User talk:Jcg5029

LDS Template picture
Covered on the talk page. Looks like you're doing the right thing already. :D McKay 15:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

church page move
Two problems with the page move in general:
 * 1) The page was not moved with full consensus. Sure, you and I think that that's the case, but SES has not agreed to such an action. It would have been better to wait for his comments on the subject
 * 2) the page is not at the correct title of the church in question. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the official name of the church is "The Church of Jesus Christ with Headquarters in Monongahela, Pennsylvania" not "The Church of Jesus Christ - with Headquarters in Monongahela, Pennsylvania". McKay 22:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * In response to what you wrote on my talk page:
 * I have no idea what you're talking about when you said "The Church of Jesus Christ (whimp)"
 * "calling one of the General Trustees of The Church of Jesus Christ" is not admissable information for inclusion in Wikipedia. See WP:RS. Looking at the information, I would agree with you, but we're going to need a better source.
 * no, we concluded that church whimp was appropriate if it was it's official name. We did not conclude that the official name was best. See the talk page for more information (can't link, it changes all the time). it can't be "The Church of Jesus Christ" because when people come to wikipedia, they aren't looking for your church. You have to have a different designator here. McKay 14:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen all the people who type in The Church of Jesus Christ to make an accurate assesment here at Wikipedia. I will not make uncited assumptions. Jcg5029 22:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Maintenance tags
Please do not delete content from articles on Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use Sandbox for test edits. Specifically, maintanance tags are not to be removed until the issue has been resolved. Please do not remove them. McKay 17:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * They were not meant to be vandalism I personally feel one person trying to dictate an entire site is a little vandalous...Jcg5029 02:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

-- JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, my actions have been shown in the final edits on the site as correct and not vandalous in any form. McKay falsely applied the tag out of context to cover his own agenda. Jcg5029 01:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

William Bickerton
FYI: Some of the historians have begun a William Bickerton page. Might I suggest you take a look at it because of some of the interesting material on the page currently. Have fun with all this while I'm gone. CSG 18:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, yea I know I think it looks really, really good. Obviously it needs some filling in, but those sources can be added. It is just really nice to have the page up -- saved me a lot of time. Took that one link and made it three separate -- I think it does the situation justice.Jcg5029 03:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Rigdonite
Yes, I think the article is notable, but I put the NN tag on it because it doesn't follow the rules. The rules say that an article must assert its notability. The rules say that that an article must have multiple sources of which the topic is the subject. It doesn't have those sources. I looked briefly for them, but couldn't find any. So while I think it's notable, it doesn't meet the primary notability criterion, so I put the tag up so that others who care about the article could try finding such sources, and hopefully they will be more successful than I. McKay 14:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes,. I do care about the article, and I have tried to do some research, but I personally have been unsuccessful in finding anything that would help it meet the primary notability criterion. McKay 14:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have re-added the notability tag. This discussion here shows that there was at least some discussion, but you should also note there is an entire notability section on the Ridgonite talk page, which you participated in. In fact, you yourself said "maybe the subject is, in fact, not very notable". I'm having a hard time assuming good faith, as your reasons mentioned in your appeared to be contradicting the evidence at hand. Could you please explain in more detail? McKay 17:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You often have a hard time assuming good faith with lots of editors. The article is cited and has references. Plus we all have already agreed that the article was notable, you just felt that it needs beefed up - I agree. I feel that instead of this silly tag that has no relevance maybe a proposed move is in order. Jcg5029 00:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It appears to me as if you do not understand the concept of notablity. I've written an explanation of what's wrong with the article on it's talk page. It feels very similar to the point I brought up in my previous post. I'm not going to say it again. McKay 15:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I guess I wouldn't tag an article without doing some serious research about the subject, not the other way around. It would be my last resort for executing the ***guidline not first.  Jcg5029 18:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I'm sorry you feel that way, but the article was not in a correct state, and it should be corrected or tagged. I tried to correct it but I couldn't. WP:NOT is policy, and wikipedia guidelines are somethings that all editors should follow. McKay 19:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

As an editor just mentioned in the discussion, there are three secondary sources and that would in my opinion make it notable. Sure no primary sources have been portrayed, but I feel three secondary and one direct reference from a the Messanger and Advocate referring to the group more than makes it notable. Apparently you disagree, but I am just following guidlines here. Jcg5029 01:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No, you misunderstand me. I never said the number of secondary sources was in question. None of these sources give "significant coverage" to the topic of Rigdonites. You are not following the WP:N guideline. McKay 15:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Mormon Reformation
While checking in on a talk page on another matter, I noted you had asked for a reference on rebaptism. Of the four references on the Mormon Reformation article, I would recommend Peterson. The others have more limited information, but are still reliable. Forgive the intrusion. WBardwin 08:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Totally cool, its just something I have little to no knowledge about in the history of the LDS movement. Thanks a lot!Jcg5029 02:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

wikiquette
just wanted to let you know, there is a thread about your conduct underway here. VanTucky 16:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up. Jcg5029 18:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

You think that my enumerating complaints about you is against wikipolicy? What gives you that idea? McKay 15:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, I understand what you're referring to, but the Wikiquette alerts section suggests "Avoid an extensive discussion of the problem or issue on this page and instead supply a simple direct explanation of the problem" I felt the list was merely a direct explanation of the problem. McKay 15:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You had already stated the problem. Jcg5029 23:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

JUST FOR CLARIFICATION -- this discussion was changed here to being about the Rigdonite page. The editors viewing McKay's complaints made the change because his accusations were completely unfounded. Basically all charges were dropped. Jcg5029 22:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you know who this is?
Do you have any idea who anon User:146.186.44.239 is? It looks suspiciously like a type of ANON-IP WP:SOCKPUPPET in that it's not been used to make many edits—just on at The Church of Jesus Christ relating to the date dispute and some comments on Talk:The Church of Jesus Christ. I'm looking into it with an administrator, but I thought maybe with your associations you might know who it might be? Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 23:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no idea, if he is who he says he is he could be on any number of computers at any time during the day making lots of edits depending on the size of his school. I simply would ask him.  Jcg5029 01:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

We did. Thanks; he says he is a student who uses a computer at a school anonymously. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 01:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Bickerton
I added the information about Bickerton's association with Brigham Young's faction. Since I respect you as an editor (as opposed to some other wikidiots), I ask you to check what I added. It came from History Vol. 2. Thanks JRN 01:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * As a small sidenote I am stepping back from commenting on the discussion for a while to focus on actually accomplishing something on the page. I feel like User:Rich Uncle Skeleton has done nothing of any real value and is more or less wasting time.  If there are any issues that come up in the next week I'll try and check the discussion page, but if I don't feel free to drop me a message to let me know what's up.  Thanks JRN 02:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Are these pages really needed?
Hi Jcg5029, I wanted to let you know I posted this comment to two articles you started last week, Quorum of Twelve Apostles (The Church of Jesus Christ) and History of The Church of Jesus Christ - I'd like to hear your thoughts on it - thanks.

This page has little information, and what it does have is essentially all already in the main article for The Church of Jesus Christ. Unless there is going to be way more information added to both pages, that would make the main article too long without this separate branch-off article, do we really need this page? I am posting this comment the pages for both Quorum of Twelve Apostles (The Church of Jesus Christ) and History of The Church of Jesus Christ; it applies equally to both. - Reaverdrop ( talk / nl ) 22:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The goal is to add lots of information to these pages. They are a tremendous help to the site.  Jcg5029 19:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Clean Up
I don't know if you're interested but there is some clean-up to be done at President of the church. There is an insignificant section on TCOJC and the differences between groups need to be established for good inclusion. I was hoping you could help out if I can't get to it in the next week or so. Thanks. JRN 01:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:85 thechurchofjesuschrist.jpeg
Thanks for uploading Image:85 thechurchofjesuschrist.jpeg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Category:History of The Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonites)
If you'd like to just move the text manually to an article, then blank the category and place the {db-author} template on it and the nomination can be speedily closed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow I am seeing blurry tonight, sorry and thanks. Jcg5029 (talk) 03:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation
Your upload of File:Bible BOM.jpeg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 13:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

"History of The Church of Jesus Christ" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect History of The Church of Jesus Christ and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 12 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 20:02, 12 January 2022 (UTC)