User talk:John Foxe/Archive 2

I have nominated Fawn M Brodie Article
See the nomination here.

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

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

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)

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. CO GD EN  16:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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.

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)

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)

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).

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Johnny Rahm
You are an excellent editor. Many thanks.

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 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)

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)

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)

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. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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."

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)

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 WikiProject Calvinism Todo list)? If not, that's fine, but if you could let me know, that would be great!

I've also asked 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 &lt;Insert your country here&gt; 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)


 * (Re occupations) Interesting. I remember my parents saying that when the youth groups got together from the Reformed Presbyterians and the CRCA (ie. Dutch Reformed), the RPs were all nurses and teachers, and the CRCA people were all tradesmen.


 * Also, some more biography-related things that might interest (I presume you've seen these, but just in case):
 * WikiProject Calvinism
 * Portal:Calvinism/Bio Archive/Suggestions
 * -- TimNelson 15:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

thoroughly
Yes, I misssspelled, I misspell a lot of things. Also, I guess thoroughly does not make much sense where it is. Thank You--eskimospy(talk) 18:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

John Foxe page, etc
Yeah, I noticed the quality on the John Foxe article. Since it's so good, I'd recommend that that article be second in line for the Calvinism Biography collaborations -- right after John Calvin. You may even (after you get the article where you want it) want to help facilitate the progress of the article (see WikiProject Calvinism for details) towards FA status.

-- TimNelson 09:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I thought you might like to vote for this one: Portal:Calvinism/Bio Archive/Suggestions.
 * -- TimNelson 14:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The WikiProject Biography Newsletter: Issue II - April 2007
The April 2007 issue of the WikiProject Biography 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 BetacommandBot 18:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Reformed Egyptian
It is probably not wise to delete the content there and revert utnil the current issues are worked out on the talk page. Also, the second transcript article was deleted and merged into this one earlier today, and it should stay. I appreciate your understanding until this is fixed. -Visorstuff 00:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note on my talk page. I agree, and I think the more visibility we can give to the silliness, the faster it will be gotten rid of. I know we've not always gotten along, but I do respect you and your research and ultra-conservative writing style, and value your opinion. I think it is best we move slowly and point out why we are making the steps we are. Merkey just doesn't seem to get how wikipedia works, which is unfortunate. I'd love to see someone with as much passion and pride in his heritage as he has to transfer that into making wikipedia even better within his areas of expertise, but he needs serious schooling in how to do it. Thanks in advance for your patience. -Visorstuff 00:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

John, this may not be the best of times for you to continue to revert on the First Vision article. Give it a rest and limit your edits to the discussiong page and I will again make a request that all major editing stop. --Storm Rider (talk) 14:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I would be pleased (and surprised) if you could get the other folks to leave my version up for a few days unedited. In any case, I appreciate the thought.--John Foxe 17:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I also have to warn you about the 3RR, as you will be blocked for violation if this continues. I may end up protecting the page if this edit war is not discussed and worked out. -Visorstuff 00:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the page protection. I appreciate your patience.--John Foxe 13:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * John, you are disregarding the guidelines set forth for the releasing the page protection. Part of releasing it was specifically to promote discussion. If discussion does not take place, I will re-protect the page per the Protection policy. -Visorstuff 15:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with discussion. Let them discuss.  But if you want to protect the page again, that's fine with me too.--John Foxe 15:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * John you need to discuss as well. -Visorstuff 15:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll be happy to do that. Let them go first, for they "are many."--John Foxe 15:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)



First Vision - time for action
In order to be as fair and above board as possible, I thought I should let you know what I am doing. 74s181 14:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the efforts of Visorstuff to resolve the situation at First Vision. I now understand that he was hampered by his past involvement in this article and with John Foxe. No one is editing the article right now, but I believe that John Foxe's comments on the talk page demonstrate that he either cannot understand or refuses to comply with the WP:NPOV policy. I'm trying to gain a consensus on his inappropriate behavior, and I invite you, as a past contributor to this article, to add your comments to this discussion. If you think that my behavior also warrants criticism, I invite that as well. I will be posting this invitation on several other user talk pages, but with your past history on this article you might be aware of other editors who have walked away. Please feel free to let them know what is going on and invite their input at Talk:First_Vision. 74s181 13:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

RFM - First Vision
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Requests for mediation/First Vision, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Bob Nyanja
Mr. Nyanja has a Master of Arts in film and video production from Bob Jones University. While one could argue he is not extremely notable, he does, at least comparatively, seem to meet the criteria for appearing on the list. Protecting a controversial article from abuse is appreciated, but next time, please assume that an edit has been made in good faith and do a smidgen of research before dismissing others' contributions as "humorous vandalism." --Jim


 * Sorry, Jim. An edit from an ISP address about a BJU grad who's Kenyan filmmaker with an acclaimed entry in the "Zanzibar Film Festival" sounded like a joke to me.
 * I've removed what might be considered commercial advertising from the entry but added a link to an interview with Nyanja. If you have biographical information to share, I'd be happy to help you create a WP biography.  He's on the edge of notability at this point, but I think a good case can be made for him.  (By the way, you can sign your posts by typing four tildes.) All the best,John Foxe 10:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation
This message delivered: 16:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC).

Request for Arbitration - First Vision
I have submitted a request for arbitration with the Arbitration Committee. You are listed as a party. The arbitration process requires that all parties listed in an arbitration request must be notified. You have an opportunity to comment on the request at Requests_for_arbitration. 74s181 02:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Monroe Parker
A template has been added to the article Monroe Parker, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with db-author.

no third party sources for notability --just his autobiography DGG (talk) 19:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the warning. I bet I can find some additional sources.--John Foxe 19:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * yes, it look much better now--if you have problems with it, just ask me for help. Some of your other bios have similar problems, so you might want to take a look. for example, the ones on Alan Cropsey and Denny Verdin also need better sources; the Senate Republican web site is not really an independent source for the bio of the Republicans in the Senate, though it can be used for details. There should be news particles available easily enough. (But the articles are not in danger of deletion--all members, past or present, of a state legislature are considered notable--this rule is based on the assumption that news articles will always be findable. ) DGG (talk) 22:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your second look, and I appreciate your offer of help in the future.--John Foxe 10:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
I believe I understand the complaint or I identify with the feeling brought to the arbcom, but I also find you admirable (a much better editor than I am) and easy to like. Thanks for the barnstar under this odd circumstance. I suspect arbcom will not hear the case, but if they do I hope the results are all positive. --Blue Tie 22:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling and No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith
"Although in research and comprehensiveness No Man Knows My History has now been surpassed by Richard Lyman Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling" > there is not a single citation to back up the claim that the Bushman book is more comprehensive or better researched. I am restoring the 'citation needed' tags until the claims are added, or the language is changed. cOrneLlrOckEy 15:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Bushman's book is more than twice as long as Brodie's and his citations cover more than a hundred pages. Brodie's summary footnotes probably don't occupy a tenth of that space. Bushman is a distinguished historian; Brodie's degrees were in literature. Most important are the number of new sources that have become available over the past sixty years.  What else can I provide to satisfy your request?--John Foxe 15:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The number of citations in Bushman's book doesn't speak to quality or depth of research, it speaks to the number of citations. The length of book means that he was more verbose, not necessarily more comprehensive.  THe statement in the No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith article demands proof from a third-party source (a book review or third- party historian) specifically claiming that the Bushman book is better than Brodie's, or I could rewrite the language in the No Man Knows article to not make unproven claims. Thoughts? cOrneLlrOckEy 15:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well done. cOrneLlrOckEy 17:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks.--John Foxe 17:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Anger? Oh, yeah?
I'll see your Old Testament...

Isaiah 9:12 - emphasis added. "Therefore the Lord shall have no joy in their young men, neither shall have mercy on their fatherless and widows: for every one is an hypocrite and an evildoer, and every mouth speaketh folly. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still."

And I'll raise you a Book of Mormon:

Alma 10:23 "But it is by the prayers of the righteous that ye are spared; now therefore, if ye will cast out the righteous from among you then will not the Lord stay his hand; but in his fierce anger he will come out against you; then ye shall be smitten by famine, and by pestilence, and by the sword; and the time is soon at hand except ye repent."

No, I don't think I or the WP admins are The Lord, but my hand is stretched out still. I do not want you blocked from the article or banned from Wikipedia, I just want you to acknowledge that your behavior (WP:OWN, WP:REVERT, WP:NPOV) has been wrong and change it. 74s181 15:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

RFC/USER discussion concerning you (John Foxe)
Hello, John Foxe. Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry can be found by your name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at Requests for comment/John Foxe, where you may want to participate. -- 74s181 06:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I read your response to the RfC. Very Foxey, especially the part where you presented an out of context quote from my user page. In case you didn't notice, you ended the excerpt just before the part where I described how I would accomplish my agenda. Since you seem to have missed that part, I thought I would share it here, in context. I highlighted the part you left out, just to make sure you wouldn't miss it this time. 74s181 06:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * What does that mean in English? It means that I will work to ensure sure that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its doctrines and beliefs are fairly and accurately portrayed. I will do this by editing according to Wikipedia policies such as WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR. These three policies are the law of the land regarding content. If you think you have seen an example of where I have violated either the letter or the spirit of the laws of Wikipedia please bring it up on my talk page.

Although you have occassionally played the WP:NPOV card, it is interesting that you have never quoted or referenced any particular statements from the WP:NPOV policy. 74s181 06:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The Old Rugged Cross
Please do your research: Roland Kirk did indeed to a version of this piece on his 1972 album Blacknuss. The revert for "vandalism" was completely uncalled for.
 * I was wrong to assume vandalism despite the improbability of the information. Sorry.  I've restored your edit.--John Foxe 15:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Not a problem! It is an unlikely cover version but, as you may not be surprised to learn, I think Kirk's version is the best anyway :)

-ActionPif —Preceding unsigned comment added by ActionPif (talk • contribs) 17:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

And just how old am I?
John, you mentioned that we were about the same age. How old do you think I am? -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) (Talk) 03:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Since you just took your grandson to college, I know that you're over sixty for sure.--John Foxe 15:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleting / Archiving messages on talk page
John:

While it is true that you can delete messages on your talk page, it is considered by many to be bad form. Some even consider it a form of vandalism (or, more properly, a method of concealing vandalism). A more proper action would be to archive messages rather than delete them.

Deleting messages from the talk page can be seen as an attempt to conceal a dispute. It is not uncommon for others to restore the deleted messages to the talk page. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) (Talk) 23:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I rarely delete messages from my talk page unless they're inconsequential, originated by bots, or tendentiously offensive.--John Foxe 11:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment
John,

Because you are not bending to the will of 'some' WP editors, you may very well continue to be subjected to incidents like this. If you were to ask for help against the swarm perhaps the playing field would become level for you.

I find it ironic that one certain editor continually accuses you of trying to 'own' this article; when you check his edit history it becomes quite apparent who is attempting to own it. Keep fighting the good fight; there are those who would love to turn WP into an auxiliary lds training manual.

Perhaps some day you will also receive 'hate items' through the USPS, just as I have. That is when you will know that you've 'arrived' :>) Duke53 | Talk 11:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This "one certain editor" spends all of his time responding to John Foxe's WP:OWN behavior and doesn't have time for anything else.
 * This "one certain editor" doesn't delete or revert everything he disagrees with.
 * This "one certain editor" doesn't insist that WP articles treat his POV as 'fact'.
 * This "one certain editor" sometimes makes mistakes and quickly apologizes when they are pointed out.
 * This "one certain editor" values John Foxe's good faith contributions.
 * This "one certain editor" is disappointed that things have come to this.
 * This "one certain editor" still hopes that John Foxe will change his behavior.
 * This "one certain editor" says to Duke53: When the newspapers call for your death, when the governor of your state has you arrested, promises you will be kept safe, and then sends a mob to kill you in your jail cell, when you have to bury your wife and children in the snow along the trail as you are being driven out of the US, when the US govt., after failing to protect your religious freedom and encouraging a mob to drive you out of the country then sends an entire ARMY to seize everything you've built, when 150 years after your martyrdom there are still people who think that it was a good idea, THEN you will know that you've arrived. 74s181 13:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah yes, the mormons always being victims ... never contributing anything negative to any of their own problems. Zzzzz .... Duke53 | Talk 04:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

You invited me to send you an email...
...and I did, last Saturday, if you didn't receive it let me know and I'll try again. I didn't think to check my SPAM filtering until today, I added your email address. If you replied between Saturday and 2:25 PM CDT Monday then you will need to try again. 74s181 19:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, your first message didn't make it through, Les.--John Foxe 20:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Golden Plates--Strang section
Thanks for writing! I got two references in there for you on Strang: one for his "Voree plates," and one for his "Book of the Law of the Lord." For some reason, the list of references shown at the bottom of the article doesn't seem to go past #145; mine were somewhere in the 160's--but I did get them in there for you.

I've been working on editing and expanding the Wikipedia articles for Voree Plates and Laban (Book of Mormon) recently, and I'm hoping to work on the article for Book of the Law of the Lord soon. I've also been working on an article about James Strang himself for some time now, and hope to get it approved for "GA" status soon. Best of luck on your endeavors, and I hope to see this article in the "Featured" section soon!! --Ecjmartin 15:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I appreciate it.--John Foxe 18:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your email
This revert looks substantially different from your other three, and even though you were editing disruptively in my opinion, I am unblocking you out of good faith. Please do not edit war in the future.

I also apologize for not leaving you a block message, it must have slipped my mind somehow. <small style="background:#fff;border:#4682b4 1px solid;color:#000;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">east<big style="color:#090">. 718 at 06:12, 11/4/2007
 * Thanks, I certainly accept your apology. I appreciate that reexamination.--John Foxe 11:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Jonathan Edwards
Hi,

Could you weigh in on the move debate on Talk:Jonathan Edwards (theologian)? Thanks.Brian0324 18:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Oliver Cowdery
we seem to be getting into an edit war here. I am trying to make this encyclopedic, so that it is fair and balanced. I am trying to ensure that the language used is not loaded eg replacing 'claimed' with 'stated'. I am also trying to ensure that the arguments made are demonstrable rather than assumed. The quote that I removed has been removed because the writer says that Cowdery 'must have had' a copy of the Ethan Smith book; he then says shortly afterwards that Cowdery would have lent his copy to Joseph Smith. There are two assumptions in there. First, that Cowdery had a copy to lend to Joseph Smith, which the writer did not demonstrate, and secondly that Cowdery showed the purported copy to Joseph Smith. Neither is demonstrated in any way and thus remain either speculation or opinion. I think that there is a statement by Jospeh Smith himself that suggests he had read the Ethan Smith book; that would be good evidence. The opinion of a later writer is not good evidence. I would suggest that you track down that particular Joseph Smith quote rather than constantly reverting my changes.Iain1917 (talk) 10:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said on the article talk page, I am simply citing an expert, and his position, even if speculative opinion,is authoritative unless countered by other experts.--John Foxe (talk) 16:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh come on! There is nothing authoritative about opinion.  Nor is there anything encyclopedic about opinion.  If we start using opinion as authority, then Wikipedia becomes entirely pointless as it becomes a series of opinion pieces all mired in edit wars.  If a point cannot be verified through fact, it is not going to become verified through opinion.  If it is the man's opinion, then it immediately opens the way for a rebuttal along the lines of 'yes, but he's an anti-mormon, so he would say that, wouldn't he?'.  That doesn't really help in trying to create encyclopedia entries, does it? - Iain1917 (talk) 14:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * At Wikipedia assertions must be backed by expert testimony. I can't say anything personally about the theory of relativity; but if I footnote my statement with a quotation from Einstein, then the statement stands even though it's only Einstein's opinion.--John Foxe (talk) 17:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * So you would be happy to have Richard Dawkins' opinion on a page about creationism, where his opinion is being used to support an assertion that creationists are deliberately distorting facts to support untenable beliefs? Perhaps not.  The only way that Wikipedia will work is if you state that some writers have proposed a particular idea, and reference their work, but only state (either in the text or in the footnotes) matters of fact.  An encyclopedia should not be full of fights and opinions, it should be a statement of what is accepted as factual, together with, where appropriate, a statement of the competing theories or beliefs regarding those facts, but not taking a position on which of the theories is the correct one. - Iain1917 (talk) 10:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

First Vision reverts
So, now you're getting Duke53 to do your dirty work? Very Foxey indeed, but I am a bit surprised. 74s181 (talk) 20:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Duke53 and I have never communicated about First Vision, although I have thanked him for his encouragement in the past. I admit that it would be nice to have a non-Mormon ally at Mormon articles, but I long ago promised not to create sock puppets or attempt to recruit others to support my views.  That's a promise I've kept and intend to keep.--John Foxe  21:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 74s181, consider this a warning about making personal attacks. Your insinuation that I am doing 'dirty work' (especially 'for' someone else) is not cool. I happen to agree with the other editor and think that you are wrong; attacking people who hold opposing viewpoints will not get you far in Wikipedia. <font face="raphael" color="green">Duke53 | Talk 00:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

hello
hello>i am a new member here. I have a account at (ar.wikipedia) :) do you know a member his age 15 years..hope you read this messege like a friend --Osamahw (talk) 17:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok..thank you...nice too meet you...hope we still contacting that if you want..again nice too meet you --Osamahw (talk) 10:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Rough Stone Rolling
I noticed that you added a quote from Richard Bushman concerning his penchant for allowing Joseph Smith's stories. Where did you get this quote? Please cite it. Thanks! ukforever (talk) 20:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The citation was at the end of the reference, and I switched its position to clarify its origin. Salve atque vale.--John Foxe (talk) 00:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It's now much more clear! Thanks. You've studied Latin? ukforever (talk) 23:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Cognovi.--John Foxe (talk) 20:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Mormonism and history merge proposal
Please weigh in on the merger proposal between History of the Latter Day Saint movement and Mormonism and history. I saw that you were a recent contributor of one of the pages in question, and thought you would be interested.--Descartes1979 (talk) 21:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Featured article review : Golden plates
Golden plates has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Serpent&#39;s Choice (talk) 19:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)