User talk:Jgstokes/Archive 2

Presidency Succession

JGStokes, please see my 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The Encylcopedia of Mormonism has an outdated article on the International Magazines.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)