Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:45, 16 February 2015

• 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

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)

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

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.

Template:Z33

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.

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Thanks. I've reverted this edit for the same reason. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:07, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The Misplaced Pages Library: New Account Coordinators Needed

Hi Books & Bytes recipients: The Misplaced Pages 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: jorlowitzgmail.com. Thanks and cheers, Jake Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

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)

"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)

Looks good to me. Coinmanj (talk) 21:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks.--John Foxe (talk) 22:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

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)

Martie,

I did add the lyrics back in 2008, but someone else removed them, probably because they're still under copyright. Misplaced Pages'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)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages: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)

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)

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

ANI notification

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

Hello, I have closed this ANI report an not an administrative issue. I believe from the discussion and the evidence provided that you are making efforts to edit in a neutral fashion.

That being said the appearance of a conflict of interest may exist even if you are acting neutrally. Please understand that the appearance can be as damaging as the real thing. I recommend that you take extra efforts to discuss disputed changes on the talk page and entertain contrary opinions when it is reasonable to do so.

Have a nice day. Chillum 21:53, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you.--John Foxe (talk) 00:27, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Precious

follow truth
Thank you, veteran editor named after "a man of his own era, yet one who followed truth. He sometimes got the story wrong, but as his duty to God, he tried to get it right", for quality contributions to articles such as Bob Jones University including a logo, for Robert Sheffey and the Swamp rabbit trail, for maintaining article talk page archives, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

BLP violation

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Misplaced Pages about living (or recently deceased) persons. Thank you. Your recent violation of BLP policy on the Peter Ruckman article clearly violates the BLP guidelines as I warned on the article. Please self revert before I report to the BLP violations page. BLP violations are taken very seriously especially when they can be considered libel and are from very poor sources such as the blog you have inserted as a source for your claims about a living person. Thanks 208.54.39.193 (talk) 21:11, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I refuse. Either report me or express your complaints on the article talk page so that they can be discussed by the community.--John Foxe (talk) 21:45, 16 February 2015 (UTC)