User talk:Jgstokes/Archive 10

Thanks for the thanks!
Hey, thanks for thanking me for my edit on Resurrection! Thayve Sintar (talk) 05:28, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem, Thayve Sintar. If there is one thing I have learned in my ten years editing Wikipedia, it is that the good work of others deserves to be recognized. And thank you for thanking me for thanking  you (that was a mouthful, wasn't it?) Keep up the great work!--Jgstokes (talk) 20:39, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey, bud, thanks for thanking me for thanking you for th... th... th.. aaaaa.... hahaha! :-D Yeah, you're welcome, of course! Anyway, I agree! I've thanked others for some of their edits too. Well, I don't do it on every edit that I ever see that's a good one, but I like to do it on a few select ones here and there. And I have the faith that you'll be keeping up the good work too! I'd welcome you as a friend. Thayve Sintar (talk) 21:30, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Looks like you got a little lost there. You have my friendship, if you want it. I wish you continued success in your ongoing Wikipedia efforts. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if I can be of any help to you. --Jgstokes (talk) 00:47, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * A little lost? Hehe, yeah, well I was just joking about how we could add thanks upon thanks of thanks for thanks, and on and on, haha! Yes, of course I'd like us to be friends, and thanks! Thanks for the invitation to talk again if I should need help, and I wish continued success to you too, my friend! Thayve Sintar (talk) 01:55, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I figured as much. I knew what you were saying. My subtle attempt at humor fell flat. I was joking about your joke. But we could go on like this for quite a while. Suffice to to say that I respect your work, and I'm glad you respect mine. Drop me a line if you need anything, and I will do the same for you. Thanks again.--Jgstokes (talk) 02:10, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, sufficeth to say, I'm sorry that my reaction was such that it caused your joke about my joke to fall flat. I actually did think you were joking about my joke (my "th... th..." showing the potential for ongoing thanks). So I didn't think your joke fell flat. But if you were joking about something else, I'd be interested in having you describe that for me, hehe. (I know, some people don't like to explain their jokes, but please, no "never mind," because I'd really like to see what you'd say.) Yeah, it's cool that we respect each other's work.
 * Over a little while I had heard too many people say stuff like "lower down" and "raise up," and I was like, "Ughh! Lowering already _includes_ the idea of 'down' as part of its definition! That's redundant!" And of course just the same thing for raising and "up." So I just used Google to hunt for all the English "lower(ed) down" and "raise(d) up" (oh, and I need to look for the "-ing"s too) that I could find and took them out, unless they were transitive (such as "lowered down the hole," etc.), where the external "down" or "up" would still be required.
 * Nice chattin' at ya. Thayve Sintar (talk) 06:43, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

No, you didn't miss much. My point was that in cutting yourself off, you got a little lost, which was pretty much what you said. And actually, grammatically, "suffice it to say" is the same as saying "it is sufficient to say"; either is correct. But I agree with you. It's hard dealing with people here who have no regard for correct grammar. The main thing that started my Wikipedia editing experience was that I found lots of inaccuracies (real or perceived) in articles related to the LDS Church, of which I have been a lifelong member. My focus started on articles related to the Church, then widened as I found other articles of interest. In the meantime, I have cultivated a great working atmosphere with my fellow editors. And I have become well respected for my contributions. I am grateful you dropped a line here. And again, if there is anything I can do to help you in your efforts, let me know. In my 10 years of experience here on Wikipedia, I have gained a reputation as one who knows what he is talking about and who can be relied upon when issues of grammar or policy are involved. So if you need anything, let me know. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 00:45, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, okay, thanks for explaining your joking a bit more. Yeah, I was sort of mocking ourselves like a repeating decimal: "Thanks, th....... We could go on forever!"
 * Haha, here's something funny too: Thanks for correcting me about "suffice it to say," because I had always thought I was hearing "sufficeth to say" because I thought people were just trying to be high-brow by using some form of old English, and so when I thought people wrote "suffice it to say," I thought, "Oh, they're just mishearing 'sufficeth to say'." But you know, I should have done my research before putting "sufficeth" in here, because it looks like I was more wrong about that, actually. Haha, I appreciate the heads-up.
 * It's kind of like the time from a few years ago when I said "one in the same" because that's what I thought people had been saying all along, and then I typed that on a grammar-related facebook page and someone replied with, "No, it's 'one and the same'." So I was like, "Oh! Well, that does make a little bit more precise sense, doesn't it? Okay, 'one and the same' then!" Hehehe...
 * Yeah, I appreciate your work on articles about the church too. And if I need help with stuff, I surely will take you up on the offer. Since you've been actively editing this project for around a decade now, have you ever given consideration to an RfA?
 * Thayve Sintar (talk) 19:59, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Not really. I suppose I could have done so, but that added responsibility is a lot of work on something that I am not getting paid for. Right now, the reason that I am able to spend as much time as I have of late editing Wikipedia is because I am between jobs. In addition to my lifelong Church membership, I have also had several health-related issues throughout my life. The latest issues I have been dealing with led to my job being lost in February, and I have not yet been able to get back on my feet from that. So Wikipedia is one of many ways I fill the hours of time that I will spend in employment when I can get back to that. It has been a very tricky situation. But I do my best to do what I can every day. And I'm sure when the time is right, my life will get back to normal. It's just a question of getting everything resolved, which is an ongoing process. So adminship is not in the cards for me right now. Later on, perhaps, but not now. Just FYI, if you are curious about the extent of those health issues, you can find out more about them on my main user page. In the meantime, thanks again for your kind comments and interest. --Jgstokes (talk) 21:49, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Wow, J.G., I'm sorry you've had some major health issues to deal with. I can definitely understand that you wouldn't want to have more attention drawn to you free right now ("Hey, can you protect this page?" "Will you block that vandal?" etc).
 * I like that you served that mission you mentioned there. Do you have a calling, or is that also set aside to give you less to worry about while you focus on trying to get well? Whatever it is you do to serve the ward faithfully, I'm sure the Lord will bless you to be as well as he needs you to be. Not to cast pearls before swine here (for who knows will happen by to see), but I'd guess you've had a blessing for these disorders. Have you? I hope so. You're obviously a man of good faith, and that'll help keep you strong. Thanks for everything you trust us to know about you via your user page. Maybe one of these months I'll write a bio. for myself as detailed as that. My well-wishes go out to you as you continue to endure your trials while looking for ways to get better. I hope we might meet someday when your mortal life seems to make time for that. I'd love to get some alert one day that you feel up to it. I know I wouldn't mind the drive. :-) May the Lord's hands be on your head, Brother. Thayve Sintar (talk) 02:35, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry about my delay in replying. I took a step back this last week or so because of a minor bump in my road health-wise. The details are not important, and I am well enough: the crisis is anticipated to pass soon; but I needed to take a step back to deal with it. In terms of service in a Church calling, my wife and I were primary teachers in our ward (the first time we worked together for a Church-related assignment in our nearly 7 years of marriage) until about a year ago, when we both had enough issues that we could not regularly function in that calling. In this year that has come and gone, we have not been able to attend Church very consistently. And our current ward is one where the members kind of keep to themselves, so except for those ward leaders that keep tabs on us, we have not really had much support. That said, just last Sunday, we had two good brethren over from the ward who were able to give us the Sacrament consecrate some oil, and administer to me. But I am an old hand at dealing with health-related issues, so I am not concerned about pulling through. Thanks for your concern. Because of the recent health issues, and because of other more pressing obligations, I have not been able to be on Wikipedia very consistently lately (only getting back to it in August after a year's hiatus). Another reason I don't want to request adminship is that I am lucky lately if I can get on Wikipedia once or twice every couple of weeks. Thanks for your concern and well-wishes. I have pulled through worse experiences, so I will be fine. Keep up the great work! --Jgstokes (talk) 04:57, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, thanks for the update, and I'm glad you're pulling through.
 * Incidentally, though, I could use your help while you're here. Someone has just gone through and destroyed a lot of work that I just did. It looks like they have some sort of vendetta against me or something. Will you please go check out my edit history from today (11/04) and help me figure out where to go from there? Thanks! Thayve Sintar (talk) 03:53, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

AFD participation notes
Hi, I don't know if you're aware you can see yours or others' AFD performance (in terms of how your "!votes" fit with final decisions). Specifically you can see your participation by this call to the AFDSTATS tool. You might have "!vote"d in more AFDs than are shown, but not have been classifiable by the AFDSTATS tool.

You and I both have contributed in ongoing Articles for deletion/Ted E. Brewerton. Not about the content of the AFD at all, I wanted to suggest that you revise your "Strong oppose" statement to "Strong Keep" to comport with convention in AFDs, and for you to set it up with asterisk point and bolding, as in:
 * Strong Keep: whatever

That would be formatted as is most common in AFDs, and would fit into classification scheme that wp:AFDSTATS expects. Actually afdstats output suggests it looks for "Speedy Keep" as a vote, not "Strong Keep", but I think (tho i am not sure) it classifies those two as the same, as "SK" in its tabulation.

My other tiny suggestion is for you to set aside your followup comment, which happens to follow my own "!vote" but does not relate to my comments, as a labelled comment, as in:
 * Comment: whatever

Also I happen to think that "Keep"/"Delete" votes get more attention than "Strong Keep"/"Strong Delete"; i tend to think other editors discount self-labelled "strong" opinions as overly emotional. Just mean to make these suggestions in a friendly way, towards ensuring your participation is impactful. cheers, -- do ncr  am  03:29, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you, doncram, for reaching out to me about this issue. Though I have been a Wikipedia editor for over ten years, and, as such, have contributed to AfD discussions before, no one ever explained that to me. I will make the change and will endeavor to remember your excellent and timely advice in future AfDs in which I participate. My thanks to you for letting me know. --Jgstokes (talk) 03:57, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. :) And thank you for your continued constructive, polite participation in that AFD.  By the way I did recognize your username as one active long ago in some area(s) of participation we shared, though I wasn't remembering exactly where that was.  Glad to see you contributing in some hits on my watchlist again now.  Cheers, --Doncram (talk) 22:29, 12 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello again, Doncram. It took me a few minutes to realize where this new message from you was here on my talk page. My Wikipedia editing, particularly in the last 18 months or so, has been sporadic at best as my wife and I have been dealing with severe health issues that continue to limit our ability to function at normal levels. For that reason, less important things in my life (such as regularly checking in here on Wikipedia) have been left alone for a time. I still check it when I can, but had to not do so for most of last year, and have only occasionally popped in to check on things more frequently in the last week or so, primarily in view of the passing of LDS Church President Thomas S. Monson. Things have been a bit crazy for a long time now. But my wife and I will get through this rough patch, and part of my hope going forward is that I can make my participation here on Wikipedia more frequent, as I typically have been able to do for most of my 10 years as an editor here. Thanks again. --Jgstokes (talk) 22:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:OUTCOMES

 * Take a look at WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES. This, if anywhere, would be the place to describe the usual way to handle Seventies. I had a sort of baptism by fire on this topic not long after I began editing, with Articles for deletion/Kent F. Richards, reading it might be useful to you. I have participated in a few of these since, by searching for non LDS sources and, when I find any, adding them to the page, then iVoting with a comment mention the new, non-LDS WP:RS coverage that I have added. I think that it would be useful to have a OUTCOMES summary on Seventies/Mormon leaders. It would be best to work with some experienced editors and take a careful look at recent AfD of LDS leaders, comparing them to individuals with similar status in similar organizational structures, not necessarily limited ot religious structures.  (Along this line, I want to add that bishops are protected as a category for partly, perhaps largely, historical reasons" bishops used to quite routinely command powerful armies and govern whole countries. And we have had a problem with editors deleting major medieval bishops for lack of reliable sources on biographical details.) I am not sufficiently expert on LDS governance to take the lead here, but this should give you a context for how this could proceed.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:48, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I participated in the AfD you mentioned above, but was not aware of the separate category that may be the best route to prove notablity for LDS leaders. As for working with "experienced editors", I have edited Wikipedia for 10 years, and have cultivated a good working relationship with other LDS and non-LDS editors. For a while, I had on my signature a statement "We can disagree without being disagreeable." So if there is a way to get the right people together who would have an objective view to improve Wikipedia, particularly in bringing the articles about LDS Seventies into conformity with Wikipedia policies, I would certainly be in favor of that. If you have any thoughts about how to bring that about, I welcome them. And again, I thank you for extending these suggestions to me. Never in previous AfD discussions has anything like this been suggested, and I thank you for that as well. --Jgstokes (talk) 23:22, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

E.M.Gregory, I wanted to follow up with you on this. I did a proposal in the section you cited above, and was redirected to another section. Within that section, while some seemed to agree with me, the overwhelming responses were from admins who were shocked that more articles about Seventies have not been nominated for deletion, if the issue on which past articles have been deleted is the lack of independent sourcing. In the interim, I have had to take a health-related break from editing here, so I just barely discovered those results a few moments ago. And I am not sure where to go from here. If the admins involved in the discussion uniformly support the rationale deletion of articles about General Authority Seventies, and are even suggesting that there may be grounds to do the same for others among that number, there is not much more I can do. Please advise if you can. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 08:40, 13 January 2018 (UTC)