User talk:Jgstokes

Welcome!

Hello Jgstokes! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! +A.0u 03:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC) Getting started Wikipedia tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Did you know? Nomination

Hi. I've nominated Quentin L. Cook, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article at Template talk:Did you know#Articles created on October 6, where you can improve it if you see fit.Alan 19:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Presidency Succession

JGStokes, please see my *most most recent comments on : Talk:First_Presidency_(LDS_Church) I look forward to your thoughts. Ryancwa (talk) 05:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Thanks for your comments at Talk:Dieter F. Uchtdorf; I appreciate that, especially as they come from you, who I'm afraid I have offended in the past with my actions or comments. I can assure you, I have many motes in my eyes, but I think you were right that User:HLT was a bit overboard there. I don't really care anymore if the categories are included or not; I'd just like to see some more input on whether or not they belong. Snocrates 05:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Message

I've left a message for you at Talk:Presiding Bishop (LDS Church). Thanks. Snocrates 20:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Your work

Thanks for your ongoing attention to detail with the LDS Church apostolic succession details. This is a difficult area; I just wish there were more sources about these things! Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Undid revision

On the list of the Apostles, you said, "Deleted irrelevant and redundant information about the new First Presidency, All readers want to know is WHY a vacancy was created. Drowning in redundancies isn't a help. It's a deterent."

Your reason for removing what I had added was nearly as long as my text itself. I can appreciate that you feel it should be short and to the point, but saying it was irrelevant (opinion), redundant (it wasn't), implying you know what all readers want to know (you don't), repeating your comment about redundancy (which is redundant itself), and saying it deters from the point (opinion), lead us back to the fact that Christofferson filled the spot Uchtdorf left, not Hinckley. Check some of the comments on earlier apostles on that same table. I think just saying Hinckley died is not enough. Struhs (talk) 21:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Liahona aka International Magazine

The Encylcopedia of Mormonism has an outdated article on the International Magazines. I refer you to it at http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/EoM&CISOPTR=4391&CISOSHOW=3784. Heg24 (talk) 06:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Heg24 (talk • contribs) 06:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

EOM

I'd be interested in what particular information from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism you've found wanting (as referenced by you on Talk:Liahona (magazine). I know of some of the specific articles that were approved by one or more apostles, so I'm curious as to which ones you've read that you view as perhaps not 100% accurate. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to look it over again. I do know that I've found a few things that weren't an accurate reflection of what Church leaders have taught. Nothing particular comes to mind at this time. I'd have to look some things over again to be sure. However, my main point was not so much the accuracy of what was said as some of the statements not being supportable because of what Church leaders have said. I'm sorry I can't be more specific than that at this time. I'll tell you what I will do, though. If I have some time over the next few days, I'll try to find what exactly it was that I found lacking in accuracy. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 05:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

That's OK — no rush, and you don't need to do it necessarily. I was just curious more than anything. If you want to do it, great — but if not, I won't be upset or anything like that. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

CH page

I think you're in a difficult position with this article, no doubt about it. The truth vs. verifiability distinction is troubling for a lot of people, and it can be especially so when you know more than is available through verifiable, neutral sources. I think most editors have experienced difficulties in this area, including me. One positive aspect, though, is that there is not a very strong push right now to add the information that you object to. The editors wanting to add it don't seem all that dedicated to adding it; if you ran up against an editor that was determined, your problem could be much greater.

But what to do about the problem, either now or if the problem becomes greater? Whenever I find myself becoming too involved emotionally with an article, e.g., if others' edits are upsetting to me or stressing me out, the only thing I've been able to do to solve the problem — at least temporarily — is to completely walk away from the issue for awhile. I take the page off my watchlist, and I don't check up on the article — I try to forget about it for a little while. Doing so helps put things in perspective. It's just Wikipedia, and WP doesn't always equal truth, and most readers know that. (And anyway, remember the old quote about what to do if the newspaper prints something untrue about you or someone you know: "Do nothing! Half the people who bought the paper never saw the article. Half of those who saw it never, did not read it. Half of those who read it, did not understand it. Half of those who understood it, did not believe it. Half of those who believed it are of no account anyway". The number who actually read, understand, and believe a particular WP article and are of any account may be very small indeed, which is something to keep in mind. (With thanks to GBH for this quote.))

Then after a few days, or a few weeks, or however long I think I need, I check back on the article. More often than not, there have been no dramatic changes to the article that I would view as being detrimental to the article, and if there are any changes that have been made the time away has allowed me to clear my mind and maybe approach things with a fresh outlook.

Another thing that might help is trying to work with what other editors add, as opposed to working against it. In other words, if you see an editor add information that you think is one-sided or not totally true, rather than just reverting the change or completely deleting what the editor added, try making some changes to the edit to make it more accurate. Other editors usually respond negatively when an edit they make gets reverted completely — most react better if other editors just reword or rework what they have added.

Hopefully that's helpful — I don't have any easy answers, just what I have found helpful for myself. Good luck! Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I'll keep in mind what you said. And because I've explained to you why I handled the situation in question the way I did, I think that I can now go forward and do whatever might be necessary. As you say, the editor who brought this up doesn't seem too eager to press the matter anymore, and even if the material were added, I know enough and am permitted to say enough to thwart that evidence with counterclaims which, though unsourced at the moment, are true. I've suggested to Chris numerous times that he needs to tell his side of the story, but he doesn't see the sense in dragging names through the mud--even if they're the same people that are dragging HIS name through the mud. Perhaps at a later date he'll decide to tell his side of the story, and then that could be included as a countersource for claims that would be made and sourced if this information was added. At any rate, it's currently not a concern. But I would take it kindly if you'd make the time to keep an eye on this page and on me and if I go overboard in any corrections I might make to added material or things I might say about it, I'd appreciate you letting me know. Thanks for all your help. It seems that you have been the one that has been most instrumental in helping me get adapted to the WP policies and climate since I started editing, and I appreciate it more than I can say. Let me know if I can ever do anything for you in return, and thanks again. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 03:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Wishbone vandal

Honestly? I think you're assuming a little too much good faith here. This is so clearly silly vandalism, with the repetition designed to get your goat--I have a vandal that does that with me and a few others, over at Arthur(TV series), with funding and stuff. I don't think for a moment that the vandal who keeps putting that description has any concern with WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:VER, or any of the other policies that would be applicable; I'm pretty sure the guideline we're most in need of for this guy is WP:DICK, with a healthy side-order of WP:DFTT. Man, I can't STAND vandals.Gladys J Cortez 21:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

You're most welcome

John, Just dropping a quick note to thank you for fixing the paraphrase in the Lost 116 pages article. I have found that most of my objections to added material stem from them being unsourced or inaccurate, and I greatly appreciate your willingness to include the actual quotes that eliminated the paraphrase. Any objections I may have had to the previous wording are gone now that the material is sourced. Again, thanks for fixing this. Please let me know if I can ever do anything for you in return. Best wishes. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 18:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

You're most welcome. All the best, John Foxe (talk) 20:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Authorized King James Version

I have reverted again the US spellings. If you check the talk page you will find that this has been extensively discussed, and the ruling agreed is that British English is to be preferred consistently in this article. This follows the general Wiki rule (which is not as you appear to think); that any articles relating to British subjects use British English, ditto Australian, ditto American. Otherwise, spelling and grammar should generally follow that of the originator of the article - and should not be changed from one form to another. There is no rule that Wikipedia generally conforms to any one set of local English conventions. TomHennell (talk) 00:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I must have overlooked that. The old adage "Always look before you leap" comes to mind. I somehow missed seeing that little notice. That makes sense. Once you get to know me better, you'll find out that I've become somewhat famous here on WP for my stupid moments. Chalk this up as another one of those. My apologies and thanks for the explanation and for not making me feel more stupid than I've already shown myself to be. Good to know. Best wishes. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 00:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TomHennell"

no problem, I have done as much myself several times. As you may imagine, there is an awful lot of talk archived in earlier discussion pages for this article; and often the only readily accessible record is a flag at the head of the current page. TomHennell (talk) 10:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

COI and Religion

Actually, I disagree. (Surprise!!!)

From Webster's: conflict of interest Date: 1843 : a conflict between the private interests and the official responsibilities of a person in a position of trust

Also Webster's: interest 3: advantage, benefit; also : self-interest.

Are you saying that you don't believe you receive a private benefit or advantage from your religion? Isn't recruiting new members in the self-interest of every Mormon? Don't practicing Mormons have a high stake in their religion? Isn't that stake at least as much of a stake as that of a shopkeeper in his shop or a CEO in his business? Ought CEOs and shopkeepers edit WP articles about their businesses?

A neutral point of view and committed faith are, of course, contradictory terms.

That said, I don't believe it's impossible for a Mormon to write on Mormonism from a neutral point of view. Somewhat along those lines, I suspect it would be impossible to get an in-depth history of the Catholic Church without relying on history compiled at some point by Catholics, although from a purely historical and sociological point of view, Mormonism is a different kettle of fish.

I'd lean toward saying however, an NPOV requires that faith be suspended, which itself seems a conflict of interest for the faithful. It's a psychological and philosophical question and/or a theological question, as to whether this suspension is necessary and possible.

If one accepts WP's COI policy for what it actually is, however, a Mormon in my view might best refrain from editing articles on Mormonism. I can certainly accept reality, and along those lines, as a practical matter, it's quite impossible to ban Mormons from editing Wikipedia articles on their own religion.

Thanks for engaging me in this diverting debate.Calamitybrook (talk) 03:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

-- Jstokes: Fair enough. I guess most COI issues must be determined by the editors who may have a conflict. A close reading of the COI policy makes my point appear utterly baseless -- non-sensical as you say, a "ridiculous rant," as somebody else put it. My apologies for the distraction.

You will note that I never suggested banning LDS editors from working on Mormon-type material. I'm uncertain why that was so utterly unclear.

But after carefully considering what you say, I believe you are correct in pointing out that I have a degree of personal bias against Mormons. (But not the part about believing that Indians are actually Jewish. Didn't you ever watch "F-Troop?").

So I will refrain from working on artcles about Mormons. Calamitybrook (talk) 04:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC) --

---

J. I've never edited on an article about Mormons, and never will, as it's not something I'm terribly interested in, or knowlegable about. Mostly all I know is from a chapter in Harold Bloom's (rather anti-mormon but generally interesting) "The American Religion," and from a lecture my statistics professor gave to my Anthropology class in the 1970s about his religion (Mormonism, or whatever you prefer). Oh, and a few interviews as young reporter with a sacrificial lamb candidate in a local mayoral election in Connecticut. He told me off the record, that if elected, he would construct a large Mormon temple in Stamford. Never had a chance, although it was arguably a "miracle" that he was nominated by the Republican Town Committee.

I only visited the relevant talk page because somebody was complaining about something. I don't remember who or what, but you may already know about this. I don't strongly care about COI and Mormons, and the WP COI policy is simply what it is. I do think the policy rather explicitly raises points that might be discussed (rather than hotly dismissed) relative to COI and religion, but I think my raising them was merely due to a dubious desire to be provocative. (You guys sure took the bait!)

Just forget it. I apologize for being a troll. The Indian comment relates to the fairly well-known issue which I now notice is (unsurprisingly) covered by WP [[1]] but guess what? I didn't read the article, and possibly never will, let alone contribute to it (unless.... maybe a trivia section on "F-Troop" which was a favorite show of mine when I was seven years old). Don't worry, I'm a grown-up now....I swear I think that Jewish Indian jokes are stupid.... Calamitybrook (talk) 01:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Using the undo feature

You last revert at Brigham Young removed a ton of information regarding polygamy with no explanation in the edit summary. I am guessing it was a mistake based on the description you gave. Try to be a little more careful with your use of the undo feature. I reverted the edit - please take a look and make the specific change you originally intended, rather than reverting all intermediate edits. --Descartes1979 (talk) 04:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Polygamy edit war (?)

Hi. I saw your comment on the project talk page. The current consensus seems to be that the "edit war" is in fact a case of a newbie IP editor who has been repeatedly trying to insert a piece of material in the Polygamy article about early, public LDS comments against polygamy. He has ignored repeated requests to take the discussion to the article's talk page, and his edit summaries criticize other editors and Wikipedia in general as being unprofessional. He's been blocked twice — first for 24 hours, and (after immediately exhibiting the same misbehaviour upon expiry of that block) now for a week.

I imagine this person's proposed new content might have some merit (aside from his antisocial M.O.) — but someone else commented on the Polygamy talk page that there seemed to be too much LDS material in the general article. So maybe some of the stuff already there should be trimmed, summarized as appropriate, and moved to one of the LDS-specific pages. Richwales (talk) 19:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Acknowledging your note on my talk page. Thanks again. Richwales (talk) 19:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

ISO format for dates

Why did you change all the dates from day month year format to yyyy-mm-dd format. That format is much more difficult to read and the whole reason we went through and put in the <span style="display:none">yyyy-mm-dd</span> codes in was so that they would sort correctly. Overtime people keep changing it to the unfriendly ISO format and I don't understand why --Trödel 01:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I welcome the chance to clarify. Thanks for asking. The only dates whose format I personally altered were the date of sustaining for those sustained in 2009. My reason for formatting these? Simple. All the other dates on the page are like that. I was going for uniformity. If you really feel like the current date format is problematic, and wish to challenge that format, you may do so at your convenience on the talk page of the relevant article or articles as the case may be. I personally have no problem with keeping the current format or altering to a more user-friendly format, as long as the consensus agrees. But again, the only dates I altered were for those brethren sustained in 2009, and I did it in exactly the same format as was previously on the page. I look forward to seeing what the consensus decides on this issue. Thanks again for the question. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 20:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome

Thank you for getting all the new names in - I hadn't had time to get that done and, from my point of view, it is much more time consuming that the fix I did. --Trödel 12:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. It actually wasn't too bad when I got down to it, especially since I had all the latest information on hand. Incidentally, the Church has released a list of new area assignments that will be effective August 1. Someone (you, I believe) in years past created a subpage where the new changes could be immediately incorporated to the GA page on August 1. If we could do that again this year, that would be great. Are you able to set that up? In case you can, here are the relevant sources: New Presidency named for Pacific Area, New Presidency named for Pacific Area, New Area Leadership Assignments. Also, on another note, there is currently a dispute going on between myself and another WP editor about defined Church terminology. I know you have commented on other Church-related issues in the past, and wanted to invite you to weigh in on the discussion so that it's more than two of us deciding what WP policy should be in this case. If you could look it over and give your opinion, that would be great. Thanks again for all the work you do. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 19:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

August 2010 changes

Sorry I didn't get your email/wiki notice until today - I went ahead and merged the page histories even though you had already implemented the changes manually. Thanks for all the work that you do on keeping this information up to date. --Trödel 18:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Page userfied

I moved Talk:List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints/August 2011 to List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints/August 2011. In my opinion it was obvious that said talkpage was actually a userdraft. If you disagree with me, please write me on my talkpage. Debresser (talk) 00:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't waste my time on it - there will always be wikipedia editors that think they're helping when they are really pissing off the occasional editor. This is unfortunate, because, IMHO, it is one of the main reasons that the English Wikipedia is having a problem keeping and getting new editors. Don't let it bother you - he fixed it - I do think that he should explain his reasoning - instead of responding the way he did to me. For example, if he said the reason I moved it is because talk namespace pages were showing up in a category for article namespaces - then I would have easily understood why he acted immediately. Though I would suggest removing the categories from the page would be less disruptive than moving the page. At least knowing his motives would help. Unfortunately, he choose not to explain which just made the disruptive edit annoying instead of - "oh, I see, thanks".

My advice on editors like this is to interact as little as possible with them and focus on getting the result you want - for me that was getting the page out of userspace - since it would be less likely to be edited there by anyone but me. --Trödel 13:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

History of the Latter Day Saint movement

Hi; Re the reversion of edits in this article, I'm not knowledgeable on the subject, but the sentence structure doesn't make much sense in either version. Perhaps you could clean it up if you understand the intent. Thanks, 99.12.242.7 (talk) 00:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Cheers, 99.12.242.7 (talk) 14:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

General Authority Assignments

Thanks for updating Elder Zivic's assignment. However, I looked on LDS.org and failed to find any mention there of his assignment. I see two other seventies (though I can't remember who) that are listed as Assistant Executive Directors of the Temple Department, but under Zivic's LDS.org biography, that assignment is not listed. Is it possible that this was a previous assignment that he has now been released from? As soon as LDS.org has an updated list of assignments, I guess we'll know for sure. Please respond on my talk page, as I don't habitually check other users' talk page for a response. Thanks. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 00:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi! I do recall that LDS.org's bio on Elder Zivic does not list the Temple Department assignment. Actually, as I recall, it does not list anything subsequent to his previous service in an area presidency. I obtained the information from other directories I reviewed. There are actually 4 assistants at the present time to William Walker, in his role as Executive Director. Hope that helps some. Thanks for the question to ensure we're on track. ChristensenMJ (talk) 01:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

On the list we have, I see Elder Choi, Elder Zivic, and Elder Gibbons listed as Assistant Executive Directors of the Temple Department. So now my question is, who is the 4th person you spoke of? Also, on the list that you are taking this information from, does it contain any other assignments of general authorities that we can put on that page? Again, please respond on my talk page. Thanks. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 14:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

It is Elder Baxter and I have updated that portion of the table/info box. Thanks! ChristensenMJ (talk) 14:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

It seems you forgot to respond to the second question of my last post, so I'll ask it again: On the list that you got the information from about the Temple Department Assistant Executive Directors, does it list any other assignments for seventies that we don't have on the WP list? Any additional information you can contribute would be appreciated. Again, please respond on my talk page. Thanks. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 22:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't forget, but I don't believe there is anything else that we would add, so I probably just skipped over the inquiry. :) There are some items that need to be officially announced before they are included as well. Thanks! ChristensenMJ (talk) 01:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

There are other changes, but we'll have to wait until they're officially announced? I really wish you hadn't said that. My curiosity is piqued. I won't ask what these changes are, much as I want to. You're probably not at liberty to say. One question I can ask: Where are you getting all this information? Do you by any chance have access to the CDOL? What Church position do you hold that allows you to be privy to this information? These are questions I feel I can ask. In the meantime, for the sake of my sanity, any additional information you feel you can give me, even if we have to wait until it's officially announced to list it here, would be appreciated. If you can tell me anything, I promise that I won't make it public. However, if you can't give me any more details until it's official, I understand completely. I am copying my comments here to my talk page, where I hope you will respond to this post as you have the past ones. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 23:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Ha ha - OK, sorry to have piqued the interest! Nothing major, but always need to ensure the proper order is followed when updating info. Yep, there are a few good opportunities to see updates in what goes on across the church. Yes, I know, not a great answer! :) ChristensenMJ (talk) 03:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Reworded and copied from Talk: List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: I notice that you claim that Elder Ringwood, formerly the First Counselor in the Asia North Area, is now the President, replacing Presiding Bishop Stevenson, and that Elder Yamashita, formerly unassigned, is the new First Counselor. I will be the first to admit that when it comes to inside information about general authorities, you have always been right. But I think that since changes in Area Presidencies have always been sourced in the past that this change needs to be sourced as well. I will leave it up to you to provide that source at your convenience. Exciting news! Do you have any insight as to who will replace Bishop Causse as First Counselor in the Europe Area? You can respond to this message either on my talk page, or the talk page listed above. Thanks for all your great work! --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 08:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When LDS.org was finally updated to reflect the new Presiding Bishopric, the changes in the Asia North Area were also included in being updated. This is the primary change that I referred to earlier in our conversation, awaiting something more "official" from the Church, either through a notice in the Church News, or in this case, from LDS.org. Nothing specific has been identified in the Europe Area yet. ChristensenMJ (talk) 03:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit summary

Can you explain this edit summary to me?—Kww(talk) 12:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

If you look at the edit history, you will see that you reverted a group of three edits. Two of those edits were perfectly valid edits correcting various spelling problems throughout the article, and one was one that you disagreed with. Why did you revert all three instead of just the one? I'm not going to take a strong stance on the content change: I think the description of Smith is puffery, but I agree that the change suffered from poor writing.—Kww(talk) 20:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Good catch

At resurrection, you reverted[2] what appears to be a content vandal, adding false information etc. We ran into a rather prolific vandal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Vandalism by 201.19.*.*. Is it possible this editor has done other similar vandalism, perhaps using other IPs? -Stevertigo (t | c) 03:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Eh?

Are you sure you didn't get the diff backwards here? That unreferenced section was added today, and the IP was reverting. (Also, adding the section seemed more POV-y than deleting it.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:53, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Just looked over it more closely, and you are right. Don't know what I was thinking. I'll revert it at once, if it has not already been reverted. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 01:57, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:57, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

You are most welcome. Thanks for calling me on my mistake. I'll be more careful in future. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 01:59, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Emeritus General Authorities

I think we have the listing updated and reflected in the table correctly now. Thanks for your efforts in getting the ball rolling there!! ChristensenMJ (talk) 21:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Walter F. González

No need to apologize! I appreciated the newsroom update that you included - I was only going by this link - http://www.ldschurchnews.com/articles/62978/South-America-South-Area-presidency-changes.html - which says "has" been released. There are a ton of other changes that would need to be addressed and modified, given the known timing in January. ChristensenMJ (talk) 01:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I will rely upon you to make the other changes, since I don't know what they would be. Thanks. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 01:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Boyd K. Packer

Just look at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boyd_K._Packer&oldid=525503774 and at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boyd_K._Packer&oldid=526717565 --94.65.31.5 (talk) 13:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Joseph B. Wirthlin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Half back (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) 11:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Editing disagreements at Joseph Smith

Hi. Just a gentle reminder that repeatedly reverting someone, even if you're sure they are in the wrong, won't work — you are just as likely as the other person to get yourself blocked for edit warring. I have explained the situation here to the other person and advised him to take his gripe to the Latter Day Saint movement wikiproject talk page, and I plan to keep an eye on him in case he refuses to respect the consensus process and decides to wage a one-man edit war. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 04:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. 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) 06:18, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Sort on GA page

Not sure what is happening for you. I also see the sort buttons on List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I am using Chrome as my browser. Good luck figuring that out. --Trödel 05:26, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

October 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of area seventies of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• {{ LDS area seventy |Podvodov|Gennady N. |3|2013|10|5|47|Donetsk, Ukraine<ref name="October

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Overlinking

WP:OVERLINK doesn't restrict itself to any section of a biography. The nations are not particularly relevant to the topic of the article and so they do not need to be linked. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

In response to your undo yesterday

Hi Jgstokes, the reason for my contribution in the God in Mormonism article is because currently the article strongly leans toward the view that J.S. was just coming up with this stuff on his own, and refining it as he went along. Since this is an article on Mormonism, it think it's extremely appropriate to at least mention the heart of the matter from the Mormon point of view, which is that this doctrine was a restoration of the original Christian principle through revelation to a prophet--and that revelation doesn't come all at once, but over time.

Also, to say that until 1835 the Mormon view was similar to trinitarianism is very misleading because the driving concept behind the trinity is the divine substance that is shared between the three persons. Mormons have never come close to classifying diety in terms of this divine substance, but see it as an example of "philosophies of man mingled with scripture"--which is exactly why they believe in the need for a restoration.

So let me know the problems you saw (placement, length, quality, etc.) so I can do some revamping. I will definitely include a better explanation next time, until yesterday I was pretty ignorant of the whole talk and history capabilities of Wikipedia so it's been a good learning experience.

thanks Drewbigs (talk) 20:37, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm back!

You thought I'd give up on this, didn't you! Kidding. Anyway since nobody has protested my addition, was just wondering if I were to fix the references, shorten it a bit, etc., would you give it a chance at life? I really think it would help balance it out by informing the uninformed that Mormons believe this doctrine came by revelation, etc. I can tone down the philosophy references to keep it from sounding biased. Let me know, thanks 8.28.150.75 (talk) 05:34, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

List of Cyberchase episodes

I just wanted to thank you there for reverting all of the vandalism and addition of Original Research by those IPs. I was going to revert some of it, but you beat me to the punch. However, if this problem persists, you might want to seek out an admin to have the page semi-protected. LightandDark2000 (talk) 07:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Culture of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Hi. I think you may be misunderstanding how Wikipedia works. We don't have "agreed" wording, and it is entirely unreasonable for one editor or group of editors to lay claim to the contents of any article. We work by consensus, even where we have a special interest in a particular subject. You're quite welcome to revert an edit I make, but please don't abstract to yourself some special status, nor ascribe some non-transparent editing and vetting process to any article. Thank you. RomanSpa (talk) 01:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Barnstar of Diligence

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	You are a truly diligent contributer. Thomas.hori (talk) 14:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

March 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Melchizedek priesthood (Latter Day Saints) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• [[Image:Melchizedek Priesthood.jpg|thumb|250px|Bronze statue in [[Temple Square]], [[Salt Lake City]],

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Revert

Reverting my edit on Resurrection didn't completely take out the links to said blog from said article. So...if they are not so reliable.... Corn cheese (talk) 00:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

He/she has a point. If you want to get rid of those citations, delete them. His/her only fault was to wikify the references, it does not seem that he/she added them to the article. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Trouble at Cyberchase episodes

Just so you know, the page has been semi-protected for 2 weeks to keep out the WP:OR and other poorly-sourced content. I hope this takes some pressure off you. :) LightandDark2000 (talk) 22:46, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	For your tireless defense of articles, and for your continuing diligence. LightandDark2000 (talk) 22:50, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

April 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Lynn G. Robbins may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• }}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Bradley D. Foster (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Common consent

Gregory A. Schwitzer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Common consent

J. Devn Cornish (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Common consent

Kevin S. Hamilton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Common consent

Larry S. Kacher (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Common consent

Randall K. Bennett (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Common consent

Randy D. Funk (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Common consent

Terence M. Vinson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Common consent

Timothy J. Dyches (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Common consent

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Bruce Lindsay (broadcaster) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• as-others-served.html He learned service as others served], ''[[Church News]]'', June 17, 1989. (Article about father Richard P. Lindsay, who served as a general authority.} Retrieved 9 May 2014.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:05, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks.

Is it May already? I came over to your article-page/talk-page to learn and appreciate your perspective. Also, like Adam and Eve (focused vs broad visions) I find it interesting to see you are an Eagle Scout, from American Fork. We will be in your town this morning. We have one son (mission to Finland) and four daughters (Spanish speaking missions). Our oldest daughter Carrie Lorraine Shipp met and married Dan Smith of Montana at BYU and now live in American Fork. They are great. Anyway, it was interesting that the other editor, Richard, is a male editor and you and I are also. Meaning? We have specific vision, in my humble opinion. More so in my case than your case. Thanks for the broader vision. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:57, 14 May 2014 (UTC) PS: Thanks J.G. .!.

Nomination of Kevin S. Hamilton for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kevin S. Hamilton 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/Kevin S. Hamilton 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 notice from the top of the article. pbp 13:56, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin S. Hamilton. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. pbp 04:50, 16 May 2014 (UTC)