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
Archive 7: September 2013 - August 2020

John Foxe — User talk — Contributions — Email

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

The Réunion stonechat (Saxicola tectes) is a species of stonechat in the family Muscicapidae, the Old World flycatchers. It is found across the French Indian Ocean island of Réunion in forests, shrublands, and artificial environments such as gardens and plantations. The Réunion stonechat is a member of the common stonechat superspecies, but it is distinct, together with its closest relative the Madagascar stonechat, from the rest of that group being insular derivatives of the African stonechat. The male is black above and white below, with a white supercilium (sometimes absent), half-collar, covert patch, and a variable-sized orange patch on the breast. Females differ from males in being browner above, more buff-toned below, and often lacking the white greater covert patch. This male Réunion stonechat was photographed in La Roche Écrite, south of the Réunion capital Saint-Denis.Photograph credit: Charles J. Sharp

Archive – More featured pictures...

Svea Welander/Henry Lyte Citation

Hello John, Here's the citation: https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svea_Welander Bliv kvar hos mig, text: Henry Lyte. Stockholm: Svensk Musik. translation: Stay with me, text: Henry Lyte. Stockholm: Swedish Music

T. E. Meeks (talk) 21:18, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've cited the Swedish web page (rather than Swedish Wikipedia) as the citation for that information and moved it down into the "Abide with me" section of the Lyte article. John Foxe (talk) 22:04, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the Svea Welander article mention from "Stay with Me" to "Abide with Me" - glad you pointed this out. I should have realized it myself! T. E. Meeks (talk) 11:32, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:31, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Gerda. John Foxe (talk) 16:13, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wyche Pavilion

Hello, I came across this article in the new pages queue and found it interesting so I was scrolling through it. I took a look at the sources; Ref. 1 which is a link to the National Register of Historic Places website shows the building name as "Earle Town House" and not Wyche Pavilion. Is it an alternate name for the building? --Ashley yoursmile! 18:05, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes. I'll have to change that. Thanks for catching it. John Foxe (talk) 18:13, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John Foxe, thanks for correcting the reference. I've reviewed the article. Since it is new enough and interesting, would you like to nominate it at the WP:DYK? I have a hook in mind, in case you are interested. Ashley yoursmile! 18:32, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'd be glad to nominate it, but if you have the hook--and more experience along those lines--maybe you should nominate it. John Foxe (talk) 22:41, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated the article at the DYK. You can find the entry here. Thank you for your work on the article. Ashley yoursmile! 05:55, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much! John Foxe (talk) 15:26, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! The nomination has been reviewed btw. :) Ashley yoursmile! 19:00, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Wyche Pavilion

On 17 April 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Wyche Pavilion, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Wyche Pavilion, a two-story historic building in Greenville, South Carolina, was originally intended to serve as a paint shop for the Greenville Coach Factory? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Wyche Pavilion. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Wyche Pavilion), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:46, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Gerda. Always good to hear from you. John Foxe (talk) 15:28, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Isaac Case has been accepted

Isaac Case, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Spudlace (talk) 20:08, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:03, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking time to spread good cheer on Wikipedia, Gerda. John Foxe (talk) 03:43, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BLP applies everywhere

No matter what we think about article subjects, summaries like the one used here are not appropriate. Please keep a more dispassionate tone. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:55, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, not about Charles R. Pellegrino, who's a liar and a literary fraud. His misdeeds ought to be exposed on Wikipedia, and we shouldn't be reluctant to say why. John Foxe (talk) 16:44, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, about every living or recently dead person, whether or not they have an article, anywhere on Wikipedia. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:22, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I make no apologies; but you should be ashamed of yourself for abetting the perpetuation of lies and literary fraud. John Foxe (talk) 01:05, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

Precious
Nine years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:59, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Gerda. May you continue to enjoy spreading good cheer on Wikipedia! John Foxe (talk) 15:11, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen C Meyer

Hey there. Thanks for the critique on Ken Ham, I’m looking for sources. On another note; I am looking at arguing the opposite of what I am arguing for Ken Ham for Stephen Meyer, because I think that, unlike Ham, he has been wrongly labeled without citing any source. I have tried to reason with people on the talk page, probably too much so, but it has been to no avail.

Would you be willing to take a look? Warning in advance, the latest comments are a long read 😳

Thanks in advance. Chrisallen87 (talk) 23:45, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the use of the term "pseudoscience" on the Stephen C. Meyer page is properly cited to named sources, as in "Cook also criticizes Meyer's proposal that if something cannot be fully explained by today's science, it must be the work of a supreme deity. Calling it a 'masterwork of pseudoscience....'" Of course, there's irony in the fact that Meyer has a PhD in the philosophy of science. I assume he's being labeled a pseudo-scientist because mainstream scientists perceive his writings as a more significant challenge than those of Ham, written for a popular audience. John Foxe (talk) 03:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 2024

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed maintenance templates from Billy Sunday. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Thank you. User:Namiba 17:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. User:Namiba 22:33, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]