User talk:Ncox

{{User Monarchist}}

Hi there Noel. Perhaps you'd like to add the Monarchist userbox (as above) to your profile page. --Lholden 07:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'll think about that - it's not really relevant to the articles I have written as I have avoided anything that could be seem as subjective.Ncox 23:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, although most of your contributions do seem monarchy related... but as long as you keep to NPOV, there's no problem of course... --Lholden 06:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would point out that as an academic I have written for years on this and related subjects. I sometimes dispair that the media cannot always appreciate that it is possible to have a personal view on a subject and yet be able to write dispassionately on it. I'm not normally sensitive about that, but I hope you are not suggesting that I would deliberately depart from expressing a neutral point of view. I have my academic credibility to protect, and cannot afford to do so (though I'd have to say that there are some academics in Australia and Britain who have not taken such care to keep their republican convictions from colouring their writings)Ncox 20:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I never said your personal view points coloured what you've written Noel, just that most of your contributions are monarchy related. The userbox thing is something of personal expression, as opposed to editing articles which is not. --Lholden 07:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right, but "as long as you keep to NPOV, there's no problem of course" is rather suggestive.Ncox 02:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lholden, I've taken the liberty of commenting out the userbox you added above. The userbox adds Ncox to Category:Wikipedian monarchists, but unless he decides to declare this himself it should not be on his page.

NCox, you should be aware that some Wikipedians dislike the use of userboxes which categorise the political or personal beliefs of Wikipedians. They are by no means forbidden, but some regard them as divisive. You might like to read the first few paragraphs of User_talk:Jimbo_Wales for an appeal against such userboxes from the Wikipedia founder. Userboxes which express a user's expertise, location or language abilities are encouraged.-gadfium 08:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I thought it would only add you to the category if you actually put the userbox on your userpage. Yes I have read Jimbo Wales arguments argainst such user boxes. I was simply suggesting it to Noel, because as I'm sure Noel will confirm, he supports the monarchy in New Zealand. I have no problem with that, although respectfully I disagree with his views. --Lholden 08:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! This may seem obvious from your name, but are you Noel S. Cox? Thanks, Mindspillage (spill yours?) 08:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am indeed.

Hello from Palm Springs, California! I saw your entries on the new pages section, followed them back here to your talk page and saw your external link. Welcome, welcome, welcome. - Lucky 6.9 01:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As did I! A very warm welcome to you! -- Jjjsixsix ^(talk)/_(contribs) @ 01:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.Ncox 02:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like no one has dropped the standard welcome message so here it is!

Welcome!

Hello, Ncox, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for registering with us. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  Grandwazir 01:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, You might want to consider adding {{User NZ res}} to the top of your user page, which will add you to this category automatically and also add a nice graphic. Or simply add [[Category:Wikipedians in New Zealand]] which will have the same effect.

Nice work on Security Risk Certificate!-gadfium 23:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any pressing need for this info to be put in a separate page? The links to further information now are redundant and the original article is now only half of what it used to be (now it has just an undress section). Also I didn't see any incorrect information, comparing the page to the links.

Perhaps if you make Court Uniform a redirect/or a short article referencing Windsor uniform, and note in the Windsor uniform article that the full dress version was worn at court it would have been better. I could be bold and move it back but I'd like to hear from you about this. Greentubing 03:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hoping to expand this entry soon - or someone else may do so. There is a large amount of information which could be entered.Ncox 04:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your speedy reply; I have also made a note at Talk:Court Uniform and Dress which I suggest you read. Greentubing 04:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was expecting edits ... but not edits of that size. Bravo! Greentubing 04:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted a suggestion for merging or at least disambiguating your Court Uniform with Court_dress. This may or may not tie into Windsor uniform. If they remain seperate we probably need to sort out some links between them so navigation becomes logical. If we merge we will probably need a wrap together intro for novices to the subject but the content you have posted is great, as I assumed it would be having read your website. You will be a real asset to wiki, welcome Alci12 18:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I have proposed the article Felix Wheeler, which you created, for deletion, as it does not appear to show why Major Wheeler is notable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. If you disagree, please remove the {{prod}} template. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 09:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC) I've included him because he is a senior member of the Royal Household and appears on State Occasions - when he has been interviewed several times by the media. Hence the usefulness of a biography. Ncox 20:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you are adding Category:Seminaries and theological colleges to a lot of articles. I purposely moved lots of US seminaries into a separate subcategory called Category: United States seminaries. The ones that are most significant or tell a significant story about historical seminary development I left with both categories, but I generally think that some seminariesdon't need to be in the parent category Category:Seminaries and theological colleges For instance, Atlantic Baptist Bible College is not significant, is it? Just wondering what you think since you're from NZ and all. MPS 00:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC) I assumed that someone had made the decision to include the US seminaries under the sub-category only. But I reason that they were still seminaries and theological colleges, so should be listed in the general category also. This is because in some cases it may not be obvious which country they are actually based in. Some may be very small, but then the category doesn't specify size - or even current existence. What I would be aiming for would be a list of all the seminaries which have entries in Wikipedia. Where there are a significant number of seminaries in a country they should be listed in a separate sub-category also.Ncox 00:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am a bot, and I am writing to you with a request. I would like to ask you, if possible, to use edit summaries a bit more often when you contribute. The reason an edit summary is important is because it allows your fellow contributors to understand what you changed; you can think of it as the "Subject:" line in an email. For your information, your current edit summary usage is 2% for major edits and 1% for minor edits. (Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace.)

This is just a suggestion, and I hope that I did not appear impolite. You do not need to reply to this message, but if you would like to give me feedback, you can do so at the feedback page. Thank you, and happy edits, Mathbot 02:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC) Thank youNcox 21:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey...I've added the John Brooke-Little article to the list for peer review. I've noticed that you've added some to articles about heraldry. Your contributions to the debate would be more than welcome.--Evadb 10:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know that a meetup is planned in Auckland for the 25th of June (see Wikipedia:Meetup/Auckland for more details), and that you are cordially invited. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 00:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that the article you had written on neck bands had been deleted as a "copyvio", apparently because it duplicated text found on Geocities on what looks like your own site. I have asked that this decision be reviewed and that the article be restored at Wikipedia:Deletion review. You may want to chime in there and make sure we know the whole story. Smerdis of Tlön 21:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for alerting me to this. I wasn't aware of it, since no one else had bothered to contact me. Naturally I assumed that I was entitled to reuse my own material, releasing it for free reproduction in the process (as a copyright lawyer I do have so knowledge of how this works!).Ncox 21:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A number of editors and admins are very cautious about these matters, and I can't really blame them. Thanks for clearing this up; your page has been restored. I may try and rework the citations to use the new footnote format. Smerdis of Tlön 13:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I've proposed the creation of an heraldic portal. If you think that such a thing would be helpful, you can voice your support HERE and hopefully we can get the heraldry category items organized better. Thanks for all your hard work on heraldic topics.--Eva ^db 09:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just jumped on the Office of Princess Royal that you created some time ago. Nothing to say about the information given in the article. Simply a note: it gave no idea about what nationality was the Crown we were speaking of, until Queen Elizabeth was named, just in the middle of article. I jump often in entries here which give for assumed that the content is automatically referring to UK or United States. As the idea for this Encyclopedia is to be NPOV and international (English is also used as 1st language by Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, etc etc.), it should be always explicitly the nationality of the content. Let me know, and good work. Ciao! Attilios Thank you, I normally do say UK for these articles, so thank you for noticing this omission. Interestingly, as a royal entry, Princess Anne is a princess of Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc also so it's not quite as simple as it may at first appear. Ncox 00:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I saw that you added the word "statisically" in the notes to the table. While I wouldn't doubt that the results are insignificant, in statistical literature "statistical significance" requires that the data are tested against some measure of "significance" by some analytical procedure (statistical significance has a good summary), and that was why I removed the word "statistical" in the first place.

202.180.71.156 11:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Logic accepted. Ncox 20:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Forlornandshorn 16:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I've noticed that you've edited articles pertaining to the Eastern Orthodox Church. I wanted to extend an invitation to you to join the WikiProject dedicated to organizing and improving articles on the subject, which can be found at: WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy. This WikiProject was begun because a need was perceived to raise the level of quality of articles on Wikipedia which deal with the Eastern Orthodox Church.

You can find information on the project page about the WikiProject, as well as how to join and how to indicate that you are a member of the project. Additionally, you may be interested in helping out with our collaboration of the month. I hope you'll consider joining and thank you for your contributions thus far! —A.S. Damick ^{talk contribs} 03:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Er, I totally disagree with the edit you did which you claim is an "incorrect assertion". I can point out many people who have retired as Sr. Lecturers in the UK. In fact, editing out this text seriously undermines your claim that a readership is superior to an associate prof. in the US. --Jaibe 21:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most academics are retiring as senior lecturers rather than professors. My point was that the specific claim was wrong, not that it is easy to be promoted in the Uk.Ncox 22:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• If this the points that you mention at Talk:The_Heraldry_Society#New_Zealand_Branch_Merge are true, you can edit the article at The Heraldry Society (New Zealand Branch) to reflect the fact that it is a separate group. Currently it is simply a redirect to The Heraldry Society. In the meantime, it might be time to change the name of the Society for good to reflect the separation.--Eva ^bd 21:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Autoblock of 131.111.8.99 lifted/expired. Request handled by: Robdurbar 09:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, I've never answered one of these before, so if the unblock has worked, could you drop me a line just so I know? Cheers. --Robdurbar 09:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• thank you, it works.Ncox 10:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Thank you for working on the article related to the 2006 Fijian coup d'état. I reverted your edit because calling the irony "all too apparent" smacks of POV and the comments about the legality of it bordered on conjecture. That said, I think you could make a positive contribution to the article if you take care (a) to source your claims, and (b) to avoid making it clear where your sympathies lie. I'm sure you have strong feelings about the coup, as I have and as most people have. We have to switch our emotions off when editing wikipedia, I'm afraid. I do hope you'll continue working on the topic - we need all hands on board for a rapidly changing article. David Cannon 11:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I wrote that without even looking at your user page. Had I known you were a law professor, I would have been much more careful - what you write is not speculation after all. I will revert most of what I removed - but will leave the "all too apparent" part out, if you don't mind. I'm sorry I jumped to conclusions too quickly. David Cannon 11:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's all right (caution is always a good idea). I was unsure about the term "all too apparent", as well as "ironically", but decided that it was justified. I have watched the various coups - and the cases that have followed them - since 1987, so do have some knowledge of the legal position.Ncox 11:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are all invited to Auckland Meetup 2 on the afternoon of Saturday February 10th 2007 at Galbraith's Ale House in Mt Eden. Please see Wikipedia:Meetup/Auckland 2 for details. You can also bookmark Wikipedia:Meetup/Auckland to be informed of future NZ meetups. - SimonLyall 06:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering, why'd you revert this?--§hanel 17:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I discovered that there had been some controversy which had led to court action, and I didn't want to include anything which could revive the dispute - which Mr Geidt won. So I thought the best thing to do was include only the briefest details.

Canadian Heraldic Authority has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Eva ^bd 21:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Y	Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Autoblock of 60.234.48.118 lifted or expired. Request handled by: gadfium 01:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! I'm working on trying to add some reliable sources to Aide-de-Camp_General, although the internet doesn't seem to be working too well for sourcing info that happened so far into the past. As you created the article, I was hoping you might be able to point me towards some books I could use to expand the article and add some proper citations. Thanks! Spazure 05:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of any source which contains more than a sentence or two. The "Royal Encyclopedia" has an entry, I recall. The information I put on the page when I created the entry came from personal notes which I have kept up over the years. Ncox 03:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on International Academy for the Promotion of Scientific Research, by Precious Roy (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because International Academy for the Promotion of Scientific Research seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting International Academy for the Promotion of Scientific Research, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 15:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you may quite possibly be correct, but then it should be via AfD. There is a difference between being notable and the mere assertion of notability. Any plausible assertion is enough, the classic examples that do not count being , "I am king of the world" or i won an Olympic medal at the age of 11, or He is the greatest guitar player ever. I'll look for it at Afd. That's where suspected hoaxes etc belong. DGG (talk) 01:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Brian suggested I ask you the question I asked him but which he couldn't answer -- namely, what is the sling thing supporting the fleece in our coat of arms? Would be grateful if you can elucidate. Cheers. Moriori 08:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting question. I'm not sure myself. I think it is simply a sling for hanging the fleece, without any symbolic importance as suchNcox 22:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. Moriori 23:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It occurs to me that you are probably an ideally placed person to help resolve my query about the knighthood first conferred upon Sir Paul Reeves. The main issues are, first, is he a knight bachelor? and secondly, why did he receive the accolade? My feeling is that he is probably not a knight bachelor and that the story I was told about him being given the accolade by mistake is probably correct. I have gone into more detail on the talk page for that article. A complicated theory has been put forward that the prime minister of New Zealand advised the Queen to appoint him a knight bachelor and that the outgoing governor general conferred the accolade so that he could then go to the Queen to be invested with the insignia of his GCMG but not receive the accolade yet enjoy the title Sir. I don't know why it was thought desirable for him to be called Sir, except perhaps because all the other governor generals had been. Surely if this were the case the Queen would never have appointed him knight bachelor, since I believe she is thought to agree with her ancestor's view on knighted clergy. I think the exclusion from the accolade does extend to non-English Anglican clergy. This would explain why His Eminence Sir Norman Cardinal Gilroy, and Australian, is given as the classic example of a non-Anglican clergyman who did receive the accolade. Your thoughts on this subject would be appreciated. Perhaps you even have access to Sir Paul hismelf.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 03:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that every knight of an order of chivalry is also a knight bachelor, by virtue of receiving the accolade (they are all entitled to join the Imperial Society of Knights Bachelor). Thus Sir Anthony Blunt, after he was stripped of his knighthood actually remained Sir Anthony, a fact only realised afterwards, because his KCVO was revoked but his knight bachelorhood was overlooked. It seems clear that Reeves was indeed made a knight bachelor first - this is noted in the official New Zealand list of knights and dames - and since this has never been done before it can only have been deliberate, to ensure that Sir Paul would receive the accolade. It may be that he was knighted because he was archbishop - I don't know whether his nomination to the office of Governor-General was known or even made when the knighthood was awarded. I do know Sir Paul, and will ask him.

Ncox (talk) 04:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How interesting. I had, apparently wrongly, always thought that a knight was either appointed knight bachelor or appointed to an order of chivalry (or both but not at the same time). So this means that if Tony Blair becomes a KG or KT he will, to be pedantic, be appointed both knight bachelor and knight of the Garter/Thistle? And presumably we just omit any mention of the knight bachelorhood because it's implied in the senior honour. I did once read that contrary to common belief Anthony Blunt was not degraded from his knighthood, though most sources say that he was (e.g. the ODNB).

Generally speaking a New Zealand Anglican clergyman would not receive the accolade would he? (If New Zealand were conferring knighthoods - though a New Zealander could still get an award in the Queen's personal gift.)--Oxonian2006 (talk) 23:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The way it appears to work is that the new knight receives the accolade - if not already a knight - and thus is made a knight bachelor, immediately prior to being invested with the insignia of the Order of Chivalry. No other Anglican clergymen in New Zealand have received the accolade, though there have been some who have received knighthoods, such as Edward Norman, Bishop of Wellington, was made a KBE. He was occasionally, wrongly, referred to as Sir Edward, but he difinitely did not receive the accolade.Ncox (talk) 22:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have a history of working on the article Groom of the Robes. I am looking at it from the project Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles where it is one of the longest {{unreferenced}} tagged articles that does not meet at least the barest minimum of verifiability. It has been tagged and completely without references since June 2006. It would be extremely helpful if you had some references you could add to the article to help support its verifiability and notability. Thanks for any help you can give. BirgitteSB 19:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the Wkipedia policy is on this, but the list is essentially compiled from information I've collected from a range of sources over the years. This includes books like "Whose Who". Should I simply list that as the source; I'm reluctant to list myself as the source.Ncox (talk) 21:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would just list any books you used under a "References" heading. At this stage in the article it just needs a general reference or two. Anything is better than nothing. --BirgitteSB 21:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Metropole Building, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Metropole Building is unquestionably copyright infringement, and no assertion of permission has been made.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Metropole Building, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 21:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated this for deletion via the speedy deletion criteria as the article appears to be a combination of two web pages, http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/newscontent/92_the_metropole.htm which is copyrighted, and http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/History/HistoryOfTheOldWarOffice/MetropoleBuilding.htm which is Crown Copyright and for non-commercial use only, which is not compatible with Wikipedia's policy.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Metropole Building and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Metropole Building with a link to where we can find that note.
• If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Metropole Building.

Alternatively, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 21:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We're having a meetup in just over a week - see this page if you're interested in coming. Richard001 (talk) 09:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Noel 1211.jpg, which you've sourced to AUT. I noticed that that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the image (or other media file) agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL 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 permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the image to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the image has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the image's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image 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 uploaded by following this link. Images lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 01:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Burgon Society, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burgon Society. Thank you. Eastmain (talk) 05:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Writing about yourself, as you did at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Submissions/Noel Cox is inappropriate and a violation of our conflict of interest guidelines. What's worse, though, is that you did it "anonymously" under an IP address, which has the appearance of sockpuppetry. Since you've been around here a long time, I would expect you to know better. You might well be notable enough, but it's best that you wait and let someone else decide that and write about you. AKRadecki^Speaketh 00:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm mystified because the text you refer to is from my "User:Ncox" page and was not intended to be a Wikipedia page as such. I did not upload it to "Articles for creation/Submissions" and I've no idea how it got there.Ncox (talk) 04:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying that. I apologize if I offended you. I come across COI crap so frequently that one becomes jaded. I should have done better to assume good faith. AKRadecki^Speaketh 05:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Andrew Ford (Royal Household), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Unsourced BLP since 2006. Doesn't appear to satisfy WP:BIO.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Black Kite 17:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Andrew Ford (Royal Household), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Ford (Royal Household). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Black Kite 11:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ncox! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 46 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to these articles, it would greatly help us with the current 318 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

1. Simon Cooper - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
2. David Allan Walker - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
3. Edward Young (courtier) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
4. Stuart Shilson - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
5. Christopher Lloyd (art historian) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
6. Alan Reid (Royal Household) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
7. Anthony Blackburn - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
8. Simon Brailsford - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
9. Anthony Charles Richards - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
10. Heber Ackland - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 23:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Robert Guy (Royal Navy officer) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

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 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 render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Ridernyc (talk) 17:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Tim Hitchens has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced for over 2 years

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 {{dated prod}} 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 {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 23:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Toby Williamson has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Notability unclear, as not every employee in a royal household is notable. And even whether he was an employee is not established by any sources as there are no sources in article, and there have been none for almost three years.

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 {{dated prod}} 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 {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. doncram (talk) 13:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is now one of the very oldest Wikipedia articles that is a BLP (Biography of a Living Person) and is completely unsourced. --doncram (talk) 13:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Anthony Blackburn has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced since May 2007. No sources in article, and there have been none for almost three years.

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 {{dated prod}} 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 {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 12:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion has begun about whether the article James Thomson (Charterhouse), which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_Thomson_(Charterhouse) until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. — Fly by Night (talk) 13:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article David C. Alexander has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Nothing notable in article. Fails to inform reader of any significance concerning subject.

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. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 03:23, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Michael Palmer (British Army officer) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable. Fails to meet biography guidelines

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. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 05:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being minor in the usual way.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. With the script in place, you can continue with this functionality indefinitely (its use is governed by WP:MINOR). If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 18:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article David C. Alexander 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/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 Help Desk.

Thanks again for your contributions! Lithorien (talk) 02:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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. Lithorien (talk) 20:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Royal Guard, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Life Guards (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

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

The article Charles de Chassiron (UK diplomat) has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. -- Patchy1 20:22, 4 January 2013 (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 permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{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 permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

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 my talk page if you have questions. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 00:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When you add information to Wikipedia, please cite your sources. See WP:V and WP:RS for more information. I noticed your edit to Church of St Peter ad Vincula. I had to remove it because, in addition to being uncited, it was not even clear that what you added was related to this article. If it is, you need to explain what this chaplain's relationship is to the church and give relevant citations, and it should be in the body of the article rather than in the introduction. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:17, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. DrKiernan (talk) 18:01, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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. DrKiernan (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, User:Ncox, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be blatant advertising which only promotes or publicises a company, product, group or service, and which is a violation of our policies regarding acceptable use of user pages; user pages are intended for active editors of Wikipedia to communicate with one another as part of the process of creating encyclopedic content, and should not be mistaken for free webhosting resources. Please read the guidelines on spam, the guidelines on user pages, and, especially, our FAQ for Organizations.

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 Speedy Deletion as it was written in a promotional and self serving manner with no connection to Wikipedias goals/objectives. Wikipedia user pages are a place for wikipedia users to share information about themselves, and how they are connected to Wikipedias goals/objectives (for example, you can look at my page User:chrislk02). If you are interested in being an active contributor here on Wikipedia and would like help designing an appropriate user page, please feel free to let me know on my talk page User talk:chrislk02. If you are only interested in self promotion, and you continue to create articles to that effect, it is likely that you will be blocked. I would much rather see you contribute positively to this project, so again, let me know on my talk page User talk:chrislk02 if there is anything I can do to help you. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 18:49, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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:COI); nobody else is writing about you, it is you writing about you, which sounds pretty self serving to me? Now, perhaps you are writing about yourself in a way that incorporates you to the Wikipedia community? What articles have you written? What areas do you patrol? What have you done to enhance this project in a non self-serving manner? As an example, I briefly list my academic qualifications on my page to inform other editors where my area of expertise lies, I list the articles I have written to demonstrate the areas I am willing/likely to contribute, and I state my policies on 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#PROMO which states that "Extensive self-promotional material, especially when not directly relevant to Wikipedia." is not appropriate for user pages (as I explained above in much gentler terms), WP:USERBIO which states that "Inappropriate or excessive personal information unrelated to Wikipedia." is inappropriate. Additionally, the content was formatted like an article, something that is also inappropriate for the userspace. From this 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:FAKEARTICLE. While a brief biography on a user page is certainly not inappropriate, one that looks more like a resume and does not relate to your actual editing seems to fall afoul of 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, User:Ncox, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be blatant advertising which only promotes or publicises a company, product, group or service, and which is a violation of our policies regarding acceptable use of user pages; user pages are intended for active editors of Wikipedia to communicate with one another as part of the process of creating encyclopedic content, and should not be mistaken for free webhosting resources. Please read the guidelines on spam, the guidelines on user pages, and, especially, our 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, this case was egregious. It would need to be completely re-written to change the tone to be appropriate for the user space, for example, on at least 31 occasions do you refer to yourself in the 3rd person as in "He is...", "He was...." In the form it was in when I deleted it, it would have needed a complete re-write to be appropriate for the user space. This is why I did not just blank the page and/or ask you to userfy it, I did however offer to help you create a page that was appropriate several times, which I will do again. I again cite 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 Noel Cox a New Zealand-born lawyer and priest at a Church in Wales. My specialties include constitutional law and 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 CV with all the publications and such, it might help to summarize them into areas of interest and to say "I have publications in these areas". For me, I have (albeit minor) a conference publications on the 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]

Hello, Ncox. We 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]

	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]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, 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, you are welcome to 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]

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]

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 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. pbp 13:15, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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 mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at 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]

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 history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 09:00, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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 history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]