|
| This is a Wikipedia user talk page.
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jgstokes. |
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]
You accidentily created User talk:Jgstokes/Archive 17 in the article space. I have moved it to its proper place. Just thought I should tell you. Have a nice day. NightWolf1223 <Howl at me•My hunts> 22:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for letting me know and for your assistance in fixing this. User:Jgstokes (talk)—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 05:21, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain why is the line regarding "Lawrence Kestenbaum, The Political Graveyard" relevant in the context of the post-production section of Iron Man (2008 film)? I've added a section in the talk page regarding this. 2401:7400:C80A:9A9D:C4CB:2C4F:36E3:2966 (talk) 03:24, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I can't. My revert stated what the issue was, and that was that you removed that information without discussing it on the talk page first. If it was in the article, there must have been both a reason for including it and a consensus to do so. Until you have a clear consensus (majority opinion) for removing it, it should be allowed to stand, which is consistent with Wikipedia policies. User:Jgstokes (talk)—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 03:29, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok. Your reason was "relevant text", hence my question was why is that relevant, and you haven't answered that. Regardless I have added a section in the talk page on that and appreciate if you can share your reason on why that is relevant over there. 2401:7400:C80A:9A9D:C4CB:2C4F:36E3:2966 (talk) 03:35, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- It is relevant because at some point, it was put in the article. That was done by previous consensus, so a new consensus is necessary to remove it. I don't have strong feelings either way whether it stays or is removed, but you unilaterally removed it without prior discussion and consensus, which is the problem I had with this situation. So whatever the consensus (a majority opinion) decides here, I'm on board with it. User:Jgstokes (talk)—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 03:44, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- To be honest, I don't see much historical engagement on the Talk page itself, so I don't know how we can go with "a new consensus is required for removing content". Especially one that is obviously irrelevant to the context as this is. I see many changes to the page that is accepted as long as it is not controversial, and you haven't actually given a satisfying response to the relevancy of the said text, other than "it was put in the article at some point", which is really a non-reason. 2401:7400:C80A:9A9D:C4CB:2C4F:36E3:2966 (talk) 04:01, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not the point. The point is your removal of this content has been challenged, and when content is challenged, it takes a talk page consensus to decide the issue. That is Wikipedia policy. In challenging your removal, I am merely asking you to follow Wikipedia policy. Whether you choose to do so or not is entirely up to you. But because the edit in question has been challenged, it would take a talk page consensus to support the removal of the information. If you're unable (or unwilling) to seek consensus support, then my restoration of the text you unilaterally moved will stand. That is also consistent with Wikipedia policy. So the ball is in your court. You choose whether to play or not. User:Jgstokes (talk)—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 05:33, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- This was actually a typographical error in that {{Pg}} (which mentions the unrelated Political Graveyard piece) was being used instead of (to cite the page numbers of the cited book). I have corrected this, which was a minor mistake. Trailblazer101 (talk) 07:51, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey!
You reverted my edit on Colonia Juárez Chihuahua Mexico Temple. I removed about a paragraph of text describing the area around the temple because it was written in a different style to the rest of the article. While I realize I could have just re-written it to match, but your edit summary of "Was correct as shown" makes it seem like it doesn't need rewriting. Was the problem that I just deleted it outright, or that it doesn't need to be altered?
Thanks,
I can do stuff! (talk) 15:33, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
P.S., your userbox for Brigham Young is broken, the image isn't showing up.
I can do stuff! (talk) 15:50, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the problem was that you deleted it outright. If I recall correctly, you also didn't explain your deletion in the edit summary. If that's incorrect, I apologize. I've been dealing with some health issues that have usurped my focus, so while I was aware of your message, this is the first chance I've had to reply to it. Sorry about that delay. If you have any other issues with my revert in this case, please let me know. Keep up the great work, and thanks for your inquiry here. User:Jgstokes (talk)—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 00:13, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, so it was a problem with not using an edit summary, and not something with the edit itself, besides the edit being large enough to warrant a better summary?
- I can do stuff! (talk) 15:12, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- That and the large amount of text being changed in a single edit. It's always better to edit a little at a time and provide an edit summary for each one than it is to change large amounts of text. As far as I can recall, those are the main issues I had with the edits. The content was never objectionable. Hope that makes sense. Sorry I didn't explain that better on my end. When I see large amounts of text being changed without explanation, it's always a red flag for me, even if there's nothing wrong with the nature of the additions in question. Thanks. User:Jgstokes (talk)—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 03:22, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You reverted my edit of History of the Latter Day Saint movement, using the summary "Unexplained edit. This was correct as shown.". First, as per WP:RV ("Do not revert an otherwise good edit solely because an editor used a poor edit summary...") and WP:ROWN ("Do not revert an edit as a means of showing your disapproval of the edit summary."), a lack of an edit summary is not a valid reason for reversion. Second, as per WP:SDNONE, "some article titles are sufficiently detailed that an additional short description would not be helpful.... In those cases, {{Short description|none}} should be used...". The article in question has such a title, as evidenced by the fact that the short description that I replaced merely echoed the title. — LucasBrown 10:59, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- You didn't explain any of that in the edit summary field. Had you done so, any concerns on my part would not have been raised. Since you explained yoursel here, that more than satisfied me. But your explanation here would have been unnecessary had you explained that in the edit summary. I always appreciate editors reminding me of policy. But as an editor here for 17 years, I am not unacquainted with the policies you cited. Thanks for the reminder. Sorry for my delayed response. I've been dealing with some health issues that have usurped my focus. I always appreciate anyone raising concerns about my edits. Thanks. User:Jgstokes (talk)—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 00:09, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you reverted a few of my SNL season edits so I thought I'd explain some context. The older SNL history articles have been replaced by a new History of Saturday Night Live article that functions as a broad look at the show's history over time, which is what they should have been the whole time but were not used as that previously. The edits you reverted were merging in info from those articles that have now been redirected to the new article per consensus at an AfD discussion. Yes some of the info in these merges will be imperfect and not notable for Wikipedia I'm sure, but that would have been an opportunity to refine and improve that info instead of just wiping other editor's contributions en masse.
History information that is only relevant to one season of the show should be on that season's article. I'm confused why you have an issue with sourced information about a television season being on a television season article. Especially a small, completely sourced, relevant edit like this which you reverted without any explanation whatsoever. StewdioMACK (talk) 04:10, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm just noticing that you've ignored several messages on this page from editors concerned about your reversions, so I'm hoping that you will actually respond. Sitting on articles and just reverting other's edits without talking to them to reach WP:CONSENSUS could constitute WP:OWN behaviour. StewdioMACK (talk) 04:29, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- My problem with your edits is that they were unexplained. When a lot of content gets added or deleted without an explanation, it raises red flags for me. Had you explained the rationale behind your edits either in the edit summary field or on the talk page (or ideally both), those red flags would not have been raised. If you were merging in content from other articles, you should have also made sure your edits cited the applicable policy about copying content within Wikipedia. Had you explained your edits, or cited said policy, no red flags would have been raised on my end. I apologize if that created an issue for you. And, in fairness to you, I should have been more clear in my reverts of your edits. But as a rollbacker, my understanding is that I'm not always required to be.
- As far as my unresponsiveness to messages on my talk page, I am going through some health issues that have usurped my attention, so I'm having to catch up with my messages as I can, while also trying to make meaningful contributions to Wikipedia with all the projects I'm involved in. And Wikipedia policy doesn't require me to respond to every message within a certain time-frame insofar as I am aware. ::Further, I am also not aware of any policy requiring a response if the message left adequately addresses concerns sufficietly to the point that no further action is needed on my part. I have edited here for over 17 years, so I am no novice to Wikipedia policy. But I always appreciate people stopping by to remind me of it. It keeps me honest. Again, sorry for any inconvenience, Thank you for the privilege of your time. All the best. User:Jgstokes (talk)—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 23:56, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for apologising and I apologise for coming in here a little hot myself. I could have probably explained things a bit better in the summaries, but I did use a summary every time and attribute that content to the pages I copied from, per WP:CWW. I didn’t explain in every summary that those original pages were being deprecated though, so I apologise for that. I’ve explained all that in greater detail on the SNL talk page if you’re seeking more info on it.
- You don’t have to explain reverts, but it is good practice to when reverting good-faith content, and I do have to point out that per WP:ROLLBACKUSE, using that tool in particular to rollback good-faith edits without a summary like you did here can lead to the rollback tool being removed from your account; it’s only to be used in cases of clear vandalism. I understand that health issues may make it difficult to keep up on the talk page so I appreciate the response and I’m wishing you good health. StewdioMACK (talk) 01:46, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your reply. We are all learning here. I hadn't realized that all rollback edits that reverted good-faith edits needed an edit summary. My primary concern was a large amount of text being changed without explanation. Since you've now explained it, my concerns are satisfied. I am aware I have to keep up active editing to retain the rollback permissions, so I will try to be more mindful of that going forward as well. Thanks for your well-wishes. I've been having significant health challenges for the better part of the last 7 years. So in a way, the fact that I'm still committed to being an active editor here is saying something. Thanks again for stopping by to comment. User:Jgstokes (talk)—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 03:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
I have reverted WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH that you added to the page Melchizedek priesthood (Latter Day Saints). Please use independent reliable sources, as described in WP:RS to back up any content you add. The Book of Mormon and other primary sources are not valid sources. 12.75.41.25 (talk) 02:32, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
|
