User talk:Jgstokes/Archive 12

Restoration (Latter Day Saints)

How is this title ambiguous? Srnec (talk) 23:07, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Give the disambiguation pages a look, and I think you'll have a more clear understanding of the answer to the question than I could offer here. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 05:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I overhauled the disambiguation page a couple days ago. That's why I removed the hatnote from the article. "Restoration (Latter Day Saints)" is not ambiguous, except possibly with Restoration branches. The title of the page in question is not "Restoration". Are you sure you understand WP:NAMB? –Srnec (talk) 12:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really asking someone who's been a Wikipedia editor for almost 12 years whether or not he understands a specific Wikipedia policy he has previously helped to properly enforce? Funny how someone can assume I've not done my research, but hasn't bothered to personally do so. I intend no offense, and I certainly hope none is taken. --Jgstokes (talk) 06:18, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit reverts

Please cite with link the exact page in Wikipedia guidelines that states that using citations/ stating sources is considered NPOV/Editorializing. Nao241 (talk) 13:09, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I apologize for my delay in responding to you. I have been dealing with some health issues which have taken me away from Wikipedia for the last several months. Regarding the substance of your request, I would be happy to address your concerns, but you would need to first remind me of the page in question involved in this matter, and I would have to look things over and try to remember my specific reasons for taking the stance I did at that time. I apologize for the inconvenience, but I have been struggling with some of these health issues for the last several months, and the nature of dealing with them has led me to forget the specifics of the issue in question. If you can clarify that for me, I'd be happy to address the concerns I raised at the time. Thank you. --Jgstokes (talk) 03:05, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion on Temple Graph

I have recreated the graph of temples over time that is on the main temple list page. It was last updated in 2010, so it definitely needed. I will hang on to the data so it can be updated easier in the future. Do you mind leaving feedback on the chart? It is here. I am good with charts and data, but not with design, so any comments would be helpful. Feel free to invite anyone else you think would like to comment. Thanks! Glennfcowan (talk) 02:46, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Glennfcowan. Sorry for my delayed response. I have been dealing with health issues for the past several months that necessitated my absence from Wikipedia. I appreciate you putting that together, and would be happy to look it over as time and circumstances allow this next week. It may take me a bit to offer feedback on this. With the Church's plans to consolidate 7 of the North American Areas down to 3 as of August 1, I have a bit of work to do on a couple of the subpages I have created to replace the content of existing pages once those changes go into effect in 36 hours or so. But I will make a note to remind myself to look that over, and will get back to you with feedback ASAP, if you'd still like me to weigh in. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 03:10, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no worries. I have already made some revisions based on other feedback, so make sure you are looking at the top version (all blue graph areas). It is already live on the temple page, but any other comments would be helpful. I don't need any comments ASAP, so take your time. I will keep the data so that as changes happen, I can refresh it easily. I can also select a subset of the data for additional graphs (e.g. temples announced in the 20th century, or temple activity since 1995). If you ever see that is needs to be updated, just message me. Glennfcowan (talk) 03:27, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. will do. --Jgstokes (talk) 03:36, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Voice (American season 17), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Deadline (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 08:07, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited History of Saturday Night Live (2015–present), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Leslie Jones (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:51, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Jgstokes/Archive 12,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with Wikipedia and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 16:29, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary Sanctions Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

OhKayeSierra (talk) 00:01, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Jgstokes/Archive 12,

A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 15:37, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from The Good Place (season 3) into The Good Place (season 4). While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:53, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you taking time to explain that to me. It would probably have been more accurate for me to say that I used some of the information from this page to inform the process of creation for this one, and it was not a straight-up word-for-word copying from one to another. After being informed of the potential copyvio issue, I took extra care to try and tweak a few things on the new page in an effort to reverse the problem I inadvertently and uninteionally caused. I deeply regret hearing that my conduct in this issue may have been a problem. I have been a Wikipedia editor for the last 12 years or more, and have gained a reputation through various facets of the English Wikipedia community for strictly adhering to the relevant policies related to my contributions once I have been made aware of any problem relating to my conduct in such issues. I appreciate your explanation of the problems with my edits in this case, I regret any ill-advised conduct for which I may be guilty in this case, and I want to let you know that now that I understand the nuances about this information I will be altering my conduct in similar situations in the future accordingly. THank you again. --Jgstokes (talk) 21:25, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Jgstokes/Archive 12,

There are only a few weeks left to take the Community Insights Survey! We are 30% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! With this poll, the Wikimedia Foundation gathers feedback on how well we support your work on wiki. It only takes 15-25 minutes to complete, and it has a direct impact on the support we provide.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 20:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have already filled one of those out. Thanks for checking in on that. --Jgstokes (talk) 05:34, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]