User talk:John Foxe/Archive 6

A brownie for you!

I just wanted to say thank you for the time you put into the JS article these past few days, and especially for fixing my sloppy wording and mistakes. I'm glad we were able to work together this time around, and I really appreciated effort you put into it. -- Adjwilley (talk) 21:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

You're most welcome. I'm also an amateur classical musician if you ever need assistance in that part of the wiki-world. All the best. John Foxe (talk) 21:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, there is a project on the music side I have been thinking about where I could use a second opinion. I enjoy finding songs and movies that quote the Dies Irae, and I think it would be fun to make a list of such songs somewhere on Wikipedia. This old version of the Dies Irae article could be a good starting point for the list. Do you think such a list would be appropriate, and do you have any experience with lists and categories? -- Adjwilley (talk) 23:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I've only done one list as a spin off from an overly long article, and of movies and popular music I'm close to ignorant. To me the Dies Irae is Mozart or Verdi. Sitting here I can almost feel the physicality of whacking the violin and viola in the Verdi. But your notion sounds fine to me. I'd be glad to help if there's something for me on the classical end of things.--John Foxe (talk) 01:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, you're talking about Requiems...I'm talking about a specific tune that's been used in some requiems and masses. Once you get to know the tune, you hear it quoted everywhere. (Rachmaninoff seems to have been obsessed with it, but I usually associate it with Symphonie fantastique by Berlioz.) Anyway, probably more than you ever wanted to know. Thanks -- Adjwilley (talk) 02:57, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, right, I understand. I guess my biggest question would be whether the tune you're hearing is really the Dies Irae or plain song in general. How many intervals have to be the same? The question is something like the old joke about Freudianism, that almost everything in the real world can be viewed as either rounded or as long and pointed. Might we, for instance, find hymns in the LDS hymnal that could be construed as mirroring the Dies Irae?--John Foxe (talk) 13:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I just wanted to apologize if things seemed heated over on JS yesterday. I had written the paragraph in haste, as a suggestion of how a new first paragraph might look, but as things progressed I began defending it as if it were a well-thought out and polished piece of work, which it was not. I wrote it last minute, basically plugging bullet points into the equation for a lead paragraph that I found in the MOS.

To answer your question on the Dies Irae, I think the tune is well-known enough that it would be hard for a composer to quote it by accident. I know that it comes up in music lit classes, and I've been to two live symphony concerts where the conductor gave an explanation of the tune, and told us where to listen for it in a particular work. Four notes is usually enough to pick it out. Seven is about as blatant as you can get. In my experience, it's often used as a leitmotif for some kind of impending doom. For example, if you've seen the movie It's a Wonderful Life, they quote it near the end as George Bailey is running from the police car and praying to get his life back.-- Adjwilley (talk) 00:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

No apology necessary. It's a pleasure to work with you. I respect the views of anyone susceptible to rational argument, especially any such person who shows up at Joseph Smith.

I flipped through the LDS hymnal and found two hymns that start off with the first four notes of the Dies Irae: "Know This, That Every Soul is Free" (240) and "Welcome, Welcome, Sabbath Morning" (280). More interesting would be going through the plainsong repertoire to see how many of those melodies have patterns similar to the Dies Irae. Having said that, I have no doubt there really are classical composers who've deliberately used the motif and probably a number of film score composers as well. But regarding popular culture I'm perfectly useless. I know what "It's a Wonderful Life" is, but I've never watched it.--John Foxe (talk) 14:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I suppose I was wrong about just needing four notes, illustrating the perils of doing original research :-) A minor tonality would have been in order too. Those songs certainly don't convey any sort of impending doom. I'm impressed that you found them so easily, and I'm surprised that you own an LDS hymnal. I guess I hadn't pegged you as the type. Also, thank you for your recent edit - I like the way you combined the two sentences. It reads much better than I expected it to. -- Adjwilley (talk) 21:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. (Why wouldn't you think an amateur musician with an interest in Mormonism might own the LDS hymnal? :)--John Foxe (talk) 22:11, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Early life of Joseph Smith

John, With all due respect, I feel that we should keep a safe distance from the Featured Article, Early life of Joseph Smith. If there is rewriting to be done, I think it should be done by COgden, or other neutral editors. I have wanted to make changes to the Early life article myself, but I have refrained, feeling that the Featured Article authors should be the ones to make changes to the Featured Article. After all, Early Life reached F.A. status after only a couple hundred revisions, while Joseph Smith is still a B-class article after a few thousand.

I haven't been on Wikipedia very long, but there seems to be a certain amount of controversy that follows you around. My fear is that if you get involved in the Early life of Joseph Smith the ensuing battles would ultimately damage the article. If it were a C-class article, I wouldn't give it a second thought, but the fact that it's a Featured article makes me very nervous.

On a different note, I know that I don't have a lot of experience, but I really would like to work with you (as opposed to against you) on Joseph Smith. I felt like we were very productive when we were working on the "Death" section together, but at other times, I've felt completely blocked by the gridlock, animosity, and polarization that seems to be so prevalent on the talk page. I'm certain there are other editors who feel the same way – neutral editors who would love to get in there and fix things, but who don't have the time, energy, or interest to fight for every change tooth-and-nail.

Anyway, I really hope though that you could back down a little and perhaps give people a little room to edit without assuming they're doing so with some agenda or point of view. I'd like a little space, myself, because I really do think I could improve the article. I'd love to see the article get to a G.A. or a F.A., like the Early Life, but I don't think it will get there unless the heavily biased editors (on both sides) voluntarily back off a little and give the people in the middle a chance. (Please note: I'm not calling myself one of those middle editors, though I am trying very hard to be one.)

I apologize for the length of the post; I didn't intend to say all that, but that's how I've been feeling for a while. Thank you again for your collaboration. -- Adjwilley (talk) 01:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I think Early life of Joseph Smith was wrongly granted FA status. It's poorly written, and the fact that it doesn't mention Smith's seer stone in the lead is prima facie evidence of bias.--John Foxe (talk) 14:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Having been around during two of COgden's attempts at trying to get Joseph Smith to FA status, I'll warn you now that you won't like what happens when you give it a try. First of all, there will be countless unhelpful changes (sometimes dozens in a single day) made by folks who know nothing about Mormonism, and then the article will eventually be turned down for FA status because it's too pro-Mormon. (You'd probably be amused by my posts during those periods, having to argue that, really, the article's balanced, it's not too pro-Mormon.)--John Foxe (talk) 14:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I haven't been around long enough to see any article change ranking, and I've been wondering for a while how one goes about getting the review started. I have a certain C-class article I've spent a lot of time on, which I think could become a B. I have never seen the discussion for the Joseph Smith FA review, but it certainly sounds entertaining :-) -- Adjwilley (talk) 15:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Stick around and eventually you'll be entertained. As for your C-class article, you might first try peer review. I'd be glad to do copy editing even if I'm clueless about the subject.--John Foxe (talk) 21:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Looking for ideas at 'Free Presbyterian'

Hey John.

Still not comfortable with what you're doing at Joseph Smith, but I need to put on my other hat. I'm over at Free Presbyterian (Ulster). I don't know how you ended up there, but you seem to be the only contributor so I'll ask for your input to my questions there. I'm not stalking, I stumbled on this one by coincidence (I think it was in linking George Romney to the Oxford Group which connected to Free Presbyterianism). More likely attests to your commitment at WP. Anyway, my two questions center around clarifying what the connection of the Free Presbyterians is to the larger Presbyterian Church, as well as a suggestion to adding the links to Christianity and Protestantism. As to the question at JS, I would suggest attributing authorship to anonymous with a caveat or qualifier.

--Canadiandy talk 08:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I can't remember editing at Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster. I've edited (with a number of others) at Free Presbyterian Church of North America, where you left the messages on the talk page. Feel free to add cited material to that article just as I've added cited material to Joseph Smith. As teachers we regularly improve our knowledge through reading, and I'd encourage you to do just that.--John Foxe (talk) 14:23, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

My mistake, it was at Free Presbyterian Church of North America. I was merely adding my initial thoughts for improvement at the article about how it reads to non-researcher visitors. I don't think you'll find any disrespect in my questions, in fact one of my thoughts is to link FP to 'Christianity'.--Canadiandy talk 06:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I read your comments and found no disrespect. Feel free to study the subject. I'll be glad to help with any additions you'd care to make to the article.--John Foxe (talk) 16:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Book of Martyrs as cultural reference point

Hallo, I've been editing the table and inserting images of different editions of the Book on the new Acts and Monuments page.

I am sorry you felt my addition to the Book of Martyrs page was an intrusion - let me assure you at once that I don't work for anybody, and making one polite cultural reference from one Wikipedia page to another, with a citation externally, is an unlikely means of spamming.

The point I was trying to make was that Foxe is still a point of departure for 21st century popular culture, and while audiences today probably cannot be assumed to have read Foxe, poster designers can still in 2011 assume that audiences will appreciate the reference. (And I happen to think that the poster was lively, witty, and imaginatively conceived, but perhaps that goes beyond the purely encyclopedic.) I'm sorry if I didn't express it terribly eloquently.

Would there be a better way we could say it, such as by having a small section "Foxe's Book of Martyrs in popular culture", perhaps? I would be happy to look out other modern references. The point, however trivial it may look, is worth stating because it shows that Foxe retains relevance today, however much society has changed.

with my best wishes, Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to question a good faith edit, but it looked like spam to me. In any case, I'm not convinced such ephemera is significant enough to include in the article text. Why don't you put up a link to the ad on the article talk page and explain your rationale for wanting to include it? That may bring in other points of view.--John Foxe (talk) 19:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. OK, I'll think about how to put it better with some more examples, and then maybe suggest an approach on the article's talk page. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Good. All the best, John Foxe (talk) 19:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

A word of advice

I've been watching your recent interactions with User:BOMC at Three Witnesses and David Whitmer, and I thought I'd offer a word of advice. Though BOMC has an oldish account, he has fewer than 100 edits, and appears to be a relatively new user who doesn't even know how to use a watchlist yet, judging by the fact that he didn't notice your reverts until after he started editing again. Also, he seemed to be making constructive good faith edits, with a reasonable number of citations. My advice is, rather than repeatedly revert all of his additions, that you engage him civily on the talk page, pointing out any specific problems with his work. I say this not because I want to get involved in your affairs or because I agree with his edits, but because I was a new editor not so long ago, and if Wikipedia wants to stop losing new editors, then I think the old editors need to be a little nicer. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I applaud you for creating a section on the discussion page and on BOMC's talk page. I was already in the process of interfering and writing my notes by the time I saw those. Sorry again for butting in. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks.--John Foxe (talk) 19:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

On a completely unrelated note, I've noticed that lots of biographies include the signature of the subject. Do you know anything about that, like when it's appropriate to include that and when it's not? I ask because when you encouraged me to read Quinn's book on magic I ended up with a used autographed copy. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Like you, I've come across signatures that might be added to articles, but I've never added any. It's a Golden Rule thing: I know I wouldn't want my own signature added to a Wikipedia page. (Recently someone added the names of children to the article of a living person that I had edited. I thought the kids were unnecessary, but I left the edit alone. Then the individual himself (or a relative) removed them as an invasion of privacy. And I agreed with that judgment.)--John Foxe (talk) 20:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a good guideline. Thanks. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

JS RFC

We've been going back and forth for three weeks now over the First Vision paragraph, and I feel we're going in circles again. Perhaps it's time for an RFC of some sort. I don't have a whole lot of experience with those, so do you think it would be better to do a private one (perhaps leaving a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement) or a formal, community-wide RFC? I've taken the liberty of preparing a possible framework here, if you're interested in contributing or framing an argument or whatnot. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm just so ignorant of the technical side of Wikipedia. Trying to do stuff like this in the past, I've always seemed to make some dumb mistake that someone else had to come along and correct.

As a proponent of succinctness, I'd prefer just giving my one sentence and whichever version of yours you like best. I think the fewer words posted, the more likely we are to get a answer that doesn't go careening off in every direction.--John Foxe (talk) 19:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

That sounds fairly reasonable. What if I cut out the two tries that we've both already abandoned (my first revision, and your first revision) leaving the initial, the current, my proposal, and your proposal? Would you be interested in writing a 1-2 sentence argument supporting your version? I was thinking of having something like,

• Adjwilley argues that the paragraph gives due weight to the First Vision in the context in which it's presented in reliable sources (i.e. Smith's early life), and that it reflects the story as it is described in the sources.
• John Foxe argues that the paragraph pushes a Mormon POV, and that it doesn't belong in the Early life section because there's no historical evidence that the First Vision occurred in 1820, and it didn't become important to Momronism until much later.

Those would both need a little polishing, but would something like that be reasonable? ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I have no substantive objection. I'd tweak the wording a bit...but then I'd always tweak the wording.--John Foxe (talk) 22:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. If you'd like to tweak it right here, I can copy it over. I'd like to get this going soon if possible, since I'm going to be away tomorrow. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I think I'll probably cut it down to three options: the current version, my recommendation, and your recommendation. Feel free to add back the Dec version if you want. I'll be posting the RFC in a couple of minutes probably. Thanks for the advice. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

CONFLICT OF INTEREST INQUIRY

I am letting you know that I have initiated a Wikipedia:COI inquiry on the Talk:Three_Witnesses pending a possible reporting to the Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard. Also, I have a request on the Talk:Three_Witnesses for you state what your interest is there. Thanks.BOMC (talk) 20:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Article review

Hello, I don't think we've ever interacted, but I noticed that you are a theology expert. I've been working on improving some articles on unorthodox American religious figures and movements lately. A couple users and I have been working on Prosperity theology, my next project will be on leaders of the snake handling movement. Prosperity theology has been nominated for featured status, and if you have time/interest, I'd love if you could take a look at the article or weigh in at the review. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 22:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I enjoyed reading the article. I'm more a history than theology guy, but the exposition seemed reasonable to me. I've made what I hope are some stylistic improvements. Can't hit the mark every time, but I hope you'll agree with a majority of the edits. Any substantive change was inadvertent.--John Foxe (talk) 23:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for helping, I liked your prose tweaks. Hope your week goes well, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:38, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey, it's me again. Feel absolutely free to ignore this message (really), but another user and I have just brought George Went Hensley to FAC and I'd be thrilled if you reviewed/gave some stylistic improvements to it. The article is about one of the more quixotic figures of Appalachian Christianity, whose windmills eventually proved his undoing. But anyway, don't feel obligated and thanks for your help last time. Mark Arsten (talk) 09:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I was truly surprised by interest in this article. After making a few stylistic contributions, I decided I'd wait until the editing slowed a bit before trying again (if you'd like me to). I had never heard of Hensley. It's pleasant to think that Nemesis occasionally shows her hand even in the modern world.--John Foxe (talk) 01:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Joseph Smith

John don't understand why my adds were removed. The info posted is factually accurate, and uses two sources that have already been used on this page. I also use a NPOV. Please explain?Bilbobag (talk) 13:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

When making significant changes to controversial articles, it's considered polite to first discuss the changes on the article talk page. I have no problem with the content per se, but I think your emphasis may be WP:UNDUE. All the best,--John Foxe (talk) 23:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Understand. Have modified it, and added a single line, in a neutral voice, to Smith and Seer stone page. Thought this would not be considered "significant", eliminated words like "hauled into court" to add NPOV. Hope this helps. Thx for quick reply. Best.Bilbobag (talk) 13:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

In Talk page for Joseph Smith I've added proposed language. Would appreciate your commentsBilbobag (talk) 21:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I've done that.--John Foxe (talk) 22:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Two New Sections - Seer Stones (LDS)

Hello John, You reverted my changes and suggested discussion on the talk page. What kind of discussion do you expect and how do we get that discussion going? How long of a discussion will justify my edits? It seems that there will be no discussion without my changes being posted so others can see them. I've posted my justifications on the Talk page. My information is well known. It's not radical or fringe. It's well documented. It clarifies many previous misconceptions. Your Thoughts? thanks, SunKider (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC).

Your proposed changes seem to be based on what Wikipedia calls original research, that is, a personal interpretation of primary sources. Odd as it often seems to new editors, Wikipedia privileges secondary sources over primary sources. So to make the changes that you've advocated, you'd need to cite secondary sources like Bushman, Quinn, or Vogel rather than primary sources like Whitmer or Joseph Smith. (You can sign your posts by typing four tildes.)--John Foxe (talk) 21:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

John, thanks for the note. Almost all of my references are from Quin. I'll have to learn the proper way to cite them. RE: primary sources: I'm not making any interpretations, I'm giving the exact words of these witnesses. Even though secondary is preferred, isn't it still acceptable to use some primary sources? Also, should I post my proposed changes on my talk page for others to see and comment on? SunKider (talk) 07:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Because it's so easy to promulgate personal interpretations of primary sources by inclusion and exclusion, Wikipedia emphasizes secondary sources: "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised."

It's preferable to post proposed changes on the article talk page rather than your own talk page; that way, everyone who's has the article on his watchlist can contribute to the discussion.--John Foxe (talk) 14:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Timeline

John, if I might offer a word of advice... When making reverts like this, instead of an inflammatory edit summary like "too much Mormon POV and trivia", why not use a gentler, solution-based approach? The edit summary could have been, "This table is not yet complete, and is missing many important events. Let's talk about this on the talk page", or "For some reason this table is poking out into the Lead. Let's try to format it correctly", or "I don't think this article needs an expandable timeline. Let's discuss this on the talk page". Kww's recent revert summary of "treats religious beliefs as factual" works too. Accusing somebody of "Mormon POV" only serves to make them feel threatened and angry, and sparks time-wasting discussions like this. Besides, "Mormon POV" is not well-defined, and I'd guess that most people interpret it differently than you do anyway.

As for the idea of having a timeline in the article, I don't really care for it myself, but it's something I could live with. If you, on the other hand, do oppose it, I'd advise you to make that clear on the talk page, and soon. It would be wrong to make the IP editor put a lot of work into a project that will never make it into the article anyway because you have several reasons for opposing it up you sleeve, but you only pull them out, one at a time, when you need to revert.

Anyway, that's just a suggestion, based on my own experience and opinions. Hope it helps. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Although I appreciate the spirit in which you make the suggestion, the fact of the matter is that that IP timeline was full of both trivia and Mormon POV. I don't oppose a timeline per se, but fleshing it out will require new hassles when what we really need is good will and stability. (Should the First Vision be given an 1820 date? Should we note the polygamous marriages? etc.)--John Foxe (talk) 20:27, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

POV and trivia are easily remedied, if one is willing to put in a little work. The timeline could be based on the article (meaning yes on the 1820 date, and yes on the polygamous marriages), and it would be easy to establish criteria for inclusion or exclusion of events. Your concerns about good will and stability are valid, and should probably be brought up on the talk page (though as I noted earlier, accusations of "Mormon POV" do not foster good will). ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:48, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm all in favor of good will, but I wasn't making "accusations." The Mormon POV in that IP timeline is blatant. Its trivia is silly. The writing's egregious. I'm not about to call a spade an entrenching tool.--John Foxe (talk) 22:24, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think the term has a dividing effect on editors, separating them into two opposing camps, but that's my opinion. I just reverted the timeline again, and the door is open for talk page discussion. I think you'll get further if you tactfully address the problems you see in terms of DUE and UNDUE, sourced, un-sourced, reliable, missing, etc., but you're free to do as you see best. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:54, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes it helps to wave your hands and shout to let folks know there are non-believers about.--John Foxe (talk) 00:10, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

It may be an effective tactic for raising the emotional stakes and making your conflict-averse opponents back off, but in the process it leads to entrenched positions and unwillingness to engage in substantive dialogue. It is perhaps fitting that WP:SPADE thus becomes an entrenching tool. alanyst 15:10, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd appreciate having more conflict-averse opponents. There seem to be fewer per article hanging out on the Mormon side of my watchlist.--John Foxe (talk) 21:07, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

thanks

jive/jibe :) —Eustress ^talk 20:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Couldn't resist :)--John Foxe (talk) 21:07, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Image source

Hello. Your attention is needed at Commons:File talk:JosephSmithTranslating.jpg. —Eustress ^talk 01:07, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I've replied.--John Foxe (talk) 01:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Non-notable bios

Several bios you have created appear to cover what Wikipedia would consider non-notable people. If you wish to preserve the memory of such individuals, may I suggest a more appropriate site such as Familypedia or WeRelate? It saps my time and that of others to see these through AfD, not to mention the time you may put into generating the articles. —Eustress ^talk 18:49, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry you think so. Not a single article that I've created has been lost in the AfD process. Let's see if you can get this one.--John Foxe (talk) 19:06, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Katherine Stenholm for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Katherine Stenholm is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katherine Stenholm until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.

Nomination of Robert Sheffey for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Robert Sheffey is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Sheffey until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.

Nomination of Alan Cairns (clergyman) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Alan Cairns (clergyman) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Cairns (clergyman) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.

Nomination of Joan Pinkston for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Joan Pinkston is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joan Pinkston until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.

Hope no one imagines that there might be some sort of personal vendetta going on here :)--John Foxe (talk) 20:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

No, and I hope you don't either, but after seeing a couple problematic bios, I did my due diligence as a Wikipedian and found some others that need attention. —Eustress ^talk 00:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Makes me warm and fuzzy to hear that this sudden flurry of activity is simply "due diligence" :)--John Foxe (talk) 14:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Block notice

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for For violating 1RR unblock conditions. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

(talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

John Foxe (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

User:FyzixFighter, a Mormon, has made it a personal crusade to have me blocked at every opportunity because I so frequently counter the historical correctness of the Mormon church. This time he didn't even provide the courtesy of notifying me that he was trying to block me again. I obviously slipped by editing Oliver Cowdery a few minutes under the 24 hours allowed, but the mistake was unintentional and the edit wasn't malicious. There's an on-going discussion on the talk page, and I don't think my revert bothered anyone there. In fact, I doubt it was noticed. John Foxe (talk) 17:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Regardless of what other people may or may not have done, it is clear you have violated terms set out in your unblock restrictions in August 2011. Therefore I cannot unblock you at this time. — foxj 17:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Apparently is was noticed. 2 within 24 hours was obvious. 2 just outside 24 hours (as has also happened) is considered to be gaming the system. Also note that unblock requests that attack other editors in any manner are usually not actioned in a positive manner (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Right, it was noticed—but by a lurker who (typically) had taken no part in the conversation and who was simply looking for a gotcha moment.--John Foxe (talk) 20:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Still blaming others for your own edit-warring and gaming the system? You have done this multiple times (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

In effect, you've rewarded Wikipedia stalking with the intent of furthering an ideological goal.--John Foxe (talk) 10:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Such a statement shows a WP:BATTLE mentality, that is 100% unwelcome on this project. You're playing games along the fringes of your restrictions, and got caught. If you hadn't played games, none of this would have happened, and "stalkers" wouldn't need to exist, would they? Suddenly I'm rethinking my generous topic ban proposal. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

John Foxe (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I made a simple error. A month's block is a pretty tough penalty in a case where nothing malicious was intended. I was blindsided. If the mistake had been called to my attention, I would have self-reverted.John Foxe (talk) 20:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Some of what you say is true: in particular, I am sure that, as you say, "nothing malicious was intended". However, your attempt to present the block as being a gross over-reaction to one minor infraction is a complete misrepresentation. You have continually breached the restrictions imposed as a condition of the previous unblock, and also repeatedly made reverts which fall just outside a 24 hour period, clearly as an attempt to game the system. What is more, your statement above "I obviously slipped by editing Oliver Cowdery a few minutes under the 24 hours allowed" makes it clear that you regard it as acceptable to game the system by sticking to the letter of a 24 hour restriction while doing all you can to neutralise its effect. You are blocked because you have persistently tried to edit in ways that are contrary to the restriction placed on you, not because you once inadvertently made a minor technical infraction. There is no case at all for unblocking. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• I am willing to consider your unblock request, but I can't see which edits got you blocked. Can you provide links to them? JamesBWatson (talk) 20:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

  @JamesBWatson - the report at WP:ANEW that precipitated the block is here --FyzixFighter (talk) 20:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. That makes the situation perfectly clear. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The 3RR report just mentioned is now archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive183#User:John Foxe reported by User:FyzixFighter (Result: Blocked). EdJohnston (talk) 03:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

If you had called that mistake to my attention, I would have self-reverted. Why didn't you?--John Foxe (talk) 20:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

John Foxe (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I apologize. I'd be happy to abandon editing any Mormon articles for as long as you think appropriate if I'm unblocked. John Foxe (talk) 10:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Due to your continued attacks on User:FyzixFighter here on the talk page, I'm suspending your talk page access. If you want to negotiate further, send mail to Arbcom. Why should we believe you would respect any new ban? Your offer to observe a ban from Mormon-related articles lacks credibility when you can't even stick to the 1RR that you previously agreed to. When you do get reported for violating the ban, you attack the reporter and accuse him of 'stalking with the intent of furthering an ideological goal'. Personal attacks that are part of your unblock request don't win you much sympathy. You also said he was a 'just lurking, patiently waiting for me to make a mistake that he can use to get me blocked'. EdJohnston (talk) 03:34, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

John, I hesitate to butt in here, but I don't think that is the best solution. I think what people really want is for you to change your ways. I think there are options other than sitting out the block or taking an extended break from editing Mormon-related articles. Again, I'm not trying to insert myself into a discussion where I don't belong, but I'd like to talk with you about this if you're willing. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

There should be ample evidence that I've "changed my ways" if I take "an extended break from editing Mormon-related articles." I've offered to do that before, and I'm offering to do it again in exchange for being unblocked.--John Foxe (talk) 15:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd propose an indefinite topic ban on Mormon-related articles and related talkpages, broadly construed. Any violation would lead to an indefinite block. A reduction of the topic ban could reviewed on ANI no earlier than 1 year after it is implemented. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)There's no doubt that you've changed considerably over the past several months. I've noticed and appreciated it, as I'm sure others have as well. I think you do a lot of good work on Mormon-related articles, but I think there are still a few problems that need addressing, and I think some sort of discussion on that would be more helpful than a break. That's just my opinion, though, and you can do as you see best. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate those comments, Adjwilley.

Let me propose a flat six-month ban on my editing Mormon topics, broadly construed, any violation to lead to a permanent ban of my editing Mormon topics. If there are no violations after six months, I'd simply finish out the two-year restriction on my editing Mormon topics set earlier.--John Foxe (talk) 21:20, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Amended proposal: Indefinite topic ban on Mormon-related articles and related talkpages, broadly construed. Indefinite 1RR on all other pages - any attempt to game the system by making reverts just outside the 24hr period will be treated as a violation of 1RR. Indefinite interaction ban with User:FyzixFighter. Any violation of these will lead to indefinite block. A reduction on each of these restrictions may be requested no sooner than 1 year from its implementation at WP:ANI (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:27, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, the proposal seems very harsh. John Foxe is not a bad editor. He makes a lot of positive contributions, has a good knowledge of sources, and reverts a whole lot of vandalism. It would be a shame to lose him to Wikipedia. IMO his problem with edit warring is small compared to the weight of his other contributions (and he's come a long way on fixing that too). The kind of sanctions recommended seem complicated enough that they would almost invariably lead to an indefinite block.

If John Foxe says he will take a voluntary break from editing, then I am inclined to take him at his word. I've worked with him for a while, and while I don't agree with him on many issues (I opposed him in content disputes that led to two of his blocks), I trust him to do as he says. I don't have a lot of experience with blocks and such, but with the ultimate goal of improving the encyclopedia in mind, I think an indefinite block is going too far and should be off the table. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Even though I'm not an administrator, you need to agree that sanctions are given if you violate something far too many times. A 1RR was imposed because of your past disruptions. I agree you have very constructive edits, but do take note of this: You can't keep on getting into scraps like that you know. You need to resolve the dispute, not get dragged in because this is what happens. Soviet King ^{In Soviet Russia, page edit you!} 05:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate Adjwilley's kind remarks.

@Soviet King, you're right. My mother used to call me "Sonny," so I should be bright enough to remember that FyzixFighter is going to be out there stalking me every time I edit a Mormon article. As they say, insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly but expecting different results.--John Foxe (talk) 19:54, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Just a quick note: I don't think this is the right forum to continue discussing FyzixFighter or his motives. I don't think he enjoys being the "gotcha" guy anymore than a blocking admin relishes being the blocking admin. He probably sees the situation not as an isolated slip-up but as the next link in a chain of abuses. Either way, I think he should be left out of any further discussion here. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what FyzixFighter's motives are, although as I've said, he's a Mormon, and I've been known to make edits to Mormon articles that are not congruent with the official history of the LDS Church. What's undeniable is that he's been stalking me now for more than a year, almost never making any edits or comments on Mormon talk pages where I've been editing, just lurking, patiently waiting for me to make a mistake that he can use to get me blocked. I don't have any personal animosity towards him; I'm sure he believes he's performing a service to Wikipedia and/or the Mormon church. But I wouldn't find it a satisfying activity myself.--John Foxe (talk) 20:56, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Enough. You're blocked, and the only use you can currently make of your talkpage is related to unblocks - not for other discussion. You're either accepting the terms above, or you're through and the talkpage access can be removed. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:03, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

... and note, that I probably should have a) extended the block, and b) removed your talkpage access for the WP:NPA above. Any other wandering admin is welcome to do so. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:12, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 28

Hi. When you recently edited James Young Simpson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Free Church of Scotland (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 14:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Seer Stones

Hello Mr. Foxe. I see you have made several nice improvements to the Seer Stone (LDS) page. I would like to have a separate seer stone page with general information about seer stones and folk magic. Will you help with this effort? I have created a page in my sandbox. I couldn't find how to create (post) a new page. will you help by directing me to specific instructions on posting a new page, OR post it for me, OR - you are welcome to improve the content I have started and then post it.

Many years ago the seer stone page was generic, with some information about Joseph smith etc. Someone removed the general seer stone information and redirected "seer stone" to the scrying page, and made the seer stone page LDS specific. I'd like to re-establish the seer stone page with basic information about early american folk magic and seer stones. Your thoughts?SunKider (talk) 07:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, As I was saving my page, I discovered the "submit for review" button. I'll see what happens with that. If you are interested in helping to improve the content, please let me know. Thanks.SunKider (talk) 07:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd be happy to help, although my strength is probably in improving the writing rather than in any knowledge of the historical use of seer stones per se. Sorry, I couldn't find where you put the material for review. All the best,John Foxe (talk) 13:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

P.H. Gosse

Hi John, further to our recent reverts please see new section on talk page. asnac (talk) 15:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. That's a good suggestion. All the best, John Foxe (talk) 15:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 16:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. Here's the message I posted on the noticeboard:

"Please read the talk page discussion. The reversion, five days ago, was a removal of content, and Kraxler mistook me for a Mormon when I reverted. The whole matter was discussed fully on the talk page, and I think a reasonable compromise was reached. Furthermore, Samuel L. Mitchill is not a Mormon-related article by any stretch of the imagination."--John Foxe (talk) 18:42, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring at Samuel L. Mitchill

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 months for edit warring, as you did at Samuel L. Mitchill. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3#User:John_Foxe reported by User:ARTEST4ECHO (Result: 2 months). See the suggested terms for unblock in that report. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

John Foxe (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

EdJohnston said on the noticeboard, "In my opinion, any admin might consider lifting the block if John Foxe will agree to (a) a complete ban from Mormon-related editing anywhere on Wikipedia, (b) a 1RR/day restriction anywhere in Wikipedia." I agree to those conditions. It would be a mark of courtesy if the unblocking editor put some time limit on those restrictions, but I wouldn't make it a condition of acceptance. John Foxe (talk) 19:57, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Accept reason:

John Foxe is unblocked with conditions. Per the further discussion at WP:AN3, the restrictions are lessened as explained below, and there is an option for appeal after one year. EdJohnston (talk) 00:35, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Here is the wording:

• You are banned from editing Mormon-related articles, but may participate on their talk pages. You can discuss Mormon topics anywhere on Wikipedia, including project space.
• You're under a WP:1RR restriction everywhere on Wikipedia, on all material Mormon or not.

The restrictions can be appealed after one year. If there have been no further problems with edit warring or socking, the restrictions may be lifted. Please confirm that you are agreeing to these. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 00:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC). I have now clarified the wording. EdJohnston (talk) 01:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree.--John Foxe (talk) 10:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Mormonism-related articles

@John Foxe, If you see an important need to protect content or neutrality in one of the Mormonism-related articles, feel free to let me know via either my talk page or a private mail. I have been busy with real life work, and have not been monitoring articles for several months, but you have done a lot of good substantive work on Mormonism-related articles. I don't want any of that to be reversed merely because you are not able to edit for a while. COGDEN 00:00, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate those kind words.--John Foxe (talk) 17:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Lady Hope

I've started the RfC and listed it under Bio, Hist, and Sci. Feel free to make changes if you think it could be improved. :-) Arc de Ciel (talk) 13:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for getting the ball rolling. I think what you've written is fine.--John Foxe (talk) 14:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK for W. E. Biederwolf

On 13 October 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article W. E. Biederwolf, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that evangelist W. E. Biederwolf played football despite objections from his family? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/W. E. Biederwolf. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. }} The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

WMUU

I got your message. The webcast of WMUU is called "WGTKFM", as you apparently noticed, which made me wonder if they were changing the letters.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:04, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I understand that for some reason they can't use those call letters (GTK = "Greenville talk") on-air just yet.--John Foxe (talk) 22:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Ruckman

Hi, John Foxe. I've left a note asking you about your edit on the article's Talk Page. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 19:56, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I posted on BLPN, you can see the thread here: Wikipedia:Biographies of living_persons/Noticeboard#Peter Ruckman

I tried to keep it simple and neutral so that we can step back and let others comment. Let me know if you have any concerns... Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 17:12, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. That looks fine to me.--John Foxe (talk) 17:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Dibble.jpg missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

• File:Dibble.jpg

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 08:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Duane Gish may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:51, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

You are correct, O BracketBot; my mistake.--John Foxe (talk) 10:39, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Michael L. Fair may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:38, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again.--John Foxe (talk) 12:00, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

WMUU

Hello, John Foxe. You have new messages at Mlaffs's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

RfC

If you really believe there is a consensus about including this BLP-related defamatory information, please ask for official closure of RfC discussion at Wikipedia:AN#Requests_for_closure. I did not do it only because I am sure there is no consensus based on the "head count" (3:2 excluding A. as someone who originally placed this information and started RfC) and the sake of the argument. Unless this is officially decided by an uninvolved administrator (who is going to be responsible for this), I will consider this as "no consensus" and a BLP violation. Thanks, My very best wishes (talk) 20:58, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Ball's in your court. If you'd like, you can ask for closure of the RfC discussion, and I promise I'll accept that as a community decision.--John Foxe (talk) 21:03, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Done. Not a big deal. My very best wishes (talk) 21:33, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

This request was sitting 11 days on AN without action. It means admins do not want to do anything about this. Therefore, I removed my request. You are very welcome to re-post if you wish. I still believe there is no consensus to include, and therefore this material should not be included per BLP rules, as I explained here. Sorry, My very best wishes (talk) 13:52, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about what? You've unilaterally decided to do want you want to do.

The real question is, do I want to make a big deal about something that doesn't interest me that much. Got to think on that some. Until then enjoy Vladimir Putin, a man who regularly engages in the same sort of cooperation and compromise.--John Foxe (talk) 20:35, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, just to be completely honest here, I believe that after doing this you should not insist on including a disputed material about another person being sockpuppet. My very best wishes (talk) 23:25, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

At least I'm a expert. The matter of Figes is not disputed by anyone but you, and for some reason, which you've not revealed, you insist on protecting him as much as possible from the consequences of his misdeeds. All the Wikipedia stuff is just smokescreen. But then, is it worth my time to put an end to the charade? People with strong (perhaps self-interested) opinions about very narrow matters remain a continuing problem for Wikipedia.--John Foxe (talk) 01:11, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

No, that was disputed not only by me. As about people "with strong (perhaps self-interested) opinions", well, as Jesus said, "first take the block log out of your own eye".My very best wishes (talk) 03:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

If you want to take a lesson from my case, that's fine.

Wikipedia has a dispute resolution system, if you'd like to participate in that. It works as sluggishly as most things in a volunteer organization, but it's usually possible to get some outside opinions eventually. I've gotten Third Opinions a couple of times. If you're interested in such a thing, I'd prefer to spend time going that route rather than making a big deal about a slow motion edit war.

By the way, your colloquial English is excellent, just off enough to let me know you're not a native speaker—like Figes, for instance.--John Foxe (talk) 14:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

@My_very_best_wishes, I'd recommend staying away from ad-hominem arguments. The existence of a blog log or past indiscretions doesn't automatically invalidate John Foxe's arguments. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:15, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Right. It is precisely my point that users should not make any personal attacks ("enjoy Vladimir Putin" is a serious personal attack; what if I said about someone that they "enjoy Hitler"?), but especially users with a clearly problematic block log record.). I do not really think that anyone actually enjoys murderers or pedophiles, even if he/she edits pages about them. Right? My very best wishes (talk) 21:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Pretty early in the conversation to reach Godwin's law.--John Foxe (talk) 22:22, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. See you later (maybe).My very best wishes (talk) 03:44, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

I wanted to thank you for your kind words, and for your barnstar. It's my first barnstar, and I shall wear it with pride. --Andrewaskew (talk) 03:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure.--John Foxe (talk) 17:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Joseph Smith - FAC

Hello John Foxe,

I have put the article on Joseph Smith up as a nominee for Featured Article Status! I think the article has come a long way, and has a very good chance of being featured this time around. I would personally appreciate it if you took a moment to review the article and vote for it (or against it, I suppose) at it's FAC.

Thanks! --Trevdna (talk) 19:54, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your work to promote the article, but I'm afraid a comment from me at this point might hinder, rather than help, your cause. All the best.--John Foxe (talk) 20:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

restriction lifted (maybe)

I've unarchived and closed [1] as "restriction lifted." I suggest waiting a day or two before resuming editing the affected areas just in case anyone decides to reverse my close, and I recommend all editors never go over 1rr anywhere anyway -- it'll save one a lot of aggravation in the long run. NE Ent 00:16, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to User:NE Ent for taking care of this. Let us consider the restrictions lifted. I support NE's advice to follow a 1RR as a general rule. The vote on lifting the restriction was not unanimous, with one editor mentioning a series of reverts by John F. at Sockpuppet (internet) in late July and early August and a personal attack here. If you are planning to go back to editing in Mormon-related areas, extra patience is advised. EdJohnston (talk) 00:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree. I edit at Wikipedia because it's fun. (Some people do crossword puzzles; I write book reviews and edit Wikipedia articles.) What I like best is creating solid articles that virtually no one else cares about and that get basically nothing but copy editing and technical updates thereafter. Articles about Mormonism never fit that category.--John Foxe (talk) 14:26, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The revised closure can now be seen here but the result is the same. EdJohnston (talk) 16:00, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for completing this additional step.--John Foxe (talk) 19:08, 1 September 2013 (UTC)