User talk:Ncox

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of

]

Nomination of

David C. Alexander

for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David C. Alexander 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. joe decker^{talk to me} 01:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I notice that way back in 2005 or whatever you noted "Huguenot" beside the name of John Paul Paul. I have spent the evening trying to find why you might have done that - without luck. He is very much of local descent for a few centuries by then. So I have changed it. OK? Eddaido (talk) 11:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy with the change; I don't now recall the reference but I do recall a source indicated that the family were of Huguenot descent.Ncox (talk) 14:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most probably correct because the wool (and cloth) trade brought so many from the Low Countries. His odd name is because when he (1772-1828) was ten his grandmother Hester Tippets née Paul died a major heiress and his father changed his family name from Tippets to Paul. She was g-granddaughter of Nicholas Paul of uncertain origin but thought to be Dorset, vicar of Frampton-on-Severn Gloucestershire (and a Puritan nomination to Berkeley 23 November 1647) d1680 and his wife Mary née Bond d1669. All that because it pleases me — and its not original research! His father, Josiah Paul Paul, was around until 1797 (aged 48), its interesting the son gets the credit for the house-building. Eddaido (talk) 22:53, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ncox, and thanks for contributing to Wikipedia!

I wanted to let you know that some editors are discussing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australasian Law Teachers Association whether the article Australasian Law Teachers Association should be in Wikipedia. I encourage you to comment there if you think the article should be kept in the encyclopedia.

The deletion discussion doesn't mean you did something wrong. In fact, other editors may have useful suggestions on how you can continue editing and improving Australasian Law Teachers Association, which I encourage you to do. If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the

Thanks again for your contributions!

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Commonwealth Lawyers Association 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/Commonwealth Lawyers Association 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 good 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 template from the top of the article.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ncox,

Back in November, you got either an AfD or PROD notification, which was part of the

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) 20:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

Thanks for uploading File:Noel Cox in chasuble.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the
  CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list
  ) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to [email protected], stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter
  OTRS pending
  }} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to [email protected].

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 22:15, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ncox,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Principality of Nellenburg for deletion, because it appears to duplicate an existing Wikipedia article, [[{{{article}}}]].

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on

What are your sources for stating that Prince Philip's descendants are de jure (de which jure by the way? de the jure of the Hellenic Republic? de the jure of the United Kingdom, where Philip formally renounced all his Greek and Danish titles?) DBD 23:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is according to Greek law because Prince Philip did not have the legal right to renounce his Greek titles, which were according to the House Law of the Kingdom of Greece. Ncox (talk) 18:16, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All Greek titles were abolished by article 4, paragraph 7, of the Greek Constitution.

talk) 19:09, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

True, but ex-King Constantine and his immediate - and more distant family do use their titles. Perhaps more pertinently, the wording of the provision doesn't clearly abolish royal titles, and wouldn't in any case apply to non-Greeks: "Titles of nobility or distinction are neither conferred upon nor recognized in Greek citizens". Ncox (talk) 22:10, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, a lot has been added since i last looked at/edited the above page. Congratulations on the work you're doing. There're a couple of points i'd raise, however, with you here, since you are doing so much work; another one or two i might raise at some further point on the talk page of the article itself. First, i'm concerned about the copyright status of [[File:St_Padarn,_a_painting_by_Tom_Equels,_2015,_in_the_Lady_Chapel.jpg]], which you uploaded; while i understand that you took the picture, as it is a painting by someone else, don't rights remain with them? I am open to correction here, as i do not fully understand the subject, but it is something WP takes seriously, as i am sure you know. Second, generally i don't think we'd put the postcode into the article, would we? Especially those of the churchyard gates; if you are wanting to establish that they have their own postcodes, which is unusual, wouldn't it be simpler just to state that. Also, i don't think the "physical address of the church is Primrose Hill", is it? It's physical location might be the foot of Primrose Hill, but i'd be astonished if the postal address is, as the road Primrose Hill doesn't seem to curve around that way.

Anyway, because i don't want to come across as negative, which really i try not to be, let me reiterate that the article looks hugely improved and i am very impressed. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 04:19, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your comments, much appreciated. This page is a work-in-progress, so I'll incorporate them all. Interesting point about the address. It seems it is the postal address - at least once or twice we have received mail, that was of course delivered to the first house at the botton of Primrose Hill - the church doesn't get mail through the door! If you keep an eye of the page you will see more changes over the next few weeks.Ncox (talk) 09:53, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Noel, I can see that you've been editing a page about yourself, and removing information that has been cited with a news article.

I can appreciate that you may disagree with it, however I cannot find the results of the disciplinary panel publicly available. 86.181.149.124 (talk) 19:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. 86.181.149.124 (talk) 18:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on your user page,

If you can indicate why the page is not blatant advertising, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: Click here to contest this speedy deletion which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy deletion candidate). Doing so will take you to your user talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also edit this page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would help make it encyclopedic. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Theroadislong (talk) 18:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted your user page which had been tagged for

I strongly object to this page being deleted. It cannot be promotional or self-serving if it is purely biographical. I have seem many other user pages which are biographical. Mine is longer than most, that is all. I'm not promoting myself or any goods or services.Ncox (talk) 19:41, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is not necessarily true. Self serving and biographical are not mutually exclusive, specifically if it is autobiographical (in that case, a possible violation of

WP:AGF, and the types of behaviors you can expect out of me as a Wikipedian. If you would be interested in participating in the Wikipedia community to help build something for the greater good, not just your greater good, I would be glad to get you started. In the absence of that, what you wrote clearly served only to promote yourself, and that is why I deleted your page. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 19:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

I have just read the Wikipedia policy on speedy deletion and there is no way that my user page met the criteria, which, I quote, says: "Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. If a subject is notable and the content can be replaced with text that complies with neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion. Note: An article which describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion. "Promotion" does not necessarily mean commercial promotion: anything can be promoted, including a person, a non-commercial organization, a point of view, etc." Ncox (talk) 19:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I quote again from the speedy deletion policy: "Note: An article which describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion." I'm happy to reduce the size of the page, but deletion is not justified. As it happens I have edited many pages myself, in a number of areas, mainly law, history and theology, and have been active on Wikipedia for many years.Ncox (talk) 20:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are also welcome to read

WP:UP#DELETE states "unambiguous ... promotional text... can be speedy deleted" Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 20:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm afraid I don't agree with this interpretation and will appeal the deletion.Ncox (talk) 20:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will state again, if you are interested in contributing to the Wikipedia community in a positive, non self serving manner, and you would like to create a user page that reflects who you are in this context, I will gladly help you do this. Frankly, I saw that you were a pastor on that page, and I went out of my way to help explain this to you in far more detail than the 100s of other similar pages that get deleted daily. I hope this helps. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 20:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I don't see why you didn't just ask me to "userfy" the page.Ncox (talk) 20:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• My two cents: the deleted version of your user page looks like a
  WP:UPYES. However, I would not be averse to seeing it restored and allowing you edit it such that it is more like, well, a user page. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:29, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

A tag has been placed on your user page,

FAQ for Organizations

.

• • Honestly, in general, I prefer to blank user pages like yours instead of delete them, but in terms of being a
    WP:UPNOT "Generally, you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a general hosting service, so your user page is not a personal website. Your user page is about you as a Wikipedian, and pages in your user space should be used as part of your efforts to contribute to the project". Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 20:34, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]

If you can indicate why the page is not blatant advertising, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: Click here to contest this speedy deletion which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy deletion candidate). Doing so will take you to your user talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also edit this page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would help make it encyclopedic. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Theroadislong (talk) 20:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • If the page is undeleted, will you make the effort to make it appropriate per the guidelines at
    WP:USERPAGE?Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 20:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• Your userpage is right back to being inappropriate - you have again made it into an article about you, and not focused on communicating to other WP editors about what you do here. I have again tagged it for speedy deletion. Please read free webhosting resources and the guidelines on user pages Jytdog (talk) 20:00, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this was unjustified and indeed ridiculous. However I cannot be bothered challenging this, and indeed the treatment that I have been subjected to means that I am not inclined to make any further contributions to wikipedia.Ncox (talk) 07:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry you are unhappy but you cannot use WP to promote yourself. I hope you continue to bring your experience and learning to bear on articles in Wikipedia not directly related to yourself. Jytdog (talk) 16:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This page is not unambiguously promotional, because it is biographical. If it is felt that I have included too much information I would be very happy restrict the content to more overly Wikipedia related. There are sections in the user page that relate directly to the sorts of pages I have edited over the last few years that I have been an active editor, law, monarchy, academia, all feature in the pages - so I though (perhaps wrongly) that it was relevant to include a fair amount of information to show that I was qualified to make the Wikipedia edits that I have done.Ncox (talk) 20:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is more the tone. For example, I would rewrite the intro paragraph to read more like this "This is the user page of Reverend Dr

ecclesiastical law. I have been a Law Professor (2010-2014), head of the Department of Law(2010-2014) and Law and Criminology(2010-2013) at Aberystwyth University. My areas of interest include <fill them in here>" Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 20:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm happy to do that. I think the problem is that although I regularly edit pages perhaps I didn't quite appreciate the role of the user page.Ncox (talk) 20:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The way I see it (and the way the policies read) is if the userspace becomes a repository of peoples bios, articles written in the 3rd person about people touting all that they have done, but with no connection to the project itself, the project loses out, and the userspace loses some of what differentiates it from the mainspace, in my opinion, a net loss for the project. As I have stated from the beginning, I will gladly help you with it, I have been on here for almost 10 years, seen a lot of user pages. My goal is not to cause trouble, but volunteer my time in a way that makes this project a better place. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 20:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have rewritten the page in a manner that should satisfy people.Ncox (talk) 20:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the speedy tag, it still reads a lot like a

Wikipedia Request For Adminship Processin wikipedia that won best paper in the conference, but I did not feel that it was appropriate to list it on my user page. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 21:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

I will do so.Ncox (talk) 21:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest

welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest

or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

• Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
• Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
• Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see

our frequently asked questions for organizations

. Thank you.

Please stop directly editing Noel Cox and instead, suggest changes on the Talk page for others to review. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. As I have already posted on the Noel Cox Talk page, I think too much has been deleted, but I don't want to put anything back myself. Hopefully someone will take up the challenge.Ncox (talk) 21:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ncox ~ or Noel, if i may call you that. I thank you for taking note of the concerns raised by the IP above and at the

noticeboard. I think that your action, editing the talk page of Noel Cox rather than the article itself is probably for the best. I would suggest the same might well be true at your church as well, though you've added so much to that article i'd hate to stop you! It's a fine line to walk, when one may have a COI. I don't promise to keep watching, though both pages are currently on my watchlist, but if you see something you'd really like changed, feel free to give me a shout, on either talk page or mine own, and i'll see what i can do to help. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 04:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm fine with Noel! I won't be making many more changes to the church page - it's probably quite long enough now, and I'll leave it to others to do any tidying. It is a bit difficult about COI, as it's not as though editing that page advances anyone's interest. Since I know the church better than most it made sense to edit the page on it (since I knew where to find information on it). In any event I'm certain the page would pass scrutiny on any Wikipedia standard. I'm afraid I have found the past few days rather upsetting, and it has spoilt my Wikipedia experience, which until now, has been enjoyable (and I have been happily editing many different pages for some years now).Ncox (talk) 09:22, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Resilient Barnstar
	To thank you for listening to the advice of a couple of administrators and taking advantage of what user page was meant to be in Wikipedia, and being patient and open to discussion during the discourse. If more editors were like this, Wikipedia would be a better place. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 21:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Nomination of Charles de Chassiron (British diplomat) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Charles de Chassiron (British diplomat) 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/Charles de Chassiron (British diplomat) 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. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:03, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Special Representative for International Trade and Investment

The article Special Representative for International Trade and Investment has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No inline sources.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the

p 13:15, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Draft:Heber Ackland

Hello, Ncox. It has been over six months since you last edited the

Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, Draft:Heber Ackland

.

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia

this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it. — JJMC89 (T·C) 09:44, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Proposed deletion of New Zealand Flag Institute

The article New Zealand Flag Institute has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

doesn't fit notability requirements

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the

talk) 09:00, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Nomination of St Mellitus College for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article St Mellitus College 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/St Mellitus College until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.

Sionk (talk) 21:56, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Protective security unit

The article Protective security unit has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

substantially duplicates multiple other articles (e.g. bodyguard, security detail, and List of protective service agencies); few sources

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the

talk) 10:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply

]