User talk:Rocketj4

Thanks

Thanks for the improvements on the Billy Sunday article.--John Foxe 17:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your input. I only wonder why you hadn't written up an authoritative article before I arrived.--John Foxe 15:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 14:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're so obviously knowledgable about Sunday, you may also want to check the articles I created for Helen Thompson Sunday and Homer Rodeheaver.--John Foxe 21:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"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)

Sorry. I'm even more ignorant about American slang and Broadway songs than I am about baseball. That went completely over my head--John Foxe 20:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 15:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Good. I'm glad to have your views. I actually did notice all the baseball quotes. Plus, I thought it might be a way to try to communicate Sunday's style. I could see adding such a section either way, but your opinion makes the difference for me.--John Foxe 19:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hi Rocketj4, you asked about my passing the article... as I mentioned on my page, I asked about it on the GA talk page, and the advice I got there was to bring it up for GA/R... which is what I've done. So far, the only other person to comment on the article, whose opinion I respect, has agreed that this article is of GA quality. Some POV concerns, but not enough to stop it from being GA. Feel free to join us there or review what others say about this article.Balloonman 19:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JF

Thanks for the heads up a few days ago re: the user. I did my own little perusal of the past and could see this was what others had dealt with. I've launched back in there and hopefully he'll see there must be consensus, period. Best, A Sniper (talk) 19:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm satisfied with either "three yards" or the whole "ten feet," whichever you prefer. Appreciate your description of me as "tenacious and very focused." Bully for you! :)--John Foxe (talk) 20:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then let's stay with "ten feet." To my ear, it just sounds more like today's speech. But then, I'm less tenacious than some people I know. :):)--Rocketj4 (talk) 22:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Sunday GAR

Billy Sunday has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Rocketj4. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Rocketj4. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]