User talk:Northfox

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 08:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You appear to be a lost lexicographer, wandering the encyclopaedia in a vain search for a dictionary. The dictionary is over there, and its articles such as d:center#English will take all of the usage notes (about the appropriate prepositions to use with a verb and otherwise) that editors have to offer. Lexicographers are welcomed with open arms at Wiktionary. Uncle G (talk) 16:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Northfox! I noticed that you removed the bibliography section in the Gregory S. Paul article. You motivated this by pointing out that such sections are unusual. Now, the articles of many writers and scientists in fact do have a section containing a list of their publications. I assume what caused your rejection is the length of this particular one;

you were right

it is more or less complete as regards his biological papers. This is indeed unusual. But not, I feel, in the sense of "not fitting in the Wikipedia format". It is unusual simply because completing such sections requires a certain time investment most users are incapable of making.

this is your interpretation. I have a different one: it is not encyclopedic.

It is not an ideal to be striven for. If a small section would be all-right, would a complete section not be better? What makes scientists worthy of notice is their scientific work — and therefore to indicate to the reader what their written works actually consisted of, seems a primary encyclopedic task. In the case of G.S. Paul such a list is also particularly functional for Wikipedia itself as many of his biological papers are still relevant for many subjects and having a readily accessible list of them considerably facilitates the process of adding citations — my personal motive in adding the section.

but the people who have access to the biological papers are scientists. To order a an article from a scientific publisher costs in the range of 20-100 USD per article. Not many non-scientists would be willing to invest that. And scientists have other means (databeses, etc) to get a complete publication list.

Greetings, --MWAK (talk) 12:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Northfox (talk) 12:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But "unencyclopedic" is only a valid argument when it judges the content of information. Can length at itself be unencyclopedic too? Of course, if it were to expand the article to an excessive size, a publication list might bring it outside the scope of an encyclopedia, but this one had a length of 5,4 kb. Could you indicate why my "If a small section would be all-right, would a complete section not be better?" argument is incorrect? It seems so cogent to me ;o).

As regards my "citation" argument, I fear I gave the wrong impression. I didn't mean to suggest that people might be stimulated to order these articles from scientific publishers (which would very costly indeed...) but that when adding references to Wikipedia articles we Wikipedians could more easily find the citations and copy-and-past them.--MWAK (talk) 15:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a look at other biographies. They also do not contain a complete publication list. A publication can be used to verify and substantiate a fact in a wikiarticle, but indeed a complete list IS unencyclopedic. Northfox (talk) 12:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

not necessary to delete. Northfox (talk) 11:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is "necessary to delete".

Huxley Memorial Debate that was removed when the article was redirected after its AfD. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

WP:UP#COPIES does not indicate who should do this deletion and when (after discussion and after reaching a consensus, etc., etc). Northfox (talk) 14:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

You have presented no "common sense" reason for an "exception". As a

WP:MFD (which would delete the whole page) would seem inappropriate when the copy in question is only part of the page, I have taken the liberty of removing it myself. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

revert. If you are proactive, you have to give a reason for (and show that you are allowed to) removing contents from a user page. The user him/herself does not have to. Northfox (talk) 16:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

]

January 2013

You currently appear to be engaged in an

try to reach a consensus

rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. — raekyt 17:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article Kathleen Morikawa has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:ONEEVENT

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be

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. Your Lord and Master (talk) 06:22, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was reading the history of the above article (while researching my own article), including the argument over evidence of what it was actually called. It's too late now, but I thought you might be interested to know that the Oxford Union web-site itself now make reference to the debate by that name![2]. Philip J. Rayment (talk) 13:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for letting me know and your research on this. Great that even the Oxford Union themselves call it the Huxley Memorial Debate. Keep up the good fight. Northfox (talk) 05:38, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Family Research Council may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• On September 19, 2013 he was sentenced to 25 years in jail.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2013/09/19/ap-frc-shooter-sentenced-25-

Thanks,

The article Hiros (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unnecessary disambiguation page per

WP:TWODABS

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be

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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:51, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Northfox. Voting in the

2016 Arbitration Committee elections

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Northfox. Voting in the

2017 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Northfox. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]