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)

Your recent reversion to Seer stones and the Latter Day Saint movement have been partly useful, correcting some errors on my part. However your comment on my talk page about apologetics is interesting, and one that contrasts with an obvious ideological/sectarian bent in your editing.Rockford1963 01:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Men of good will can usually find a way around conflicting points of view when they work with material that's provable.--John Foxe 11:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Your statement on good will sounds fine, but 'provable' is problematic with articles on religion. Well crafted paragraphs with copious references and notes may seem neutral yet be spun in an 'anti-something' way; but proving such instances can be most difficult. In any case I will look for the references regarding descriptions of LDS seer stones, and accounts of the appearance of the LDS U&T, which information should be an interesting addition to the article.

[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)

[edit] Fawn Brodie

I've nominated the Fawn Brodie article as a featured article candidate here. The reviewers there tend to be quite picky and will surely suggest changes. You might want to keep an eye on that page and incorporate some of their changes. Best wishes. (And what a good article!) Semperf 18:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I've copied your name after mine to make you co-nominator; I hope that's ok. Semperf 04:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plates

I've reponded to your comment on my talk page. I also have a question for you there. -Visorstuff 21:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, I've responded. Hope this helps for the time being. Keep up the good work! -Visorstuff 22:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jim Berg article

I just noticed that the Jim Berg article is nominated for deletion (has been since Sept 2006). Glancing through the article's edit history, I noticed that you have made several contributions to the article. I know that Jim Berg has influenced many through his writing, having huge influence in the conservative Christian camp at least. IMO Berg is sufficiently notable. Perhaps you could make the article somewhat more in the style of an encyclopedia and clarify the notability? The article's style is not consistent with other good Wikipedia articles and should probably be verified. (see talk) --Whiteknox 19:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fawn Brodie

That's no problem. I was actually interested in the Jefferson DNA bit anyway because the article has long had vague and poorly-cited language about how it doesn't necessarily prove Brodie right. Anyhow, just trying to contribute a small tidbit to what's already a vastly improved article.

I really appreciate your contributions also. It's not the easiest topic to avoid coloring with bias, but you (and the other editors) have done a great job. Cool Hand Luke 00:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Johnny Rahm

You are an excellent editor. Many thanks.

[edit] AfD nomination of Piedmont Baptist College

I've nominated Piedmont Baptist College, an article you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Piedmont Baptist College satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion; I have explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piedmont Baptist College and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Piedmont Baptist College during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC) (Well, you nominated it, only the nomination was incomplete. Please do leave your opinion.)

John, no problem at all, it's me that owes you an apology. I should really have checked with you before completing it! All the best, Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


Thank you for helping to resolve this issue. I appreciate it. Thanks! Marcus Constantine 21:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Seer stones and the Latter Day Saint movement

Previous edits left significant confusion in the distinctness between the U&T and the Seer stones. I created a subsection for this, placing all exisitng U&T references with paragraph pointing out the differences. Exisiting text already gave sufficient description of the two, but just needed to be put in context. I am ameniable to other ways of clearly stating the differences so the reader does not think U&T an Seer stones are practically the same thing (without making any claim to the actual existance of either or their functionality). Rockford1963 14:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Magical Worldview, etc.

I feel like we're filling up talk pages needlessly over a small number of issues that we could probably address here, if you're willing. My biggest concern stems from what is stated as fact. Excuse me for putting so much here, but hopefully it will be helpful in sorting this out. From NPOV:

A simple formulation
We sometimes give an alternative formulation of the non-bias policy: assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert the opinions themselves. There is a difference between facts and opinions. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." For example, that a survey produced a certain published result would be a fact. That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things. So we can feel free to assert as many of them as we can.
By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean "a piece of information about which there is some dispute." There are bound to be borderline cases where we are not sure if we should take a particular dispute seriously; but there are many propositions that very clearly express values or opinions. That stealing is wrong is a value or opinion. That the Beatles were the greatest band in history is a value or opinion. That the United States was wrong to drop the atomic bomb over Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a value or opinion.
Wikipedia is devoted to stating facts in the sense as described above. Where we might want to state an opinion, we convert that opinion into a fact by attributing the opinion to someone. So, rather than asserting, "The Beatles were the greatest band," we can say, "Most Americans believe that the Beatles were the greatest band," which is a fact verifiable by survey results, or "The Beatles had many songs that made the Billboard Hot 100," which is also fact. In the first instance we assert an opinion; in the second and third instances we "convert" that opinion into fact by attributing it to someone. It is important to note this formulation is substantially different from the "some people believe..." formulation popular in political debates. The reference requires an identifiable and objectively quantifiable population or, better still, a name (with the clear implication that the named individual should be a recognised authority).
In presenting an opinion, moreover, it is important to bear in mind that there are disagreements about how opinions are best stated; sometimes, it will be necessary to qualify the description of an opinion or to present several formulations, simply to arrive at a solution that fairly represents all the leading views of the situation.
But it is not enough, to express the Wikipedia non-bias policy, just to say that we should state facts and not opinions. When asserting a fact about an opinion, it is important also to assert facts about competing opinions, and to do so without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. It is also generally important to give the facts about the reasons behind the views, and to make it clear who holds them. It is often best to cite a prominent representative of the view.

If you want I can look at the underlying verifiability problems for you if this isn't convincing. I think I can see where you're coming from, but we're just not dealing with provable, quantifiable facts here the way things are being stated. We can avoid this issue and retain the information be saying "Grant Palmer says that" or "critics think/say/believe" etc. I'd really appreciate your willingness to work with me on this one... gdavies 07:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we're actually reaching agreement incrementally article by article.--John Foxe 22:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Helping out with the Unassessed Wikipedia Biographies

Seeing that you are an active member of the WikiBiography Project, I was wondering if you would help lend a hand in helping us clear out the amount of unassessed articles tagged with {{WPBiography}}. Many of them are of stub and start class, but a few are of B or A caliber. Getting a simple assessment rating can help us start moving many of these biographies to a higher quality article. Thank you! --Ozgod 20:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject Biography March 2007 Newsletter

The March 2007 issue of the Biography WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Mocko13 22:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Book source for Dwight Gustafson

Hi, I'm formatting the book source given in the Dwight Gustafson article with {{cite book}} per User:Uncle G's recommendation in the AfD. Could you please specify whether the page-numbers are for the paper-back or the hardcover edition (the ISBNs of the two are different). Thank you, Black Falcon 18:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The hardback and paperback are identical except for the binding, but I used the paperback. (Also, the second edition seems to be identical or virtually identical with the first except for additional material.)--John Foxe 19:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the information. It's a minor issue, really, but one that adds specificity to the reference and makes the article more easily verifiable. I've already added the extra info, so you may check it if you wish. Cheers, Black Falcon 19:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] grammar was correct

I'm not trying to embarrass you I'm just pointing out the "correction" you made on the 116 pages was incorrect. The area between the commas was a parenthetical interjection, so the "and" is unnecessary. It should read as a coherent sentence without the interjection. So therefore the sentence should read: "Before returning home after two weeks, Lucy searched the Smith house and grounds for the plates, but because Smith did not need their physical presence to create the transcription, they were reportedly hidden in a nearby woods, she was unable to locate them."

With the interjection removed it should still be coherent: "Before returning home after two weeks, Lucy searched the Smith house and grounds for the plates, but because Smith did not need their physical presence to create the transcription and she was unable to locate them." As you can see, it doesn't make sense with the "and" there when the interjection is removed. I will quietly revert the mistake and also feel free to remove this from your page if you wish. Twunchy 04:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Of course, you're right. Nevertheless, the original sentence (especially seen in edit mode) was confusing, and I've replaced commas with dashes.--John Foxe 10:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ruckman edits

Having not read the sources you quote, I must ask are you sure they say what you have said they say? JoshuaZ 21:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Although I don't have the book in front of me, I'm confident that these citations are correct. In any case, we'll hear about it shortly if they're not.--John Foxe 21:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archiving

"Archiving of one's own user talk page is not required. A user may simply delete any comments they have read, whether they have acted on them or not. The only exception to this are warnings of vandalism and other abuse on anon IP talk pages. These must be retained so that admins can readily apply or remove edit blocks."[1]

The Sligh discussion is better posted on the "List" page, and the miscellaneous parts of it do not need to be retained on my talk page as well.--John Foxe 13:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

  • "If you feel that your user talk page is getting too large and is taking a long time to load, you may archive it. You may then remove comments from your talk page, but please make sure that those comments are readily accessible on another page. … Removing warnings, whether for vandalism or other forms of prohibited/discouraged behavior, from one's talk page is also considered vandalism" (Removing warnings).
  • "Removing warnings from one's own talk page is often frowned upon" (Types of vandalism).
—Emote Talk Page 18:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if anyone has noticed that these statements from different parts of Wikipedia don't square with one another? In fact, the two you quote aren't completely congruent either, one calling removal of warnings "vandalism" and the other saying only that the practice is "often frowned upon."--John Foxe 20:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Upon further research, I discovered that this policy is still being formulated. My apologies for appealing to what I mistakenly thought was a fixed rule. During RCP I often issue warnings to anonymous IP vandals for blanking their own talk pages. I always assumed the rule applied to all users, anonymous or registered. But apparently there is some debate about whether a user talk page is primarily the Wikipedia community's property or the individual user's property. At any rate, I won't plague your talk page over a disputed policy, although I would still ask you not to "hound" pages. You would go a long way towards maintaining rapport with other editors if you were to show respect for good-faith edits, especially when such edits are helpful and informative additions to an article.—Emote Talk Page 02:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I certainly accept your apology. I believe we could easily work together. (It's uncanny how similar are our non-professional interests.)--John Foxe 15:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Calvinism invitation

You are cordially invited to participate in WikiProject Calvinism

The goal of WikiProject Calvinism is to improve the quality and quantity of information about Calvinism available on Wikipedia. WP:WikiProject Calvinism as a group does not prefer any particular tradition or denominination of Calvinism, but prefers that all Calvinist traditions are fairly and accurately represented.

[edit] Biographies?

I notice you specify an interest in biographies. Is there any chance you could do the tagging for some of the various Calvinist categories (as listed on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Calvinism Todo list)? If not, that's fine, but if you could let me know, that would be great!

I've also asked Flex (talk • contribs) to have a go at some of these too, so if you're doing some, you might want to tag the ones you plan to do before you do them.

-- TimNelson 05:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Great! I'm unsure what would suit you well. If you're familiar enough with the Congregationalist milieu to have some chance of recognising who's Calvinist and who isn't (even if the article doesn't say), then any of the Congregationalist categories would be great. Otherwise, maybe Presbyterians in <Insert your country here> would be most useful.
-- TimNelson 23:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for all your hard work on the Congregationalists. --TimNelson 03:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Calvinism news

Hi. I'm recommending to all participants in WikiProject Calvinism that they keep up with at least the News page ({{Wikipedia:WikiProject Calvinism/News}}) for this project. The methods I'd recommend for doing this are any or all of:

  • Add the abovementioned page to your watchlist
  • Include the page on another page you look at regularly; in my case, this is my user page, since I keep my personal "todo" list there. That would look something like:
News from WikiProject Calvinism

The new project WikiProject Calvinism has started.

[edit] Most important tasks

  • Please vote on our stub category
  • Help is still needed with the basic setting up phase. Tagging as a drive is indefinately on hold (see discussion at Talk page claims); feel free to work on assessment

[edit] Current discussions

Any important discussions -- any discussion inactive for a week should be removed

-- TimNelson 00:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

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