Hi, I saw that you reverted my update on a cancelled TV show from "was" to "is", citing Wikipedia policies. Would you mind sharing the link to this policy? I haven't seen it before and don't want to make any future erroneous corrections. Thanks! Medievalonion (talk) 19:55, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:TVNOW is the policy in question, which states: "References to the show, and its characters and locations, should always be in the present tense, as the show will still exist even after it is no longer airing new episodes." (Bold emphasis is my own.) Hope that answers your questions. User:Jgstokes (talk)—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 03:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! I'm not passionately objecting the change, but I restored the status quo and then you reverted my restoration without any edit summary. I was attempting to follow policy and your later reversion of my restoration included no justification. I'll take a stab at reconciling the removed content with the added content tomorrow. glman (talk) 01:46, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In relation to recent edits at LDS Church: for your willingness to take a few days off, come back with a clear head, and look at things with a fresh perspective. That probably wasn’t easy. I hope I can do that if I am ever put in that position. Thank you for your dedication to make Wikipedia better.Trevdna (talk) 04:38, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I wasn't expecting the barnstar. It means a lot to me, and I appreciate it. My thanks to you in return for all you have done to improve the article about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Keep up the great work! User:Jgstokes (talk)—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 04:44, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ya head up Jgstokes, you do a great deal of fine-quality work on LDS topics. We all make mistakes sometimes, it's part of what makes us human. I endorse the above barnstar. Left guide (talk) 10:12, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to come over and apologize if I came across too harshly on your recent edits on the LDS Church page. I just noticed your edit summary when you reverted the changes, had some fairly tough words. I hope you don’t think that I, or anyone else, considered your edits foolish or uncalled for. I simply thought they were not an improvement for the quality of the article’s writing as a whole. Also, I had noticed that there was a lot of debate, previously, and so I thought it would make sense to explain my thinking emphatically to hopefully prevent more back-and-forth. I truly apologize if my wording came off as harsh or impolite. It was not intended to make you feel hurt or unwanted. Your contributions here are valued and valuable. All my best. Trevdna (talk) 05:13, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Those words were simply me describing my own revert, which I felt at the time was foolish and uncalled for. Your words had nothing to do with that personal assessment. Even if that had not been the case, your kind words here made me feel much better about those edits than I had when I self-reverted. Thanks for your kindness and sensitivity on this issue. User:Jgstokes (talk)—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 07:07, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Brooklyn 9-9 edit reverts
Hi Jgstokes, I recently edited some Brooklyn Nine-Nine episode synopses as I was rewatching the series, and saw that there was a lack of detail and some inaccuracies (such as one episode saying a plot point was not what was stated in the episode), and today I saw you reverted them back, I just wanted to know if there is anything to allow them back. MarvelAge91 (talk) 20:48, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Thanks for reaching out. My primary concern in reverting the episode descriptions is that they were overly detailed. When it comes to episode descriptions, the relevant MOS strikes a careful balance between having enough detail on the one end and having too much on the other end. It's a bit of a careful balance to strike, and there is a bit more leeway on the amount of detail allowed in the episode articles, so my suggestion would be to read up on MOS:TVPLOT and, with that as a guideline, try again to add what you feel needs to be added within those parameters. Hope that helps. User:Jgstokes (talk)—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 21:00, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again, I wanted to bring up the reverted page on the Brooklyn Nine-Nine episode page Captain Latvia, I added the sentence explaining what "the owner" mentioned in the synopsis is, but it was reverted back. However, I took a look at the plot section again, just leaving it as the. old "the owner" leaves it unclear. I feel like there is no harm in putting it back as it doesn't detract from the overall plot. MarvelAge91 (talk) 07:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The episode description already mentions that Boyle ordered the action figure online. Therefore, when there's a subsequent mention of "the owner", that obviously refers to the owner of the place from which the action figure was ordered. The issue is not whether the detail detracts from the plot. The issue is that the detail is unnecessary and it is clear enough as it is. Thanks. User:Jgstokes (talk)—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 03:15, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I defer to you. You've got more Wikipedia experience than I do, so you'd probably be better at filing the needed report. User:Jgstokes (talk)—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 06:48, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
The reverts in question were in response to someone abusing multiple accounts. You can see that from the topic above this one. I don't think it's fair to block me for reverting someone abusing multiple accounts. My editing record speaks for itself. If this is not sufficient grounds for the block to be removed, I'll take the suspension. User:Jgstokes (talk)—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 08:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
It looks like the formatting is fixed and your appeal is listed now so another administrator can review it. I would like to further explain the reason for the block. You made five reverts in a 24-hour period (plus another two before that), exceeding the limit of three reverts as outlined in WP:3RR. While there are some exemptions, none of them apply to your reverts. It's important to note that another editor using multiple addresses also isn't an exemption, as many IP address editors can't prevent their IP address from periodically changing automatically (especially the second half of an IPv6 address). In the future, instead of edit warring or violating 3RR, please consider take a break from editing the article, try to engage in a discussion with the other editor on the talk page or their user talk page, and if the edit is that bad, someone else will come along to revert it. There's more advice in the edit warring policy. Regards. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 08:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) To be fair, I don't think it's entirely unreasonable that Jgstokes was operating under the assumption that he was reverting a sockpuppet what with the changing IP addresses and the single purpose account. In fact the participation of User:NotSoDangerousPanda (username likely inspired by former admin User:DangerousPanda) gives credence to the idea that he was in fact dealing with a banned user all along. @Jgstokes, I suggest you take this as a learning experience, apologize for conflating changing IPs with a sockpuppet, and get yourself unblocked. ~Awilley (talk)18:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's good advice. I didn't see anything suggesting that anyone thought they were dealing with a blocked editor prior to the blatant sockpuppet, but I know it can be frustrating dealing with disruptions like this, especially because it's challenging to communicate with an editor not using a stable IP address. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 20:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see these messages until after my block expired. I apologize if I mishandled this or mischaracterized the edits I was reverting. I am aware of the 3RR, and regret violating it in the heart of the moment. Upon reflection, I see the block as deserved, warranted, and necessary. Thanks to you both for keeping me honest. User:Jgstokes (talk)—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 21:31, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You've got mail!
Hello, Jgstokes. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
