI editing sits, so thanks also for the advice on that. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:10, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Self Promotion

This article should be nominated for deletion as it is a self promoting page, the person in question Jonathan A. Jones edits his own page and delete anything negative written about him and his professional life. Supra75521 (talk) 01:44, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Jones appears to have made three edits over the last five years, two correctly citing WP:BLPPRIVACY to remove personal but not negative information, and one minor edit correcting a wikilink. You, on the other hand, appear to be a WP:SPA with an axe to grind. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:59, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, and exactly so. Thanks for your edit clarifying this matter! --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:25, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I further support this page for deletion as previously stated the individual is not note worthy and a "run of the mill" researcher and is self promoting. 2A02:C7F:5002:6A00:8034:A3B9:7809:64FA (talk) 17:07, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I have removed the deletion tag. If you really think this should be deleted start a proper deletion discussion. Bduke (talk) 22:11, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

In fact, it is not allowed to prod articles that have already been through a proper deletion discussion (as this one was in 2017) so regardless of the merits of the case removing the prod was correct. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:33, 4 January 2024 (UTC)