User talk:Northfox

Welcome!

Hello, Northfox, 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 Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --Ed (Edgar181) 13:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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).[reply]

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

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

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

Gnixon, seems that one of the other editors has lost his good will, patience and persistence:

<undent>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)

I will do what wikipedia suggests in such a situation: de-escalate and leave! Northfox 05:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. >Radiant< 08:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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:

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 Wikipedia: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)[reply]

WikiProject Germany Invitation

Hello, Northfox! I'd like to call your attention to the WikiProject Germany and the German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board. I hope their links, sub-projects and discussions are interesting and even helpful to you. If not, I hope that new ones will be.

--Zeitgespenst (talk) 03:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [1] 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)[reply]