User talk:Jgstokes/Archive 7

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Barnstar of Diligence

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. .!.[reply]

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)[reply]

Information icon 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)[reply]

the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

I need some help. User:Beyond My Ken has just reverted 30 insistence where pages have incorrectly used the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints when "THE" is per MOS:LDS, "The" is part of the Name and capitalized. I could uses some help convincing him he is wrong.ARTEST4ECHO (talk)

The discussion is now here--ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 14:52, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Veil

I noticed you reverted my edits to the wedding section of the Veil page. Do you have any substantiated reasons for doing just so? The page in its current incarnation is nonsensical rambling of modern-day reinterpretations, and does not in earnest explain the origins of the phenomenon.--Sparviere (talk) 16:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I do. Your edits were unexplained and unsourced, as I stated in the edit summary field. If you were to go back and reinsert that information, complete with edit summary and sources, that would be enough evidence for me that your edits are accurate. Failing to do so will just get you reverted again. --Jgstokes (talk) 21:57, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Terence M. Vinson for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Terence M. Vinson 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/Terence M. Vinson 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 21:25, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Gregory A. Schwitzer for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gregory A. Schwitzer 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/Gregory A. Schwitzer 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 21:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

General Authority articles

Thankyou for helping to create articles on all the current general authroties. Actually, you may have created more articles than that that I should thankyou for. I really appreiacte all the quality work you have done in this matter. I want you to know your contributions to wikipedia are appreciated.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:08, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
This barnstar is award to recognize top quality work in creating and editing articles on general authorities. John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:12, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Jairo Mazzagardi for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jairo Mazzagardi 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/Jairo Mazzagardi 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 00:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Randall L. Ridd for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Randall L. Ridd 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/Randall L. Ridd 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 00:20, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy J. Dyches

You are wasting your time contesting this. With four articles redirected, and three more slated to be, it's unlikely that this would be kept. Until you get some consensus that people like Dyches are notable (which you won't), the article violates wikipedia guidelines and should be deleted or redirected. Furthermore, it is perfectly acceptable to BOLDly merge or redirect articles, particularly those which violate GNG pbp 03:29, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Timothy J. Dyches for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Timothy J. Dyches 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/Timothy J. Dyches 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 04:22, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Timothy J. Dyches, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Common consent (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) 08:52, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing warning #3/Comments on LDS deletion

Information icon 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 talk:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement. 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.

Remember the last two times when I warned you about canvassing your friendlies? It's still a bad idea. And there is nothing wrong policywise with the manner in which I nominate articles. I nominate 2-3 a week. That SHOULD give you and JPL plenty of time to find sources, if they exist. But they probably don't, which is why the articles keep getting deleted or redirected. And if you have a problem, griping in the AfD isn't going to solve it. You either need to file an ANI or dispute resolution against me, or you need to start a thread for the amending of GNG or of common deletion outcomes pbp 15:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do remember your "warnings." I also remember you reported me for canvassing and that it was determined that I was not in violation of any Wikipedia policies in so doing. Please do not take it upon yourself to take me to task for doing nothing wrong. As to your nominations for deletion, I have as much right to "gripe" about the AfD as you have to nominate them for deletion. I still believe it to be a gross miscarriage of justice to single out articles simple because they do not meet GNG. I believe they could meet GNG if given half a chance. And by that, I mean a period of time longer than a few days/weeks. Sometimes it takes months to find the proper sources. I know this from experience. I have struggled to find references for weeks at a time on a certain matter. And most of the time, the other editors I have worked with have expressed a willingness to hold off on deleting those articles until I could find the proper sources. I believe we do articles a great discredit when we delete them within only days of bringing up article issues. I still believe a better course, the "higher road" if you will, would be to express concerns on the relevant article's talk page and allow discussion before going straight to deleting them. I believe we could save a lot of time and energy in so doing. But I won't force you to see things my way. You have a right to your own opinion. Also, if you believe I am in violation of any Wikipedia policy, since I am a longtime Wikipedia editor and not a "newbie" that needs to be "bawled out" every time I do something you feel violates Wikipedia policy, then instead of sending me warnings which may or may not be justified, the proper course is to report me and let an admin handle it. That's what you did the second time you "caught" me "canvassing." And, as I stated, the result was that there was no problem in the way I handled notifying other editors. If you refuse to notify editors that have a possible interest at stake in the articles in question, then you must allow me to do so. And I violated no Wikipedia policies that I'm aware of by posting on the "Latter Day Saint movement" project page. If you had done your research, you would have discovered that a reply was posted to the subject I started there, and the result was an editor agreed with you in principle and in practice. I will continue to notify editors who have an interest in articles that may be put up for deletion in the future. And since I violate no Wikipedia policy as long as I keep my notices neutral, your "warnings" are a moot point. If you have a problem with my conduct, report me to the admins, but don't be surprised if and when they determine I have done nothing wrong, as they have in the past. I hold no animosity against you as an editor, and wish you all the best in your future Wikipedia editing. --Jgstokes (talk) 07:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of J. Devn Cornish for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article J. Devn Cornish 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/J. Devn Cornish 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 13:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Randy D. Funk for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Randy D. Funk 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/Randy D. Funk 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 13:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mister Rogers' Neighborhood

No problem, however someone is going around changing values in the funding sections of articles. Do you think it might be facts vandalism? This gave me the idea to be bold with Mister Rogers as that is on my watchlist. Relevant information, really? Don't worry I'm done here. SlightSmile 18:36, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An historic

You are incorrect that the correct usage is "an historic". One uses "an" instead of "a" before words that start with a vowel sound. If the word starts with a consonant sound, one uses "a". This is why one says "an heir" and "a hare". "An historic" is idiomatic, and in some cases dialectic usage, and is non-standard.

  • "'A historic event' or 'an historic event'?", OxfordDictionaries.com, Oxford University Press
  • Chivers, Tom (29 June 2012), "An historically ugly way of speaking", The Daily Telegraph. See also: Telegraph style book: Aa
  • Fogarty, Mignon "Grammar Girl" (February 3, 2011), "A Versus An", quickanddirtytips.com
  • Garner's Modern American Usage by Bryan Garner (2009)
  • Woe Is I by Patricia T. O'Conner (2010)
  • The Chicago Manual of Style
  • AP Stylebook
  • United Press International stylebook
  • The Washington Post stylebook
  • The New York Times stylebook
  • USA Today stylebook
  • U.S. News & World Report stylebook

These very adequately detail why the change at Haun's Mill massacre is justified, and I will be reverting your unnecessary revert. —Asterisk*Splat→ 15:49, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. I was always taught that if a singular letter had an "an" before it, then any word starting with that letter likewise had an "an" before it ie "an A" "an H" etc. Guess I was misinformed. That was my bad. Sorry. I will never make that mistake again. --Jgstokes (talk) 19:48, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Life is about continuing to learn: any day where I haven't learned something new is truly boring. Glad to have introduced you to a useful bit of knowledge. —Asterisk*Splat→ 21:35, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who publishes?

I always like to think of how language is used in practice as opposed to the definition of words in isolation. I write an article and it is printed in an academic journal. The usual language usage is to say that I published the article, even though some other entity did the actual printing of it. It's usual to say Smith published the BOM. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Tiger Season 2

Sure, I'll take a look at it and try to get a table up either tonight or tomorrow evening. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:01, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints membership history

I redid the math with the numbers and it comes out to 2.03, please review my arithmetic. (so that if I'm wrong, I can send my diploma back to the Mathematics department at Carnegie-Mellon. :) )Naraht (talk) 20:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

Hi Jgstokes, we've crossed paths a number of times, and I have often noticed you invoking WP:NPOV in your talk page posts and edit summaries. From what I've seen, I'm not convinced that you understand what NPOV means. It doesn't mean that everything said about a subject needs to be "neutral" or positive, and it certainly doesn't mean that preference should be given to sources associated with the subject as you seem to suggest here. NPOV also should not be confused with WP:MPOV. Anyway, here is my recommendation to you: instead of focusing on POV and NPOV, why don't you focus on other related policies such as WP:RS, WP:V, WP:Words, or even specific subsets of NPOV like WP:Weight. Pick a good secondary source and try to make articles reflect that. (I can recommend a couple if you like.) Neutral Point of View is hard to find and everybody has a different opinion on what counts as "neutral". The other policies are more concrete, and people are more likely to agree with you if you are on the side of the sources. Does that make sense? ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:44, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice and for taking time to comment. I will take time to think about your comments and the relevant policies and alter my conduct accordingly. Oftentimes, if I fail to post a NPOV source it is because I am having trouble finding one. I would be pleased to hear any recommendations you might have for me in this regard. I would prefer that our entire discussion on this issue take place on my talk page, but if you'd like it to be elsewhere, just direct me to the relevant page. One other thing. I don't often go to other user's talk pages to check for replies, so if you could reply here, I'd appreciate it. I will be leaving a note on your talk page so you know to keep commenting here. Thanks for taking time to approach me about this important issue. --Jgstokes (talk) 23:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay...was out of town for the long weekend. Based on your interest to Mormonisim-related areas, the source I had in mind is the one that User:Airborne84 was citing on the Joseph Smith talk page: Mormonism: a very short introduction by Richard Bushman. Bushman is a respected expert in the field, and the Very Short Introductions series is from a respected publisher. The book itself is a quick read (worth the $10 or whatever on Amazon) and contains a summary of nearly all the important topics. At the end of the book is a list of suggested topic specific literature, all of which is also appropriate for use on Wikipedia. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:20, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Jgstokes. You have new messages at Randykitty's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Terence M. Vinson

Hi Jgstokes,

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. To be honest, I feel that Vojen's argument, that a local notability guideline should trump GNG, to be one that is not very convincing. The rationale behind that rule is that you need substantial and independent sources on a person before you can build a comprehensive and neutral biography of them. Obviously I haven't had time to look at that long list of links in the Funk AFD, but I am extremely uncomfortable with the idea of creating a BLP article through sources with obvious COI.

With that said, I can see that the wind is now blowing the other way on these articles and that consensus might have changed. I'm happy to restore the article from the redirect and relist at AFD for a second look, to see if consensus still holds, if you wish. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:07, 27 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I see that you've been talking to User:Randykitty about another similar article. Perhaps rather than approaching this piecemeal, I can put a group nomination in at WP;DRV on your behalf instead? That way we can avoid further inconsistent results. Lankiveil (speak to me) 22:23, 29 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]
That would be great. I have also attempted to contact User:Jinian about his/her deletion of Gregory A. Schwitzer (no reply yet), User:Lord Roem about his/her deletion of Timothy J. Dyches (no reply yet), and User:Salvio giuliano regarding his/her deletion of Jairo Mazzagardi, Randall L. Ridd, and Larry Y. Wilson (no reply yet), all of which were deleted before this new argument was presented. I know that some admins don't like stepping on other admins toes, but Jinian and Lord Roem have been given a sufficient enough time to reply, and I read on Salvo giuliano's talk page that he/she was struggling with health issues that might affect his/her ability to respond to messages and requests such as these. So if you wanted to make a group nomination for Timothy J. Dyches, Kevin S. Hamilton, Jairo Mazzagardi, Randall L. Ridd, Gregory A. Schwitzer, Terence M. Vinson, and Larry Y. Wilson, that would be fantastic. I don't know how we'd get the word out to those who participated in the previous discussion. There was one user who seemed to be more interested in policing my account for wrongdoing and then throwing any argument in favor of keeping these articles in the face of the person who made the argument than in a logical, reasoned discussion. He accused me of canvassing, when all I was doing was impartially informing interested parties of the deletion nominations. He once reported me to the admins for canvassing, but I was found innocent. He went on to warn me again. He was not assuming good faith at all. All this is a matter of record, and you can see it preserved here on my talk page. I once told him that I would report him for not following Wikipedia policy by not assuming good faith if he continued to "warn" me about canvassing when I wasn't doing anything wrong and if he continued to throw Wikipedia policy in the face of those who were trying to follow policy and still preserve the articles, but he countered by saying if I did he'd report me for writing bad articles and ignoring Wikipedia policy. So I let it go. I'm sure he would want to be involved in the new discussion. But after my interactions with him, I hope you can understand that I won't be the one to invite him to comment on that discussion. You can if you want. If it were up to me, I'd leave him out of it. He seemed determined to get these articles deleted whatever the cost. I was gratified to see, however, that Vojen's comment seemed to silence him. Sorry for the long post. I was just thinking about who might want to be in on this new discussion, and it brought all the unpleasantness back. If you could nominate these articles for deletion review, that would be fantastic. I learned from Randykitty that I could make the nomination myself, but I got confused reading about how to do it, so if you would be able to do it for me, I'd be eternally grateful. Just let me know where and when to comment. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 04:58, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed the matter at WP:DRV, can you please check what I've written and comment accordingly if I've in any way inadvertently misrepresented your argument. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Jgstokes. You have new messages at Randykitty's talk page.
Message added 19:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Randykitty (talk) 19:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Number of Psych novels

Hello, I don't understand your undo of my change. Unless I'm very bad at counting the line "William Rabkin has written and published six novels based on the series." displayed above a list of five novels by Rabkin and one companion book by Chad Gervich seems like a misstake to me. Could you please explain the undo or add a sixth novel that is missing from the table and from my bookshelf? --Irrdc (talk) 12:48, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pomeroy Tucker

Are you truly aware of who Pomeroy Tucker is and what he published in Origin, Rise, and Progress of Mormonism? If so I can't understand why you'd think him a good source for early Mormon history. -- —Asterisk*Splat→ 21:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He must be a neutral source or else he wouldn't be quoted in the article. That quote existed in the article for quite a while before you unilaterally changed it. I don't care so much about where the information comes from. What I care about is the fact that what I and other editors feel is important information to include in the article was unilaterally taken out by you without discussion of any kind. That violates Wikipedia's policies about forming a consensus. So I would strongly recommend that you go back to the article talk page and attempt to form a consensus before you omit vital information from the article. And if Tucker is, as you claim him to be, a bad source, then surely we can find a reputable source that offers the same information that would satisfy you. --Jgstokes (talk) 05:57, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, perhaps we are miscommunicating. I'm talking about Church of Christ (Latter Day Saints), where on 31 August 2014‎ user Darmokand (talk · contribs) added a laundry list of early church members (many of whom are completely non-notable), citing Tucker, which I then removed on 2 September 2014‎. You subsequently reverted, saying:
"We need proof that Tucker's not a good source. According to other sources, this information is accurate. I believe (and other do too) that this information should be included here, so I'm reverting this change"
Pomeroy Tucker's Origin, Rise, and Progress of Mormonism is hardly a neutral source: William O. Nelson (former assistant executive secretary to the Council of the Twelve) described it as "[p]robibly the most influential anti-Mormon work in [its] period" in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism entry titled "Anti-Mormon Publications". I'm quite surprised that you'd lend credence to anti-Mormon literature, and it's usage here on WP, given your edit history and previous comments.
Also not sure what you mean that it has been there for a while, or that there is any form of existing consensus for it being included. Could you please clarify? —Asterisk*Splat→ 15:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To chime in-- Tucker's stance as a non-believer and critic is undeniable, but we're just using him for his recollection of earliest members, not his religious opinions. And if we have better sources for the earliest membership at that stage, we'll use them too. --Darmokand (talk) 16:06, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Jgstokes. You have new messages at Talk:Church of Christ (Latter Day Saints)#List of early church members.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Capitalising article links

I think you are mistaken, there are hundreds of other article links without capitals in the resurrection article alone. Can you point me to where the WP:MOS says this? Theroadislong (talk) 22:13, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Early participants in the Latter Day Saint movement, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Samuel H. Smith and Martin Harris. 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) 09:22, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Randall K. Bennett for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Randall K. Bennett 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/Randall K. Bennett 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 23:43, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Undo musical references on Psych, the Musical page

I do not understand why you reverted my addition of musical references to the 'Psych, the Musical' entry. Your message "AFTER you have a reliable source to verify this information" does not help to clarify. There is no citation for what the plot is, nor what the musical numbers are. How is this section different?

The closest equivalent to *exactly this* is in episode 'Mr. Yin Presents', where all Hitchcock references are included. There are no citations here either. So, why is this section singled out?

Finally, what citation would you think -should- exist for a collection of references? Qvamp (talk) 21:10, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Bradley D. Foster for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bradley D. Foster 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/Bradley D. Foster 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 03:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LDS General Article AfD Votes

Your AfD votes are not compliant with AfD guidelines (Vojen's and JPL's aren't either, FWIW). Stringing out my AfDs over a period of months gives you time to source the articles. Wikipedia articles are not kept because of perceived importance, they are kept because they are or can be sourced with third-party publications. Though it is imperative that this is the case with all articles, it is even more important with living people because of BLP policy. your responses in this and other AfDs, it's becoming clear to me that you don't understand GNG. Instead of ill-conceived AfD votes, you should do one or more of the following:

  1. Source LDS general authority articles with non-LDS publications.
  2. Start a thread at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) asking that an exception to GNG be carved out for LDS general authorities.

Though I strongly suggest you familiarize yourself with GNG and sourcing policies before you do either. If you don't like that I'm telling you these things, you can complain to ANI, but I doubt it will get the articles kept. pbp 22:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Come, Ye Thankful People, Come

Care to explain this? That was a 5x expansion of the article including addition of new material relating to the hymns composition and usage. There was no rationale to remove it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:56, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The main issue I had with it was that you failed to explain your edit. Even though you were adding sourced material, it wasn't clear to me what the purpose of each edit was. So I reverted them all. If you would like to remake your edits, explaining them along the way this time, I don't see why the material can't remain. There was one other thing. With major article expansions such as this, it should be discussed on the talk page first, so that others can have a chance to voice their support/opposition to proposed changes. By not explaining your edits and by cutting people out of the deal, you were in violation of two Wikipedia policies. So I would suggest that you go back to the talk page, explain what expansions you want to do, get a consensus decision for such an expansion, then remake the changes. --Jgstokes (talk) 22:50, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(tps, and have been following this article for a year). You can add a lot of content to an article without any explanation, and no consensus is needed to do so. It's called being bold. I have reverted you with an edit summary explaining what the additions entail, and since this appears to be the place where we're discussing the article, I support C of E's changes to the article.pbp 23:05, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Cyberchase episodes

I've blocked the two IP addresses having "fun" with the page and a few others. If another IP comes along in the next few days, tell me and I'll put page protection on the page. Bgwhite (talk) 05:42, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Template:LDS70pres

Hello, Jgstokes. You have new messages at Template_talk:LDS70pres#Requested_changes.
Message added 22:28, 11 November 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--- ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 22:28, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Cyberchase episodes

No problem. If they come back it can be increased. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]