User talk:74.76.88.219

Thanks for your edit on James Hall Office. However, as I indicated in my summaries to my subsequent edits, while the information was out of date and you were right to take some action on that basis simply deleting it was overkill, as the footnote in question is used to support assertions elsewhere in the article and deleting it created a problem with those sections of the article. So I restored the footnote and reworded the lede, as you can see from the article as it is now.

Once again, thank you for your contribution. Daniel Case (talk) 20:42, 31 January 2016 (UTC)