Jump to content

User talk:John Foxe

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Eustress (talk | contribs) at 21:56, 18 December 2014 (ANI pursuant to COIN). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


  John Foxe — User talk — Contributions — Email  
Welcome to my talk page. Please click here to leave me a message.


X-ray
X-rays are a form of high-energy electromagnetic radiation, with wavelengths shorter than those of ultraviolet rays and longer than those of gamma rays – roughly in the range of 0.01 to 10 nanometres. X-rays were discovered by German scientist Wilhelm Röntgen in 1895, who named them X-radiation to signify an unknown type of radiation. X-rays can penetrate many solid substances such as construction materials and living tissue, and X-ray radiography is widely used in medical diagnostics. This medical significance was noticed by Röntgen shortly after he discovered X-rays; this print, titled Hand mit Ringen (Hand with Rings), is a print of his first medical X-ray, taken of his wife Anna Bertha Ludwig's hand in December 1895.Print credit: Wilhelm Röntgen; restored by Yann Forget
Archive – More featured pictures...

BRB

I was about to revert you here but I held off because I didn't want to welcome you back in that manner. That said, could I perhaps convince you to address 208's core concern (WP:OR), taking it to the talk page before hitting the revert button (BRD style as opposed to BRR, or BRB)? ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Each of my edits was different and each an attempt to meet his objection. By limiting the current statement to the content of the official LDS website, I think the statement avoids WP:OR. But I'd certainly be willing to discuss the matter here or at the article. Of course, my original sentence ("No official LDS Church history has ever portrayed Smith's translation in this way") is correct and would be acceptable in a peer-reviewed journal—just not at Wikipedia.--John Foxe ([[User talk:John Foxe#top|]]) 19:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're probably right that it would be OK in a peer reviewed article, though you'd probably have to define "official church history". I noticed that they weren't straight-up reverts, thus the slightly punny title of "BRB" :-). It looks as if a talk page discussion has been started anyway. ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By no "official church history," I meant Joseph Smith is never portrayed looking in a hat in any picture produced or authorized by the LDS Church.--John Foxe (talk) 21:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
For writing Monaghan Mill - a lovely new article :). (well, newish) Ironholds (talk) 12:19, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for those kind words.--John Foxe (talk) 14:44, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fawn Brodie

Thanks for your appreciation on Fawn Brodie. I remain interested that she learned and documented so much about Hemings-Jefferson and their descendants, and was so much ignored at the time. The power of wishful thinking. At last the consensus has joined her.Parkwells (talk) 13:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more agnostic about the Jefferson-Hemings connection, but that skepticism doesn't lessen my appreciation for your copy editing skills.--John Foxe (talk) 23:58, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

please revert yourself

[1] Of course there is reason to archive the discussion. An edit request was made, the consensus was a resounding NO, and the discussion now has no possibility of leading to changes to the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:56, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

if you want to seriously propose that we identify Hams ideas as complete whackjob, please make an actual proposal. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:57, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you think a larger audience should enjoy the benefit of your considered thought?--John Foxe (talk) 10:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudoscience Discretionary Sanctions Notification

Please carefully read the following notice:

This message is to inform you that the Arbitration Committee have authorised discretionary sanctions for pseudoscience and fringe science, which you may have edited. The Committee's decision can be read here.

Discretionary sanctions are intended to prevent further disruption to a topic which has already been significantly disrupted. In practical terms, this means that uninvolved administrators may impose sanctions for any conduct, within or relating to the topic, which fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, expected standards of behavior and applicable policies. The sanctions may include editing restrictions, topic bans, or blocks. Before making any more edits to this topic area, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system as sanctions can be imposed without further warning. Please do not hesitate to contact me or any other editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33

Please note that posting creationist propaganda such as this is disruptive, a violation of talkpage guidelines, and can result in Wikipedia administrators taking disciplinary action against you without further warning.

jps (talk) 11:03, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the sentence that's supposed to be disruptive: "I agree that science is falsifiable. Origins are not falsifiable and therefore not "science" in the normal meaning of that word."--John Foxe 19:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Smith

Please notify me the next time Joseph Smith goes up as FAC. It seems that most people were too scared to jump on board last time, but I would be pleased to help resolve any remaining issues in the article. Shii (tock) 14:50, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to do that; but I suggest that Adjwilley and Jgstokes would be more knowledgeable about plans to nominate Joseph Smith again. All the best, John Foxe (talk) 13:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, John, while I appreciate the many helpful tweaks you've been making at the Joseph Smith article, I couldn't help but notice that your edit summaries are exceptionally vague, and don't always reflect the changes you are making. As the content you are changing is stuff that has been argued over for years, I feel it is important to at the very least justify substantive changes in the edit summary. (Note however that I disagree with Jgstoke's comments that substantive changes need to be first justified on the talk page...I feel that's going too far...but some justification is necessary.) I reverted the latest two edits, but left the rest of your changes intact. (This one in particular was more than just "stylistic tweaks".) In the future, may I ask that you make more use of the edit summaries, describing what you are changing and why it needs to be changed? Thanks. P.S. I didn't initiate the last FA review, and I don't really have any specific plans for one in the future. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:46, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to be more careful about my explanations in the future. Usually I'm just trying to make the prose more readable. And when I've made substantive changes, they've been adapted directly from the sources cited.--John Foxe (talk) 19:17, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've reverted this edit for the same reason. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:07, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And I've done the same. Feel free to discuss it with me on the talk page. I'm in no rush.--John Foxe (talk) 14:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you might have misunderstood my intentions here. I am trying to convince you to use valid edit summaries when you make significant changes. When you are trying to change a long-standing wording that is the result of discussion and consensus, it is your responsibility to provide a good reason for doing so. You can sometimes get away with vague or missing edit summaries when you have accumulated a certain amount of trust with the community, but when you use misleading edit summaries you quickly lose that trust and are more likely to be reverted by edit-summary-snobs like myself. Does that make sense? ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:30, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No. I'm most interested in improving style. If I say something's a "stylistic tweak," and you don't think I've improved the style (or if you think I've significantly changed the content in the process), you ought to be able to tell me why you think so.--John Foxe (talk) 19:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that I should be able to justify my revert (and I can), but it sounds like you're saying that you shouldn't have to justify your edits. Could you perhaps be more specific about what doesn't make sense in my previous post? ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:37, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If I believe something's a stylistic improvement, and you say it's not, we're (at least theoretically) at an impasse unless you explain your rationale. Would you be satisfied with edit summaries that say "better syntax" or "fewer words"?--John Foxe (talk) 14:04, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon for butting in, but I think the purely stylistic tweaks are a red herring. I believe Adjwilley's concern (which I share) is regarding vague edit summaries for "tweaks" that go beyond stylistic adjustments and alter the tone, focus, or substance of the material. "Serious tweaks", "some stylistic tweaks but some substantive ones as well", and "stylistic tweaks with some substantive overtones" fail to disclose the nature of the substantive changes. On the other hand, edit summaries such as "removed sentence; it improperly quotes Brodie by ignoring her statement that those years consisted largely of ecclesiastical trials for drinking, sexual misbehavior, and heresy" and "some substantive changes to highlight Smith's dabble with the Methodist church during the summer of 1828" provide helpful insight into the nature and aims of those edits. alanyst 14:41, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I can do that. But I really am mostly interested in style: pruning word count, cleaning up syntax, etc. Clean prose in volume can itself be substantive change.--John Foxe (talk) 21:28, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library: New Account Coordinators Needed

Hi Books & Bytes recipients: The Wikipedia Library has been expanding rapidly and we need some help! We currently have 10 signups for free account access open and several more in the works... In order to help with those signups, distribute access codes, and manage accounts we'll need 2-3 more Account Coordinators.

It takes about an hour to get up and running and then only takes a couple hours per week, flexible depending upon your schedule and routine. If you're interested in helping out, please drop a note in the next week at my talk page or shoot me an email at: jorlowitz@gmail.com. Thanks and cheers, Jake Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sisera

You recently reverted my edit on the article Sisera saying I repeated material. As you know, the lead introduces the topic and provides some context. I knew nothing of the topic and so I wanted to make it clear that Barak was a general, as opposed to a king or other rank, especially since it's not mentioned in the rest of the article. Plus, I shouldn't need to read another article to know who the key people are in a lead. And I added that the topic source flows from religious texts since there doesn't seem to be any evidence that these were real-world people or events (at least not that's within the article). My edit was really simple, clarified some things, and didn't detract from anything. Having said that, unless you strongly object, I'm going to re-do my last edit. If you do object we can discuss it further. Coinmanj (talk) 19:55, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"General" sounds odd to me, since the Bible doesn't call him that, and I think if you check other articles about biblical characters or those in the mythologies of other religions (including Barak and the Hindu god Shiva), there's no attempt to add words like "according to religious texts." That's understood from the context. But there's certainly room for compromise. See if you're satisfied with how I've modified the lead.--John Foxe (talk) 01:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. Coinmanj (talk) 21:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.--John Foxe (talk) 22:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Old Rugged Cross

John,

I am contacting you about this because (A) it is not clear as to how to add something to the talk page for the specific article I am referencing; and (B) you commented on someone else's "talk".

Concerning the page for "The Old Rugged Cross", it states that, "it speaks of the writer's Christian experience rather than his adoration of God." It's interesting that the reason I searched for information on this song in the first place was that I was contemplating the words to the chorus. Clearly whoever wrote this article does not understand what George Bennard was referring to. This song is about his experience AND his adoration of God. Christians who are saved by grace through faith understand the sacrifice God made when He sent His only Son to die on that cross, so that we could be forgiven of our sins. Jesus (the son of God and God incarnate) took our sins upon Him on that cross. So yes, we adore and love God with all our hearts because we experience His perfect grace and love. So I'm asking that the sentence be removed or corrected to reflect the truth.

Also, you commented on the person's post who asked that the lyrics of the song be added to the text of the song's page. You replied, "Done." However, in viewing the page today, there are still no lyrics.

Thank you,

Martie Vacek East Moline IL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.82.122.44 (talk) 14:24, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Martie,
I did add the lyrics back in 2008, but someone else removed them, probably because they're still under copyright. Wikipedia's sensitive about such things.
To add a new subject to an article talk page, click on "New section" at the top of the page, and then add your comment.
I can't remember if I wrote the line that you've mentioned, but I'll defend it to the extent of noting that the fundamental difference between a hymn and a gospel song is that the latter reflects personal experience by including many first-person pronouns while a hymn directs one's thought directly towards God. In "The Old Rugged Cross," I think there are 6 personal pronouns in four verses and 3 in the chorus. Compare, by contrast, "All Hail the Power of Jesus' Name".--John Foxe (talk) 18:52, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New Wikipedia Library Accounts Now Available (November 2014)

Hello Wikimedians!

The TWL OWL says sign up today :)

The Wikipedia Library is announcing signups today for, free, full-access accounts to published research as part of our Publisher Donation Program. You can sign up for:

  • DeGruyter: 1000 new accounts for English and German-language research. Sign up on one of two language Wikipedias:
  • Fold3: 100 new accounts for American history and military archives
  • Scotland's People: 100 new accounts for Scottish genealogy database
  • British Newspaper Archive: expanded by 100+ accounts for British newspapers
  • Highbeam: 100+ remaining accounts for newspaper and magazine archives
  • Questia: 100+ remaining accounts for journal and social science articles
  • JSTOR: 100+ remaining accounts for journal archives

Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: sign up today!
--The Wikipedia Library Team 23:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

You can host and coordinate signups for a Wikipedia Library branch in your own language. Please contact Ocaasi (WMF).
This message was delivered via the Mass Message to the Book & Bytes recipient list.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Wilkins House (Greenville, South Carolina), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Civil War. 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) 09:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

Information icon 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. —Eustress 23:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BJU

I think it would be prudent for you to cease editing Bob Jones University while the above COI investigation is going on. —Eustress 23:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be happy to do that if you promise to do the same.--John Foxe (talk) 23:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New Wikipedia Library Accounts Now Available (December 2014)

Hello Wikimedians!

The TWL OWL says sign up today :)

The Wikipedia Library is announcing signups today for, free, full-access accounts to published research as part of our Publisher Donation Program. You can sign up for:

Other partnerships with accounts available are listed on our partners page. Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: sign up today!
--The Wikipedia Library Team.00:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

You can host and coordinate signups for a Wikipedia Library branch in your own language. Please contact Ocaasi (WMF).
This message was delivered via the Mass Message tool to the Book & Bytes recipient list.

ANI notification

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —Eustress 21:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:John_Foxe&oldid=638697261"