User talk:Jgstokes

Archives

2007 2008 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

Introductory Message

Hello, everyone! While I welcome any discussion here about the nature of my edits or about how I can help anyone else in any way on Wikipedia, at the same time, within the last couple of months, several people who have posted comments for me here have not taken the time to mention the page related to the nature of the concerns they are expressing. If I can ask this of you all, I'd very much appreciate it if, going forward, anyone leaving feedback here would please specifically mention the exact page and edit about which you have come here to dialogue. And because I have always tried to live by the philosophy that we can disagree without becoming disagreeable, I'd also appreciate it if the discussions here can remain of a civil, polite, and agreeable tone. That will do more to enable me to provide the best feedback I can in response than will any other approach. I appreciate your cooperation with me on this. With that said, let the discussions continue here as needed! --Jgstokes (talk) 03:58, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Preferred Personal Pronouns

My preferred personal pronouns are he/him/his. I am more than happy to refer to each of you, my fellow editors, by your preferred pronouns as long as I know what they are. I have unfortunately unintentionally misgendered people here in the past, and I'd prefer not to make that same mistake ever again. Thanks for your cooperation with me on this matter. --Jgstokes (talk) 22:33, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

About recent reverts

All three articles are present in the sub category Category:Temples (LDS Church) in Argentina, this is the reason for removal from the parent category, how this clears things up. Emolication (talk) 15:00, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't explained in the edit summary. If it had been, I would not have felt it necessary to revert the changes. When text gets changed without an edit summary explanation, it raises red fl.ags for me. Since you have explained that here,my concerns are satisfied. If you want to restore your edits, feel free to do so. Thanks. User:Jgstokes (talk)—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 15:41, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"png/jpg" text in General Authorities page

Could you explain why you reverted my edit and re-added the "png/jpg" text in the table header for General Authorities? I fail to see why that text should be there because it adds unnecessary clutter to the page. Darrenrs (talk) 05:52, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's hardly "unnecessary clutter". It specifies the kind of file type pictures allowed. You are more than welcome to take this up on the talk page of the article if you still feel that removal was justified. Thanks. User:Jgstokes (talk)—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 01:35, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia protocol

Jgstokes, I admire your work and appreciate your approach to disagreeing without becoming disagreeable. I'm a fellow member of the Church of Jesus Christ and I'm new at Wikipedia. I spent a significant amount of time working to learn the platform but the primary article I worked to publish, even after following all rules, was not published. Do you have any insights or direction you could provide? I'd love to connect with you... but don't really know how. Thank you for your work here! Cmlaw10 (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thanks for your kind words regarding my work here. I have looked over this issue and I do have a few tips for you: your most recent AfCs (Articles for Creation) were rejected because you didn't prove that the article subjects had significant coverage in sufficiently reliable secondary sources (sources that are clearly independent of the article subjects). Failure to comply with these Wikipedia rules and guidelines generally leads to the type of rejections you've been getting. The best advice I can give you is to take time to read up on these policies, sufficiently understand them, and implement content into the article drafts in question that are compliant with those guidelines. In my early days as a Wikipedia editor, I took experienced rejection of AfCs of my own, until someone explained this to me. When I read up on those policies and then drafted articles that were compliant with them, they were in due course approved to stay. So take heart, and don't let the rejections discourage you. Even after being here as long as I have, I am still learning new things about the way Wikipedia works. It's often daunting, but when I do things that are compliant with Wikipedia policies, the contributions that stand start adding up rapidly. I'd also invite you to become part of the Wikiproject for articles about the Church, and to contribute to those in compliance with the applicable manual of style. Well, I've given you enough to chew on/think about for now. If I can assist further in any way, please let me know. Thanks for reaching out to me on this, and best of luck to you in your ongoing efforts to contribute here. User:Jgstokes (talk)—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 00:39, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I'll review the resources you provided. Are there avenues that would allow me to work through more experienced publishers to help with getting the page published? I obviously want to follow all rules and protocols but have been challenged in following the instructions myself. Thank you! Cmlaw10 (talk) 15:54, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Each article has a talk page. The talk page for the Latter Day Saint Wikipedia project would be a good place to ask for extra eyes on the process of creating the articles you'd like to see here, so I would start there. If you can link your request for extra eyes to an article draft page, that would be an important step. Most of the editors involved in that Wikiproject would be happy to help with something like this, I'm sure. So that is an important source of help you can tap into. I don't know much about the subjects you might want to create an article for, but I am also happy to help where I can too. Hope that answers your additional questions. Thanks again for this inquiry. User:Jgstokes (talk)—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 03:15, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestions. That is a great place to start. As the newly appointed Executive Director at This Is The Place Heritage Park there are additional ties to The Church and press coverage that is not included in the current draft. I appreciate how helpful and kind you have been. Thanks again! Cmlaw10 (talk) 15:53, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. Please don't hesitate to reach out to me again if you need any further advice or assistance. User:Jgstokes (talk)—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 04:20, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help on this. A lot of edits have been made to the Case Lawrence page to comply with the Wikipedia rules. Would you be in a position to help by looking it over and give it a rating? Again, thanks for your support. Cmlaw10 (talk) 19:46, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at this page. I think that, overall, it's headed in the right direction. Since I'm not as familiar with the individual in question, I will leave it to others to improve the page. One thing I did notice that I will comment on is that in some places, the article subject is referred to buly their first name (informal) rather than their last (formal). It's probably something that should be fixed ASAP. Other than that, it seems to be headed in the right direction. Keep up the great work, and please let me know if I can offer any further advice as far as Wikipedia guidelines are concerned. User:Jgstokes (talk)—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 08:02, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! You've been very helpful. Cmlaw10 (talk) 15:44, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasur User:Jgstokes (talk)—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 02:07, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinged you into a talk page

Not sure if it worked or not, but I've opened a talk section over at Book of Abraham to discuss the source you added. 12.75.41.70 (talk) 22:55, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Saturday Night Live (season 51) (August 1)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by WeWake was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
• reliable
• secondary
• independent of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

It is likely too soon for this article – not enough sources and information to develop an encyclopedic article (yet).

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Saturday Night Live (season 51) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

WeWake (talk) 22:59, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jgstokes! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! WeWake (talk) 22:59, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of area seventies of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Beira.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:16, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wording distinction

You may have seen a few edits before on the Russell M. Nelson article's history that I did this: (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russell_M._Nelson&diff=1314283038&oldid=1314282497), which didn't seem to resonate with another editor, who tried to include a different distinction...so this is just to say we are on the same page. Thanks for your efforts! ChristensenMJ (talk) 19:49, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all. Always happy to reinforce points I agree with. The distinction is important, and for those who don't like it to be included, there's strength in numbers. I likewise appreciate your efforts on Church articles recently in view of the passing of President Nelson. Keep up the great work, and my thanks for your thanks. User:Jgstokes (talk)—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 20:12, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nelson article

Please engage with the discussion at Talk:Russell M. Nelson. You asked me to take my concerns there, and I did, and was met with support for labeling it TBD, in line with every other LDS navbox and infobox, including the navbox at the bottom of the main Nelson article. schetm (talk) 18:26, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I fully intend to engage in the discussion, but have other things going on that take priority. But the reality of it is that you were the one who originally reverted what has been agreed upon, so the status quo should be restored pending the determination of a clear majority consensus. And, as I did observe on the Nelson talk page, the established Wikipedia policies indicate that the status quo remains until that clear majority consensus is actually established. User:Jgstokes (talk)—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 18:33, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LDS Church or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Wikipedia uses the term "LDS Church", instead of "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" even though that church makes it clear not use "LDS Church." I agree that LDS Church is shorter and easier, but it's not right. What is your take on the matter? Should we use the proper name or an inaccurate abbreviation? I'm willing to learn. Knotsworth (talk) 22:34, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Knotsworth, I am an active member of the Church. It is my responsibility to assert the correct name in all personal interactions. But when it comes to dealing with Wikipedia, there are differences in definition that need to be understood and properly utilized. "Mormonism" is understood to refer to the collective set of beliefs that all sects tracing their origin back to Joseph Smith adhere to and follow. "Latter Day Saint" refers to any adherent of Mormonism, and "Latter-day Saint" or "LDS Church" refers to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Wikipedia as an online encyclopedia is not obligated to use the guidelines or style guide issued by the Church, and when President Nelson issued the course correction in question (which I believe and adhere to on a personal level). In fact, when President Nelson referenced the style guide, he specifically stated that "Responsible media would adhere to and follow the style guide in question. I also don't believe that the phrase "responsible media" applies to "an online encyclopedia anyone can edit." So as an active Church member, in personal interactions and on content I produce, I use the correct name of the Church. But since Wikipedia has three definitive distinctions on the subject, on Wikipedia, it is more practical (and acceptable) to use LDS Church as an abbreviation. Parenthetically, all the articles here that use the LDS Church as an abbreviation in the title for simplicity also use the full name of the Church on first mention. And since "Latter-day Saint" has been used by general Church leaders to refer to members of the Church, where Wikipedia is concerned, I can always in good conscience adhere to the guidelines as they are rather than as I might wish them to be. It's a tricky middle ground to tread, but if I'm not part of the solution this way, then I become part of the problem in another way. So personally, I use the correct name of the Church on all personal items and interactions. But on Wikipedia, the middle ground I choose to walk on is to recognize the difference in the way the terms "Mormonism" "Latter Day Saint" and "Latter-day Saint" are used. I won't engage in aggresively asserting that the Church guidelines need to be followed without understanding and respecting that difference when it comes to Wikipedia, and I'd advise you to do the same. User:Jgstokes (talk)—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 04:28, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I suppose that with hundreds of people editing Wikipedia it's hard to push for the proper name of the church, when guidelines have already been set down. I guess all I can do is to remain firm that the churches guidelines should be respected, while also acknowledging and respecting the guidelines that have been laid down. So, yes, it is tricky. Knotsworth (talk) 18:25, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

God in Mormonism

Hey, @Jgstokes! We meet again. I need somebody else's opinions in God in Mormonism. I have been talking back and forth with @Travellers & Tinkers about an edit I made to which we both have some form of an argument. It seems quite fruitless and is going nowhere. Whatever your opinion is on the matter, please take it to the Talk:God in Mormonism section "Original article title deceptive." Thanks again. Knotsworth (talk) 23:48, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]