User talk:John Foxe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Archive 1: April - September 2006

Contents

[edit] Image tagging for Image:BobJonesIII.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:BobJonesIII.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 00:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I have nominated Fawn M Brodie Article

See the nomination here.

Congratulations! Your work passed! --Blue Tie 03:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BJU

No worries I just was doing a little busy work, please forgive my impertinence. --MJHankel 05:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archiving

I noticed you archived the talk page of First Vision - it is not generally accepted practice to archive in the midst of an active discussion. It is best to wait until the discussion resolves so that the comments (and history) are not fragmented onto two pages. --Trödel 13:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. My intentions were good. I just thought it was getting unwieldy to keep scrolling down the page so far. Now we have a nice clean page to work with.--John Foxe 13:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
NP - I assumed they were, I just thought you should know, as, depending on the discussion, doing so could create additional conflict (as I've learned from sad experience :) --Trödel 14:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure it won't be a problem with folks of our experience and maturity :)--John Foxe 14:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archiving of Talk:First Vision

I undid your recent archiving of Talk:First Vision for two reasons. First, the proper way to archive is to create the archive article, and then copy and paste the material to the archive. Moving the talk page to the archive page is bad because it moves the page history with it. Second, you shouldn't archive active discussions, or discussions for which there are comments only a few months old. COGDEN 16:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Billy Sunday

I did clean up the article a bit when I first read it a few months ago. However, I understand that the spirit of wikipedia is that everyone's ideas are equal, so I only corrected outright errors. Billy Sunday is a topic of great interest to a lot of people with divergent backgrounds, differing reasons for their interest, and varying degrees of affection for the man. I thought I ought to let the article reflect as much of that variety as possible. I'm glad that now it has a more authoritative tone, and I appreciate your work.--Rocketj4 20:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I've always preferred knowledge to ignorance, even on Wikipedia. And my experience here has been that once a sound, comprehensive article appears, extraneous "views" decline, and as a rule, one only has to patrol for vandalism thereafter.--John Foxe 14:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:StephenJones(BJU).jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:StephenJones(BJU).jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Chowbok ☠ 17:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion at Stephen Jones(BJU) talk page--John Foxe 20:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More on Billy Sunday's baseball career recap

Don't mean to be picky, but...Sunday's all-around good play was as important to the Pittsburgh fans as his stolen bases, and the strike-created league wasn't simply a competing organization. (Baseball clubs are referred to as organizations; leagues are a bigger deal.)--Rocketj4 18:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC) Even more nit-picking....in the complicated world of baseball finances, even back then, it matters that the team had no cash for payroll and that a trade involved cash; teams can have money but still badly need cash. Also, most baseball readers and writers don't refer to teams so formally as to use "it" instead of "they." Sorry--just tweaking that section to read the way baseball historians and fans would expect.--Rocketj4 18:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the corrections--and for rewording the sentence to make it grammatical as well as acceptable to sports fans. My feeling was that the "all-around good play" business was null for vagueness, but having taken a look at Knickerbocker, I'm satisfied.--John Foxe 19:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Tomato" reference

I hope you understood that my "tomato" reference was to the Broadway song. Here's the reference, from the Wikipedia entry on tomato, no less: "The word's dual pronunciations were immortalized in Ira and George Gershwin's 1937 song "Let's Call the Whole Thing Off" (You like /pəˈteɪtoʊ/ and I like /pəˈtɑːtəʊ/ / You like /təˈmeɪtoʊ/ and I like /təˈmɑːtəʊ/) and have become a symbol for nitpicking pronunciation disputes. In this capacity it has even become an American slang term: saying /təˈmeɪtoʊ, təˈmɑːtəʊ/ when presented with two choices can mean "Why should I care? There's no real difference."" I was trying to imply what you said--don't sweat the small stuff. We disagree, but it's on a minor matter. Disagreement is the stuff of scholarly discourse. I greatly appreciate the work you're doing on Sunday.--Rocketj4 20:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A small thing

I'm going to take you at your word when you say that you don't know anything about baseball, and therefore point out to you that when you talk about Sunday's running around on the stage and then "sliding into home plate," that's a baseball reference. Sliding into home plate only occurs in baseball. I hope this doesn't sound insulting; it's just in case you didn't know that. That part of his regular performances is part of what I mean when I say baseball was very important in his ministry.--Rocketj4 22:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Anti-Mormonism

I have replied to your comments here. -- FishUtah 15:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion of Billy Sunday changes

First off, let me say that I also like Dorsett's biography of Sunday. It is perceptive, sympathetic, and ultimately rewarding. However, it is not, strictly speaking, scholarly. The series for which it was written is aimed at a popular audience; hence the absence of footnotes and formal bibliography. We should be careful how we use it as documentation.

On p. 57, Dorsett discusses Chapman's interest in the Keswick movement; he neither states nor implies that Sunday shared that interest. While there is plenty of evidence for Sunday's commitment to prayer, there is no substantiation that the Keswick movement had anything to do with it.

On p. 28, Dorsett is quoting Elijah "Ram's Horn" Brown, and not Mrs. Clarke directly. Since Brown's biography is not authoritative, the quote shouldn't be considered accurate.

These are tiny matters, but like bricks in a wall, they can add up. Sentences like the ones referred to seem to be theological digressions, and therefore distract the reader from the main story. Consequently, I've pruned them. --Rocketj4 14:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I generally agree with your assesment of Dorsett and with these changes you've made--although I hope you can appreciate the irony of removing "theological digressions" from the biography of an evangelist so as not to "distract the reader."--John Foxe 15:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Sunday quotations

I ran into a small book, Burning Truths from Billy's Bat: A Graphic Description of the Remarkable Conversion of Rev. "Billy" Sunday, Embodying Anecdotes, Terse Sayings, etc. Compiled from Various Sources (Philadelphia: Diamond Publishing Co., 1914). I wonder what you'd think of adding a section at the end of the article with a selection of "terse sayings, etc."?--John Foxe 21:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it'll make the article unwieldy, plus it isn't really necessary. The first two external links give some of his sermons, and those have plenty of his unique sayings. Incidentally, I hope you noticed how full of baseball references that particular collection is. Many of those one-liners are charming and witty, but in my opinion I don't think adding a selection of them at the end of the article really adds any value.--Rocketj4 22:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please Follow Wikipedia Rules

JF, please stop your edit war of the entry for Peter Ruckman. Also, if you insist on forcing obvious POV material into the entry (subjective evaluations by persons who are not obviously relevent), consider placing such opinion in a category by iteslf, or allowing persons with different opinions to participate fairly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.135.216.22 (talk • contribs) 01:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC).


[edit] Billy Sunday GA Review

A lot of the questions on the "good article" review were about baseball. Could you please add the necessary information here? Of course, to do it myself would be hopeless.--John Foxe 19:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Done; see discussion & edit history. I hope those changes will do the trick. I'm not clear from what the reviewer said what his POV concerns are, so I don't know if the comments I've made previously will be of any help to you.--Rocketj4 21:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for those changes. I took care of most of Balloonman's other questions. You may want to look over the summary paragraphs that I added at the beginning of the article. Two pairs of eyes are always better than one.--John Foxe 22:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Done again, at least in the baseball area. Suggestion: make "held heavily reported campaigns" into "held widely reported campaigns." I think the last paragraph needs some work; give me a few minutes and I'll try to make a useful suggestion.--Rocketj4 22:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC) Here's my suggestion: Although there were questions about Sunday's income, Sunday was never personally involved in any scandalous activities. He was publicly and sincerely devoted to his wife, who was also the manager of his campaigns. But his three sons disappointed him, and his audiences grew smaller during the 1920s as Sunday grew older and alternate sources of entertainment preoccupied his countrymen. Nevertheless, Billy Sunday continued to preach his brand of conservative Christianity until his death in 1935.

responded to your question on my talk page on my talk page.Balloonman 22:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

You're a scholar and a gentleman, as the old saying goes. I don't worry too much about the BJU article with you involved (hence my absence). Thanks for keeping that part of Wikipedia as good as it can be. Cheers, -Will Beback · † · 11:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/o/h/User_talk%7EJohn_Foxe_c739.html"