User talk:John Foxe

• 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

Welcome to my talk page. Please click here to leave me a message.

Picture of the day

The white-rumped shama (Copsychus malabaricus) is a small passerine bird of the family Muscicapidae. Native to densely vegetated habitats in the Indian subcontinent and Southeast Asia, its popularity as a cage-bird and songster has led to it being introduced elsewhere. The species feeds on insects in the wild, but in captivity may be fed a diet of boiled, dried legumes with egg yolk and raw meat. Photograph: JJ Harrison 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 Wikipedia.--John Foxe ([[User talk:John Foxe#top|]]) 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

[1] 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia Library: New Account Coordinators Needed

Hi Books & Bytes recipients: The Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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)

A year ago, you were recipient no. 1118 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:13, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you.--John Foxe (talk) 12:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

BLP violation

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia 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)

Your recent edits and long history of adding controversial poorly sourced material has been added to the BLP noticeboard. 208.54.39.193 (talk) 22:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Free Presbyterian Church of America

Here is something right up your alley as a historian John. You could create this article about the church fellowship created by John Rankin (abolitionist). The Free Presbyterian Church of America has a very similar name to the Free Presbyterian Church of North America that you frequently edit but much older and at one time much larger. Thought you might enjoy creating an article about an denomination you have some interest in. It also would get you out of some controversial editing for awhile. 172.56.9.207 (talk) 11:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Done—well, at least a stub. See Free Presbyterian Church Synod of the United States.--John Foxe (talk) 03:02, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. There is a discussing concerning your COI editing at the COI noticeboard concerning Trinity Baptist Church (Concord, New Hampshire) of which your own posts indicate close personal ties with individuals and institutions involved. 172.56.9.207 (talk) 13:50, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

holy cats

this has got to one of the most self-destructive things I have seen anybody write in WP. Are you aware of how much people are disgusted by clergy particpating in rape and victimization of kids? do you have any insight into how ugly your edit was? There is still time to be human and show some insight. You can strike. Jytdog (talk) 02:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry you've been offended. My intent was simply to bow out of editing that article in as few words as possible.--John Foxe (talk) 02:27, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

interesting response. from a scholarly perspective, your edit is indefensible. from an ethical perspective of editing with a COI, your edit is indefensible. in my view, from a moral perspective, your edit is indefensible. with that edit, you lost whatever trust i had for your judgement (and i have reviewed your edits before). when you lose trust, you have to gain it back. you start to gain it back by acknowledging your mistake. if you cannot see the mistake, you do not deserve to be trusted. and in my view, you don't deserve the community's trust anymore. I realize you are saying as little as possible. If that is the path you want to continue on, that is your call. At this point, i don't trust your judgement and will seek to have your editing privileges restricted. Jytdog (talk) 02:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

adding a link to the edit to the article i am talking about: here. Jytdog (talk) 03:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

NPOV Discussion At Gordon B Hinckley

If you have the time, your input in how to address two NPOV concerns at Gordon B. Hinckley would be appreciated. One NPOV is the word 'implicate' used next to a 'forgery'. The other is Hinckley purchasing 'on behalf of the church' debate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gordon_B._Hinckley#BRD

The talk page is cluttered, but here is the current proposal:

BEFORE: The Mark Hofmann document forgeries, bombings, and investigation occurred during this time. "The news interest was global" and "the whole episode achieved epic proportions."[11] Several books[12] describe the arrangements for acquiring supposed historical documents for the church by Hinckley and others. For example, the Stowell forgery implicating Joseph Smith in gold digging was purchased for $15,000 by Hinckley on behalf of the church from Hofmann on the promise of confidentiality. However, two years later, Hofmann leaked its existence to the "Mormon intellectual underground."[13] Upon press inquiries, church spokesman Jerry Cahill denied that the church possessed the document.[14]Hinckley corrected Cahill and released the letter to scholars for study.[15] The document was later found to be a forgery.

AFTER: The Mark Hofmann document forgeries, bombings, and investigation occurred during this time. "The news interest was global" and "the whole episode achieved epic proportions."[11] Several books[12] describe the arrangements for acquiring supposed historical documents by Hinckley and others. For example, the Stowell forgery was initial assume authentic, but later found to be a fake during the bombing investigation of Hofmann. It was "reportedly written by Mormon Church founder Joseph Smith describing money-digging pursuits and treasure guarded by a clever spirit". Using $15,000 of church funds, Hinckley purchased the Stowell forgery from Hofmann on the promise of confidentiality. However, two years later, Hofmann leaked its existence to the "Mormon intellectual underground."[13] Upon press inquiries, church spokesman Jerry Cahill denied that the church possessed the document.[14] Hinckley informed Cahill of the document's existence and released it. Hofmann was later arrested for murder and the ensuing investigation discovered that the Stowell forgery, along with many others, were fraudulent historical documents produced by Hofmann himself.

Mormography (talk) 09:28, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

ANI notice for IP editor

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#I am evading a block but not a sock for which I was blocked Self Reported regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Nil Einne (talk) 13:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

"For 'tis the sport to have the engineer / Hoist with his own petard." (Hamlet)--John Foxe (talk) 21:55, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Age of the universe

Scientists do not believe that the universe is billions of years old, they conclude it as the inevitable result of multiple observations or, if they have no directly relevant expertise, they accept it as the conclusion of specialists in the relevant fields. Substituting thousands of years for billions in calculations around biological, geological, astronomical and other processes simply gives nonsensical answers. There's no scientific debate for the same reason there's no scientific debate around the laws of thermodynamics. In science, facts are neutral, they have no ideology. Guy (Help!) 17:21, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. And, obviously, so do a tiny minority of scientists and other academics.--John Foxe (talk) 22:33, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Scofield Bible

Actually, John, the inside-cover states that my Aunt Bessie gave this to my grandma in 1935. So wouldn’t that be considered early 20th century? Thanks for your help. GEOGOZZGEOGOZZ (talk) 12:22, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Earlier than I would have guessed. Any other chronological markers in that printing that might push the date back even further? Otherwise, we could say, it's a "c. 1935 printing." (I can't read the name of the school for "Christian workers" that it comes from.)--John Foxe (talk) 01:29, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Trinity Baptist Church (Concord, New Hampshire) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Trinity Baptist Church (Concord, New Hampshire). Since you had some involvement with the Trinity Baptist Church (Concord, New Hampshire) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. BenjaCamp (talk) 19:45, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Deluge

Hi John Foxe. Thanks for your message on my Talk page. I do take your point and did struggle to find a form of words that did not assume the flood was necessarily an actual event. I don't know if the story happened but my assumption is that there is debate as to this. I'm happy to look again at the wording, or for you to have another go yourself. Best wishes. Peteinterpol (talk) 08:27, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Biederwolf and the 'Millennium Bible'

The edit you made might be concise, but it destroyed the sense of the sentence. If you have the book its all in the prefatory pages. The volume I have is the 5th printing. WEB realized he had no grounding in the topic and resolved not not sermonize on the Second Advent until he had done the research in the Holy scriptures. The 1924 work was the result of his realization of his original neglect of the topic and then his decade long study. Church of the Rain (talk) 03:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I've added a long quotation to the footnote explaining Biederwolf's intent, as well as a citation to the first edition. Hope that's satisfactory. If not, I'll be glad to try again.--John Foxe (talk) 17:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I love lengthy footnotes myself. I suspect the general reader, however, will ignore them. The footnote covers the important aspect of the commentary--its neutrality towards the tribulation and second advent timing. Its a significant fact that a scholarly preacher went twenty years neglecting a bedrock doctrine of Jesus. He took up a decade long study so we have thirty years of the man's life marked by the subject. At some point WEB's premillennial position should be noted and I'd love to access his pre-trib thinking if any scholarship exits on that. Its probably in his published sermons post 1924. I wonder if the most convincing pre-trib preachers cited WEB. The pre-trib position and latter-day theology took off after the founding of the modern Israel. I am continuing to read the volume and thank you for your efforts. Happy Thanksgiving!Church of the Rain (talk) 15:54, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Adoption of the pre-trib position began earlier (especially among fundamentalists in the North) with publication of the Scofield Reference Bible in 1909 (and especially after its revision in 1917). So the study of Biederwolf's sermons between say 1909 and 1924 would be most interesting. Hard to believe he made no reference at all to eschatology during those years. Unfortunately, to my knowledge, his personal papers did not survive.--John Foxe (talk) 17:31, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate the clarification on the timeline. Wheaton is the holder of his papers. See Billy Graham Center. Church of the Rain (talk) 18:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Funny thing is that I've actually looked through those boxes at Wheaton.--John Foxe (talk) 21:46, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Edward Bancroft - double agent

Hello John Foxe, I've added a section to the Edward Bancroft Talk page to discuss Bancroft's espionage activities if you are interested. Libertybison (talk) 00:57, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I think you've done a great job with the edits to the Edward Bancroft page. I do have a few suggestions that I'll bring up on the article talk page and make more edits to the Silas Deane page. Also since I'm relatively new to Wikipedia, I was wondering if you would be willing to look over the extensive edits that I made to the Bixby letter page.--Libertybison (talk) 00:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Done. See what you think.--John Foxe (talk) 02:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I think it's much improved. I did have to correct a few minor errors that creeped in but the wording of the article is much better now.--Libertybison (talk) 06:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I was considering going back and converting most of the reused citations I made of Schaeper into single citations with the page numbers because it looks a little confusing to readers how it's set up now. I've noticed you've already been doing so. I also want to add a link to the google books webpage of Schaeper for each entry. Also good work on those stylistic edits! You seem to be able to think much more succinctly than I can. Would you consider looking over the Silas Deane page? I've made a whole bunch of edits to the page, maybe you can make the text a little neater. I probably should add more information on his death on that page. Libertybison (talk) 00:25, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for those kind words. As you can see, I've tweaked Silas Deane a bit. Hope I didn't add any additional errors. (I'm baffled by those error messages that appear in the "Show preview" view.) I've put the article on my watchlist; maybe sometime I'll have a chance to add more information.--John Foxe (talk) 02:05, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Bixby Letter

All the images appear fine when I view the article. I added an image of Schouler and the original newspaper article a couple of weeks ago, but since you've already edited the page since then I don't think that's what you are referring to. Is there something specific you would like me to look at? Libertybison (talk) 18:50, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, it must have been a temporary problem. I can see all the images again.--John Foxe (talk) 19:28, 14 April 2016 (UTC)