User talk:Jgstokes

Introductory Message

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)

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)

Tense of Cancelled TV show

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)

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)

Thanks! Medievalonion (talk) 19:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

LDS Reversion

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)

I have started a discussion at Talk:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#Disputed edit Jan 24. I would invite both of you to discuss over there to keep discussion centralized. Thanks! NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 02:07, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		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)

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)

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)

@Left guide, my thanks to you as well. User:Jgstokes (talk)—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 17:31, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Jgstokes,

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)

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)

Fandom

Hey do you edit on this website called Fandom Max the Media Fan (talk) 00:47, 1 March 2024 (UTC)