User talk:ArcticFox55

ArcticFox55, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi ArcticFox55! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Cordless Larry (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:01, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Michael Norton (December 7)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Nomadicghumakkad was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Michael Norton and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Michael Norton, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:45, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Michael D Norton for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Michael D Norton 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/Michael D Norton 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.

Tinton5 (talk) 21:36, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

December 2021

Hello, I'm Kpddg. I noticed that you recently removed content from Michael D Norton without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Kpddg (talk) 03:20, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael D Norton

Hey, I'm one of the editors participating in The AfD for Michael D Norton. Welcome to Wikipedia! Just thought I'd stop by to give some constructive criticism for your future contributions.

The way you've written the Michael D Norton article makes it very unclear on why you think Norton is notable. Your intro states he is "a US Navy veteran, marketing strategist, physicist, and writer", but it's unclear from where his notability derived. Since you looked at Jordan Peterson as an example, take a look at the way his notability is established in the intro. He is "a Canadian professor of psychology, clinical psychologist, YouTube personality, and author. He began to receive widespread attention in the late 2010s for his views on cultural and political issues." Or indeed, Ariana Grande, described as " an American singer, songwriter and actress. Her music, much of which is based on personal experiences, has been the subject of widespread media attention."

Your intro is extremely long and goes too much into the subject's personal background. Ideally, you should be summarising Norton's main achievements and mentioning notable attention he has received, rather than going into background detail. Some of the info you've included might be better moved into the body of the article.

After the intro, you've then jumped straight into a personal life section. It would help you establish the subject's notability if you instead focused on career achievements, including a personal life section at the end of the article. Another small note: you should (almost) always refer to the subject of an article by their surname, rather than calling him Michael or Mike.

I'm going to take a further look at the revisions you've made and dig deeper into the sources you've provided before contributing to the deletion debate further, but trimming the article down and making some important points clearer could certainly help your case! Cheers. JonnyDKeen (talk) 12:46, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A few tips

As a new editor, you have been very quick to learn and adapt, and seem keen to soak up information on how to better participate in Wikipedia. It is for this reason that I offer these tips.

Don't sweat this AfD. Having an article deleted doesn't mean 'online death' to a subject. An AfD doesn't need to be "appealed"; if an article is deleted and someone re-creates a new better one later on, it might stay. Perhaps the subject/person has later acquired notability he didn't have previously and now qualifies for a standalone article.
Read Help:Using talk pages § Indentation for tips on indentations during discussions, which makes them easier to read.
In general, AfDs (Articles for Deletion) are not a place to engage in lengthy comments about an article. Most discussions about articles, their content and citations, are placed on the article's talk page. (WP:Talk page guidelines)
The lengthy essays you have written on that AfD are making it difficult to read at this point. Arriving editors wishing to place their vote probably don't know where they should add their comments (above or below your essays). If some of your lengthier essays in the AfD are now obsolete (since you've made changes) you can always 'collapse' them using these methods, and give it a title so other editors can decide if they want to expand and read the content.
Also, please don't add even more comments like "Thanks for your vote". Wikipedians prefer that talk page do not follow similar customs to social media of commenting on everything. There is a "thank" button next to each edit; you can always thank someone for their edit, and it doesn't appear in the discussion. Help:Notifications/Thanks
You might want to read WP:AFDEQ (Contributing to AfD discussions, Wikietiquette and How to contribute).

I know that's a lot, but you seem to be a fast reader/learner and thought you might like a little direction. You are not obliged to read any of the above. Platonk (talk) 21:30, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An additional tip, and please take this as a friendly effort to help you hone your consensus-building skills here in Wikipedia. Please read the essay WP:Don't bludgeon the process. Platonk (talk) 22:44, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly warning

If you were more experienced here I would have blocked you for your conduct in the afd I just closed. I strongly suggest you reflect hard on how you could have handled it better and approach me for advice if inspiration does not come to you in the next day or two. Spartaz ^Humbug! 00:11, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm SO sorry if, in my inexperience, I caused way more trouble than I intended to.

I started this whole experience wrong from the very beginning with the way I wrote the first article. So, if you choose to ban me, I totally understand. I really do. No matter what decision you make. I wouldn't take it personally. I can put myself in your shoes.

Hear me out on this, though: The guy is real. I've been following him for a very long time. I've seen conversations he's had in Facebook comments with other vets he served with. You can use background check tools like truthfinder. You can visit military websites like togetherweserved. If you check his photos you can see where some high-ranking veterans even vouch for him. Even with his family dysfunction that he wrote about in his memoir, you can background check his parents and the eviction notices, jail sentences, that sort of thing.

I just couldn't use those as Wikipedia sources as per the platform’s guidelines.

He's real. And he is getting growing exposure. Even if some editors do not consider these sources to be valuable enough in their personal opinion for a Wikipedia article. Just like various editors said, it’s only a matter of time until what the community would deem as a more reliable source covers him. And I don't think his noteworthiness was the real issue in that debate that started this.

With all that in mind, if you do ban me, let's think for a second. How can the media use the fact that I was banned, the argumentative representative of his story, after already being told to shut up, simply because I talked too much or had opinions you didn't like? This is me thinking on the community's side. It's a genuine question. I see his posts and his comments. His followers are right: This can get bad. I don't want to be involved. Nobody wants this. ArcticFox55 (talk) 13:49, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The media can think what it likes. This is wikipedia, one of the largest websites in the world. Do you really think that we would ditch our principles or polices for fear of bad press? Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:42, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

...okay...if you say so.

But if you really don't think that press has the power to change things, especially as a public company, I don't think you've been reading history. But you do read history, don't you? ...you guys run Wikipedia. And the subjective manner of how that entire conversation went down can lead the entire world to see how you guys don't actually have principles.

This arrogance alone is a kind of admission. So, you know he's real and you just don't care. Those are your principles? Really? By all means. Don't abandon them. But do you care about Miss Vain at all? Set Wikipedia aside...what about her? You just going to cast her aside and let bad press eat her alive? ArcticFox55 (talk) 18:59, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArcticFox55, if you harass Missvain any more, you will be blocked. Stop it now. Cullen328 (talk) 19:09, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was posting something else but, as always, Cullen says it far more succinctly then I can. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:11, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

...but I'm not harassing Miss Vain. I mentioned her. I didn't harass her. What did I do to harass her? This conversation is public. Everyone can see it.ArcticFox55 (talk) 19:15, 27 December 2021 (UTC)`[reply]

Yeah you did and if you can’t see it, you have no business editing here. The next time you mention missvain will be your last edit. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:18, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So merely saying something is harassment? Not even talking to her? Not even speaking badly about her? Like the sentence was said out of concern for her. Nothing?ArcticFox55 (talk) 19:25, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, aiming your 27000 followers at someone who has done something you don't like can mean bad things happen in real life, and Mr. Norton has done that, apparently in response to the fact editors here decided he was not yet notable enough for a Wikipedia article, an article you created. He's called you his representative and said you provided the images he's using to make his threats and whip up his followers, so yes, here on Wikipedia, we consider you responsible.

He has no control over his followers, and people have been harmed and their families threatened from things like this in the past. We take even veiled threats very seriously. Making ominous statements like "Let's all remember this URL" (with a link to that editor's user page, showing her photo) and saying things like "Her "stress" is "not credible enough" for me, though, to stop what we're about to do" and "We haven't even gotten started yet. It's going to be a long year or two. Buckle up" -- he is laying the groundwork for something bad to happen. FWIW, if anything bad were to happen, that would be quite likely to make him notable in a way he would very much like to avoid. You might advise him to think about worst case scenarios he's seen. He really doesn't want to get famous for being the guy whose facebook posts got someone harmed or worse. Tell him to think about that and maybe delete his posts before someone screenshots them.

Being "real" is not a reason to have a Wikipedia article. That's a reason to have a Facebook page. And all of this over the fact he isn't notable enough yet. Earthshattering, that. Mr. Norton should be ashamed of himself. Really irresponsible. —valereee (talk) 22:09, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

27,000 followers? Wow! Can I have your autograph?^[sarcasm] – ².O.^Boxing 23:56, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[link to harassing post removed]

Wow, he really is venal. Thanks for updating us. —valereee (talk) 16:07, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

December 2021

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for contravening Wikipedia's harassment policy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Cullen328 (talk) 19:29, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since you continue to post links to harassing material off site I have removed your talk page and email access. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:28, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]