| Revision as of 10:59, 24 March 2014 editJohn Foxe (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers20,090 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:03, 25 March 2014 edit undoජපස (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers60,630 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 45: | Line 45: | ||
| :if you want to seriously propose that we identify Hams ideas as complete whackjob, please make an actual proposal. -- ] 20:57, 23 March 2014 (UTC) | :if you want to seriously propose that we identify Hams ideas as complete whackjob, please make an actual proposal. -- ] 20:57, 23 March 2014 (UTC) | ||
| ::Don't you think a larger audience should enjoy the benefit of your considered thought?--] (]) 10:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC) | ::Don't you think a larger audience should enjoy the benefit of your considered thought?--] (]) 10:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC) | ||
| == Pseudoscience Discretionary Sanctions Notification == | |||
| {{Ivm|2='''Please carefully read the following notice:''' | |||
| This message is to inform you that the Arbitration Committee have authorised ] for ] and ], which you may have edited. The Committee's decision can be read ]. | |||
| 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 ], expected ] and applicable ]. The sanctions may include ], topic bans, or ]. 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. | |||
| }}{{Z33}}<!-- Derived from Template:Ds/alert --> | |||
| Please note that ] such as is disruptive, a violation of ], and can result in Misplaced Pages administrators taking disciplinary action against you without further warning. | |||
| ] (]) 11:03, 25 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 11:03, 25 March 2014
- Archive 1: April 2006 - September 2006
- Archive 2: October 2006 - February 2008
- Archive 3: March 2008 - April 2009
- Archive 4: May 2009 - March 2011
- Archive 5: April 2011 - September 2011
- Archive 6: September 2011 - August 2013
| John Foxe — User talk — Contributions — Email |
Chartres Cathedral, also known as the Cathedral of Our Lady of Chartres, is a Catholic cathedral in Chartres, France, about 80 kilometres (50 miles) southwest of Paris. It is the seat of the bishop of Chartres. Mostly constructed between 1194 and 1220, it stands on the site of at least five cathedrals that have occupied the site since the Diocese of Chartres was formed as an episcopal see in the 4th century. It is one of the best-known and most influential examples of High Gothic and Classic Gothic architecture. Chartres Cathedral is known for its stained glass, and contains 167 stained-glass windows dating from the 12th century to the 20th century. This photograph shows the stained glass in the north transept of Chartres Cathedral. The rose window, which is 10.5 metres (34 feet) in diameter, was installed circa 1230 and contains imagery relating to the Virgin Mary and figures from the Old Testament. The presence of the coats of arms of King Louis IX and his mother Blanche of Castile are taken as a sign of royal patronage for this window. Below the rose are five lancet windows, each 7.5 metres (25 feet) tall, depicting Saint Anne and four Old Testament figures.Photograph credit: PtrQs
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)
- 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 Misplaced Pages.--John Foxe (]) 19:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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) |
- Thank you for those kind words.--John Foxe (talk) 14:44, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
please revert yourself
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)
- 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)
- Don't you think a larger audience should enjoy the benefit of your considered thought?--John Foxe (talk) 10:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
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 Misplaced Pages, 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.Please note that posting creationist propaganda such as this is disruptive, a violation of talkpage guidelines, and can result in Misplaced Pages administrators taking disciplinary action against you without further warning.