User talk:Northfox

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place  after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --Ed (Edgar181) 13:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Richard Dawkins
Hi, you made an edit to Richard Dawkins which appeared to me to suggest that the outcome of a vote was the opposite of that reported, so I've amended the entry to clarify what the source says. It would be appreciated if you could try to take care to avoid any misleading ambiguity in edits, though of course this can easily happen inadvertently. Thanks, .. dave souza, talk 11:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

Sorry for the inadvertent mistake. Northfox 02:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem, even the AAAS seem to have got muddled up about that vote! .. dave souza, talk 12:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism
Northfox, I just want you to know that I admire your good will, patience, and persistence at that page. Good luck with your appeals to reason---they're good for Wikipedia. Here's some free, unsolicited advice: if you find your frustration growing, just take a long break from the page instead of de-elevating your side of the conversation. None of the important things in life depend much on the quality of any given Wikiepedia article during June 2007. Best regards, Gnixon 23:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC).


 * thanks for the encouragement and the advice. Continuing the good work, as iron sharpens iron. I still love wikipedia and the other side has (not yet?) made me leave. I liked Hrafn42's comment on Talk:A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism on June 22nd: Sternberg affiliation was listed as "Invertebrate Zoology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institute" when in fact he was never employed by the Smithsonian, but merely had access to their collections for research as a 'Research Associate'. . Turns out, when I checked the Discovery Institute list (last updated in february ) Sternberg is listed with his two PhD's. Northfox 14:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Gnixon, seems that one of the other editors has lost his good will, patience and persistence: I will do what wikipedia suggests in such a situation: de-escalate and leave! Northfox 05:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) I see no particular reason to "give you a break". This list is indeed an "appeal to authority", as many of the  previous similar creationist lists going back decades have been. This does not mean that the scientific community has not countered with similar "appeals to authority", but I do not think that the PBS series falls in that category, compared to the lists of Nobel Prize Winners, National Academy members, endorsements by dozens of scientific organizations with millions of members worldwide, etc that establish completely convincingly where the dominant scientific consensus is. The difficulty is that this list gives a completely misleading impression of where the dominant scientific understanding lies. If a tiny fraction of 0.1% of the relevant fields sign a vaguely worded and purposely misleading petition, does this really mean anything? What it means to me is that the sponsors of the petition are basically crooks and dishonest jerks, little better than their hate-filled huckster televangelist cousins, in the same category as glossolalia, demon possession, snake-handling, and thrashing seizures of religious fervor exhibited by the faithful writhing in the dirt while the preacher screams damnation and threats to all and sundry and flies into a religious tantrum. This sort of list needs to be revealed for what it is. Why are we protecting the DI? WP is not a religious tract to help them recruit. --Filll 00:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There's a group of editors who have gotten worked up to the point of insanity (in my opinion) over the evolution/creationism debate, and I think it'll be awhile before Wikipedia articles related to that issue can be reasonably edited. Someday things will surely improve, but until that time, other parts of Wikipedia could probably use your help.  Good luck.  Gnixon 22:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * There is indeed a lot of unreasonable debate. Partly because there are mutual misunderstandings (like from opponents if ID that science would become obsolete when invoking a designer/creator, or from creationists that religious faith depends on that issue). What makes it so explosive is that it very well may have personal consequences. Acknowledging/denying a creator is more than about knowledge or a lifestyle decision.

Anyway, those articles are still on my watchlist, but I refrain from editing for a while. Northfox 00:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

That cat
Yes, I'm aware. Unfortunately this is one of those matters that will get you immediately tarred and feathered by the people who like the category, despite it being inappropriate categorization.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  08:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Rubrene.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Rubrene.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:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

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 Media copyright questions. 09:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Aurel Stodola
Hello, please reconsider Aurel Stodola. Thanks. --Turbojet (talk) 14:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Germany Invitation
--Zeitgespenst (talk) 03:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey I changed your edit
I edited your change here. I thought yours was a little confusing but I'm looking at my own attempt to improve it and it seems clumsy too. Feel free to fix or better or revert my change. I can't think of anything right now. Maybe it needs two more precise and short sentences instead of wrapping it all into one? Angry Christian (talk) 03:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * is the evoinfo site back up on the Baylor server? Your sentence structure indicates it. The references are all for subscription only or for-money pages (something I don't want to do). A quick look on Marks' homepage had no Baylor-intern link. I am in a hurry, so I don't have time to search further. Northfox (talk) 08:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Please consider taking the AGF Challenge
I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process by User: Kim Bruning. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable.--Filll (talk) 14:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * thanks for the invitation, but I am too busy right now to spend much time with Wikipdia. Northfox (talk) 13:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

ATIC
Hi, what do you think, should we bring Advanced Thin Ionization Calorimeter to Did You Know? Cheers, AxelBoldt (talk) 19:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I'll go for it. AxelBoldt (talk) 13:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Center around
A tag has been placed on Center around requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  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)
 * 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 center 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)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Oxford-Union-Debate-Durant.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Oxford-Union-Debate-Durant.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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)

Gregory S. Paul
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)

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


 * 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)


 * 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)

Huxley Memorial Debate
User:Northfox violates WP:UP. Please remove it. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


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


 * Yes it is "necessary to delete". WP:UP clearly states "this space is not intended to indefinitely archive your preferred version of disputed or previously deleted content". User:Northfox is clearly a copy of material that was previously at Huxley Memorial Debate that was removed when the article was redirected after its AfD. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:UP says that material may be deleted. It also says in the header that It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense and the occasional exception. Furthermore, WP:UP 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)


 * 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. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * 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)

Stalking
This page might help. Totnesmartin (talk) 12:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

January 2013
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Abiogenesis. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to 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: 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. — raeky  t  17:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.

Proposed deletion of Kathleen Morikawa


The article Kathleen Morikawa has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * WP:ONEEVENT

While all constructive 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 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 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)

Huxley Memorial Debate (2)
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!. Philip J. Rayment (talk) 13:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


 * 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)

September 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=573736283 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 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:33, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * On September 19, 2013 he was sentenced to 25 years in jail. cite news|url=http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2013/09/19/ap-frc-shooter-sentenced-25-

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Hiros (disambiguation)


The article Hiros (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern:
 * unnecessary disambiguation page per WP:TWODABS

While all constructive 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 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 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)