User talk:Jgstokes/Archive 11

speculations likely right
in any case we're so very soon to find out church beat scribe Tad Walch: new lds leadership to be announced Tues. - either new 1st Pres or a continuation of existing interregnum -->/desnews link/--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 10:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It's true that President Nelson arranging to address the Church and hold a press conference on Tuesday (it won't be tomorrow because of Martin Luther King Day; all Church offices will close down for the national holiday) means that the First Presidency likely has been (or will later today be) reconstituted, but until Tuesday, when that is confirmed or denied, we have to be very cautious here on Wikipedia due to the guidelines that tell us that this online encyclopedia (and those like us, who edit it) is not a crystal ball. So until the reconstitution of the First Presidency or the continuation of the interregnum is announced (and I think it will be the former rather than the latter, if history tells us anything), we have to move cautiously. Nothing is official until it is confirmed as such. By Tuesday we will know for sure. Until that time, I am more inclined to be cautious, although if history is any indication, we pretty much know what will occur on Tuesday. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 20:03, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Since you were kind enough to message me a couple of days ago, in addition to my initial reply to that message, added shortly after I read you comment, I wanted to respectfully let you know that I meant no offense with the latest comment I left on the Wikipedia page listing the current general authorities. The point I was trying to make (which was subsequently verified earlier today) is that press conferences following the death of a Church president have never occurred unless the First Presidency has been (or will be) reconstituted at some point prior to the arranged press conference. And that was the case today. Barring anything earth-shattering, the length of an apostolic interregnum will never be longer than two weeks. The Church's review of the succession process mentions that point specifically, and that has been the case for every one of the 8 interregnums between the death of Wilford Woodruff and the end of the latest interregnum, which occurred, as was verified earlier today, on Sunday January 14. That said, this last interregnum, which lasted 12 days (from the January 2 death of Monson to the January 14 ordination of Nelson) was the longest such period since the shorter interregnums started (the time between the death of Wodruff and the ordination of Snow previously had that distinction, as it was a period of 11 days). Incidentally, aside from the time that passed between these two interregnums, the next longest period was the time between the March 3, 1995 death of Howard W. Hunter and the ordination of Gordon B. Hinckley 9 days later (on March 12). In Snow's case, while he clearly understood the counsel Woodruff gave him about not delaying the reorganization process or letting it drag on for months or years, he may not have been sure how short to keep that first period. With the time passing from the death of Hunter to Hinckley's ordination, if I remember the details, Hunter's death (after less than 9 full months as Church president) was unexpected, and in view of his tenure being cut that short, the Church needed time to process that. And for the reorganization we have seen take place where Nelson succeeded Monson, it appears that the interregnum lasted an extra week to allow Monson's family and the Church to properly pay tribute to the man that had been an apostle and therefore in the public eye for what would have been 55 years this October. All the other interregnums were 4-7 days. These are just some additional thoughts, which I hope are helpful to you. Additionally, I wanted to let you know that the page you created may be a duplicate expansion (albeit your version is more fleshed out) of President of the Church (LDS Church). When you mentioned on the Wikipedia article listing the Church's general authorities that you had created a new page detailing the succession process, I had (incorrectly, apparently) assumed that you were referencing a way to establish which new apostles filled which vacancies in the Quorum of the Twelve when two or more were called at the same time, since that was the topic I had posted about in starting that thread. That said, now that I cleared up my confusion on that point, I would have no problem with the idea of redirecting the section within the article for LDS Church presidents that covers succession to the page you have created, if we want to go that route. You are welcome to do that yourself, or to let me know you want it done, and I will then take care of that. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 07:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Jgstokes. Feel free to polish/defrag the article uber boldly.
 * (As for my opinion-mongering on article talk pages: I don't think my understandings or suggested nuances are sacrosanct. I just share my two cents and leave it like that.
 * (Eg There is manure-wagon loads of sourcing about the LDS 15-apostles sized supra-council. I'm aware of that. I just think it's a more elegant to account for the **entirety** of the dual councils thru-out the Restoration, if some relatively easy formulation could do so...
 * (--Relatedly, the LDS Church Patriarch used to be, almost always, a Joseph Smith, Sr. family relation. Then the church decided the position was unnecessary. This makes me want to speculate **why** such a position might have been considered useful, during the time of its existence. ((And by the way, including the last Church Patriarch among those sustained by the general church membership as prophets, seers, and revelators, as he had been, raised the number of men so sustained to **16**, instead of 15.
 * ((Ramanujan thought 15 a very divine number. (Maybe I'll come back with a ref for that.) But, then, 16 is 2 to the 4th power. (ie there's 16 doublagreat grandparents on a four-generation pedigree chart......)))--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 12:34, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * ok - I'm back. Check out the image at "Magic square"! ...This apparently works cos 1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9=45 and 45÷3(the number of segments you sum either horizontally, vertically, or diagonally within a magic square)=15.--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 12:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate your thoughtful reply above, but as I already indicated, there are no "dual councils". Those counselors that served Brigham Young that were never set apart as members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles could not therefore join it again upon the dissolving of the First Presidency at the time of Brigham Young's death, and they were never called to the membership of that Quorum at any subsequent point. It appeared the reason for what you would call a "dual council" was primarily because John Taylor, as Quorum President, was unsure what to do with these ordained apostles that served in the First Presidency, and could not have them join the Quorum because during the interregnum, that would make more than 12 within that body, and the shorter interregnums had not yet been introduced. Therefore, instead of serving as a "dual council", the two in question were appointed counselors to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and were officially sustained as such. And every so-called "nuance" you referenced were well documented in the pages to which I referred you here on Wikipedia, to say nothing of in the additional sources. While I do pride myself on knowing a lot about such things, the give-and-take between us would likely have been cut short had you at any point been willing to do the research yourself rather than apparently attempting to poke holes in the information I shared, which could have been verified in those sources. I would rather not make this an issue between the two of us, but in the future, it would be my recommendation that if you are referred to sources in your interaction here, rather than seemingly taking issue with the data those sources verify, the higher road would be to consult such sourcse to either assist in correcting things that were incorrectly recounted, or to come back and report that, having consulted the sources, you see the point that is being made by the other participants. I hope that suggestion does not offend you. While i am pleased to share the knowledge that I have, and to pass along the sources that substantiate that knowledge, if you elect not to confirm or correct such assertions, that's hardly my fault. I can give you the tools you need that will answer your questions, but unless you choose to utilize them once they are given, it should not be surprising to you that your questions may not be answered to your satisfaction. Again, no offense intended here, but any confusion you had could have been put to rest had you consulted the sources I mentioned right off the bat. And there are other sources that would have explained the precedents I cited as well, if you had only opted to use them, instead of continuing to press a point that was moot. With that said, I will see what I can do in the coming days to disambiguate and spruce up the page you created. Thanks again. --Jgstokes (talk) 02:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Jg.
 * (Oh, Jg... by the way: when I characterized counselors to the Twelve as a sub-council, I was aware I was breaking, if only slightly, new linguistic ground. I had believed such an offense not too very controversial but now see that I'd been wrong to hope that. So i didn't repeat what i know now to be taken inguistically as such a slur. But immediately above I was actually referring to the supra-council of the combined Q 12 with the 1st presidency that governs the church. To quote Matthew Bowman's recent piece in the WaPo, "[...T]he church is governed by a president and his two counselors in tandem with a Quorum of the Twelve Apostles[...]." For me, "supra-" (“above, over” [supraorbital] or “beyond the limits of, outside of”) conjures what Bowman more ably communicated with "in tandem.")
 * --08:57, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There's (...unfortunately, for my argued position!), a silage wagonfull load of sourcing for "fifteen apostles" at the head of the church. I myself think the "big fifteen" sort of a misnomer (there could be one actual apostle in the 1st presidency or five, afterall) but I'll reluctantly bow to the sourcing.--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 09:15, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I thank you for these additional clarifications on your part. But the problem I have with the "new linguistic ground" you said you were breaking is that there is not sufficient sourcing to justify the terminology that you used. As I've often observed, Wikipedia is not so much concerned with truth as it is with verifiability. And. as far as I know, none of the verifiable sources that I have come across has ever referred to the situation of those who were ordained apostles but never were called to be members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as any kind of "sub-council". Indeed, for any council in the Church to be formed at any time, there must be authority and an assignment to a certain position, In that regard, those apostles who were never members of the Quorum of the Twelve could not be referred to by your terminology of a "sub-council", because outside of their ordination to the priesthood office of apostle, they did not have any formal quorum or council assignment in which they had authority to function on the same level as the members of the Quorum proper. It appears that in the case of Brigham Young Jr. and Daniel H. Wells, John Taylor opted to appoint them as counselors to the Quorum of the Twelve primarily because he was unsure what to do with them following the passing of Brigham Young, but he didn't just want to release them. While they retained the priesthood office of apostle until their death, there was no quorum or council to which they were assigned, and it was only in deference to their service to Taylor's predecessor that he (in that case) kept them on in a counselor's capacity (but not necessarily the authority of what we would today term a counselor) to the Quorum of the Twelve in the absence of the First Presidency. In the case of Alvin R. Dyer, he and Thorpe B. Isaacson were both Assistants to the Twelve at the time of their calls to the First Presidency as additional counselors to David O. McKay (with Isaacson called on October 28, 1965, and Dyer called on April 6, 1968. Both served until the death of McKay, at which point, they resumed their service as Assistants to the Twelve (with Isaacson passing away 9 months later, and with Dyer serving for 6.5 years in his previous calling as an Assistant to the Twelve until the First Quorum of the Seventy was reconstituted as we know it today (which occurred in October 1976; Dyer passed away 5 months after that reassignment).
 * There was one other interesting anomaly that may interest you about the additional counselors in the First Presidency under David O. McKay. Joseph Fielding Smith, who would go on to succeed McKay in the Church presidency, was also asked to serve as an additional counselor to McKay, with his call as such being announced the day after Isaacson. In what would today be considered a very unusual move that might never happen, President Smith's service in the First Presidency was concurrent with both his active service as a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, and he, as the senior member of that Quorum at the time, retained the title and role of Quorum President, and he wore those hats until McKay passed away.
 * As for the sourcing pointing to 15 apostles, that sourcing was put out well after any of these exceptions to the now-understood general rule occurred. Until the death of President McKay, there clearly were not any set precedents in place. But since the beginning of Smith's service, there has never been a single exception to the rule that there are generally 15 apostles, 3 in the First Presidency, and 12 members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.
 * The one last thing I thought would be worth mentioning is the interrelationship between the concept of the leading quorums of the Church being "equal in authority" to each other. The reason that the Church members in the 1840s voted in favor of Brigham Young leading the Church as President of the Quorum of the Twelve seems to be not only based on what transpired as he spoke to those members on the subject, but also on the notion expressed by Joseph Smith to the Twelve: "Where I am not[which, by extension, holds true for every president of the Church that has followed], there is no First Presidency over the Twelve." With that in mind, it is commonly understood that the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles is only "equal in authority" to the First Presidency when a Church president is dead. In like manner, the General Authority Seventies of the Church are only truly "equal in authority" to all living apostles if there are no apostles living. So the concept of such groups being "equal in authority" exists, but there are stipulations for how and under what conditions that equality remains in force. Hope this information is helpful to you, and thanks again for chatting with me more about all of this here. --Jgstokes (talk) 23:25, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Kimball's move may have been thought akin to almost a resort to the US Constitution's 25th Admendment? As, it had been in keeping with the idea an apostolic interregnum: Instead of less-tenured counselors in actual fact running things when the church president is rather incapacitated, let the sitting pres. of the quorum into the mix....--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 18:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * One can be in both the Q and the 1st pres.cy simultaneously. "Five months later, on January 20, 1843, Pratt was rebaptized and

reinstated in the quorum, thereby bringing the number in the quorum to thirteen. To rectify the situation, Joseph Smith made Lyman a counselor to the First Presidency, although he also continued as a member of the Twelve. See Breck England, The Life and Thought of Orson Pratt (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1985), 81, 84–85; also Loretta L. Hefner, “From Apostle to Apostate: The Personal Struggle of Amasa Mason Lyman,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 16 (Spring 1983): 92. Hefner incorrectly states that after Lyman became a counselor to the First Presidency he was no longer a member of the quorum, when in fact he retained his position in the body."---Baugh: "I Roll the Burthen and Responsibility of Leading This Church Off," p. 14 (BYU Studies)]--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 00:23, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Walker terms the two groupings ...
...the quorum ("twelve regular members" and "the counselors"), plus an adjunct as "a 'Counselor to the Twelve'"


 * 1) >>>>>These included the twelve regular members of the Quorum as well as the counselors, George Q. Cannon and Joseph F. Smith, who had resumed their positions in the Quorum of the Twelve. Also attending some discussions was Daniel H. Wells, formerly Brigham Young's counselor, who now served as a "Counselor to the Twelve."<<<<< ---Ronald W. Walker, "Grant's Watershed: Succession in the Presidency, 1887–1889," BYU Studies 43:1, p. 200.--13:40, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Ballard's grandfathers
I have vented on the article talk page. I regard the demand for a specific citation as completely indefensible for reasons stated. Be that as it may,your elimination of loads of specific citations to return to a false claim that one is needed is outrageous.12.144.5.2 (talk) 02:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Your definition of "specific" does not match mine. Though the information may be in any or all of the almanacs you cited, without a page number, tat cannot be construed as "specific". I have made myself clear on the problems I had with your conduct, and if you have a problem with anything I said, feel free to continue to vent your frustrations with me by reporting my conduct here. If the admins concur that my conduct has been high-handed and discourteous to you, I will be more than happy to issue a formal apology that would appease you. Until that time, I stand by what I said fully. --Jgstokes (talk) 06:51, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I gave page numbers for every single edition I cited in the second edit!--12.144.5.2 (talk) 09:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Not that I saw, hence my reason for reverting. And even if you had done so, any such sources were not in their proper format, hence they could not be utilized. At any rate, your misplaced malevolence is now a moot point. The issue has been settled through the source I cited. Again, if you find my conduct to be that much of problem, either take it up on the admin notice board as I invited, or let it go. On the off chance you do report it, since your reverts violated the policies I mentioned on the talk page, I doubt such a report will find that I was in error. But your next actions are your choice, just as you had the option to accept the guidance you were given or to continue to take issue with it. --Jgstokes (talk) 09:29, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Here,take a look at that revision.(I repeat again that in the case of ubiquitous information only vague citations are honest and if a citation is specific it is therefore deceptive...but I took every Almanac off my shelf and checked and recorded the page number).12.144.5.2 (talk) 04:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

What's up with Lady Elaine?
I couldn't find one thing that spelled her name without an 'e', besides your edits. You were so quick to revert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.115.29 (talk • contribs)


 * I'm inclined to agree, IP editor. Please don't just revert things without doing a simple search to confirm information - A quick google search for "Daniel Tiger's Neighborhood Lady Elaine" bought up her name, spelled in the manner which the IP edited it, listed by the Daniel Tiger's Neighborhood Wiki and PBS, who air the show.  Please don't jump the gun.  Dane &#124; Geld  12:15, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Joe Walz
Hi. I noticed that you've read some of my funny Joe Walz edits. I was wondering what you thought of them. If you could describe them in just one word, what would it be?

You may be wondering why I make such an effort to write about Joe Walz. To tell you the truth, he's terminally ill. Doctors have only given him 50 more years to live. After that, he most likely is heading to the terrestrial kingdom. My mission in life is to bring him as much happiness as possible while he's still with us.

In case you're wondering, i have no intention of stopping my hilarious edits. I leave you with this haiku: His name is Joe Walz. Look him up on google now. He is an actor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:A:5:0:0:0:AB (talk) 17:30, 12 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I have three words for you: vandalistic, policy-violating, and unfunny. You have been warned time and time again against continuing these edits, and unless you stop vandalizing Wikipedia in this way, any addresses from which this vandalism is perpetuated wil continue to be blocked indefinitely from editing here further. So you can either stop by your own free will and choice, or I can see to it that you are compelled to comply and desist edits that violate policy and are not funny at all. The choice is yours. either way, I am letting the admins here know of your comment, and I will let them take action on this from there. --Jgstokes (talk) 06:41, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Okay, there's another person who is putting Joe Walz into articles. Look at the article about The Night Sitter. I can assure you that that wasn't me. Perhaps we should form an alliance to keep this person from adding Joe Walz into this article. What do you say? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:A:19:0:0:0:97 (talk) 22:32, 29 March 2018 (UTC)


 * In response to your suggestion above, I need to clarify: Any Joe Walz references will be promptly reverted, and anyone responsible for continuing to perpetuate them in any form on any article will, after a proper warning, be blocked by an administrator from editing here. As for the "alliance" you suggested, there are a few problems there that lead me to believe that would be improper. First, Wikipedia is an editing community, where 'everyone, not just admins, work together to ensure Wikipedia policies are practiced by the other editors with whom they work. Second, the article you mentioned is not on my watchlist, nor would I have any interest in adding it or checking it in the future for vandalism. Third, there are Wikipedia policies in place to ensure that, while vandalism is dealt with quickly, that should not be done through two or more editors "ganging up" on editors that are responsible for such vandalism. That said, I refer you to the notice board, on which users can report such vandalism in accordance with the relevant policies. If you see any vandalism of this sort, it is best to report it and let the admins take it from there, which eliminates the likelihood that any editor will feel "ganged up" on. Additionally, to preserve your own ability to be seen as a valued contributor to Wikipedia, I would suggest you create an official account here, which can let everyone know that you intend to contribute constructively here. Hope this information is helpful to you. --Jgstokes (talk) 02:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

AfD for Ulisses Soares
Articles for deletion/Ulisses Soares--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 21:14, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Psych, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ABC ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Psych check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Psych?client=notify 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) 09:30, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

70

 * Are you, or, perhaps, are you User:Johnpacklambert?, aware of whether there has ever been a proposal to treat the Seventy in like bishops?E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:09, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not aware of any such proposal. I would limit it to General Authority Seventy if there was. Area Seventy just do not make it to the level of being notable by that, although some are notable for other reasons.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:52, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I would agree with Johnpacklambert on that. Area seventies, who serve on a part-time basis, would definitely not be nearly as notable as General Authority Seventies, who, for the entire duration of their calls, are asked to serve full-time. Some area seventies definitely are notable for other reasons, ie David A. Bednar having been called to the apostleship as an area seventy (the only one for whom that has occurred) or Kevin J. Worthen, by virtue of his status as the current BYU-Provo president. Insofar as I am aware, in my decade of service, there has never been such a proposal. I also wanted to observe that, although I have edited here on Wikipedia to one degree or another for the last decade or more, the movement to delete articles about general authorities has only been gaining momentum for the last 1-3 years or so. As I also mentioned, I understand as a Wikipedia editor why articles should be deleted if the consensus agrees that the notability standards and lack of sufficient sourcing makes maintaining such articles unwise. I have always tried to support Wikipedia policies and such consensus decisions. At the same time, I have to wonder why the movement to delete such articles is suddenly gaining momentum, when there wasn't much movement on that front for the first 5-7 years of my editing experience. I always try to assume good faith, but the situation has been concerning and somewhat suspicious to me. That said, I appreciate you, E. M. Gregory, reaching out to me as much as you have to ask questions and provide advice to me on things I can do to deal with this complex matter. In that regard, you have been more help to me personally than anyone else with whom I have discussed these issues. I also should mention that I have taken the advice you've given me previously, and I reached a point where if I raised the notability issue under one section to which I have been referred, I have usually been redirected. So the run-around is getting a little concerning as well. Hope this information is helpful to you.--Jgstokes (talk) 05:07, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

 * Thank you, E.M.Gregory. In view of some new health issues I have had crop up within the last 1.5 years, there have been spurts of time when I have had to step back from less crucial things (like editing here on Wikipedia regularly) in favor of trying to get everything sorted out. It has been a slow process, but hopefully things are progressing in the right direction. While the general attitude of people towards articles about leaders of the Church haven't helped my motivation to access Wikipedia regularly, I still pop in here on Wikipedia from time to time. This is my first time doing so in about a month. And I just saw (on the List of general authorities page) that many more articles have been deleted in my absence. That is very discouraging.
 * I am still trying to find the right place to make a case for an exception specific to general authority seventies. I was also discouraged to see that even some of the articles about the current members of the Presidency of the Seventy had been likewise deleted. Last time we worked on this issue, you gave me another avenue to follow in terms of establishing a possible exception. I followed that path, and was redirected a couple of different times to different areas, so AFAIK, we hit a dead end there. A thought occurred to me, though: since some approach the subject of articles about General Authorities with far less than honorable intentions (and with no small degree of bias against the Church), would it be possible for those deletion discussions to be used as verifiable proof of bias? If it can be done, that would certainly be a way to contest the grounds for those deletions, especially since, in some of the recent deletion discussions, I was told point-blank that such discussions could not be halted while I worked towards solutions.
 * That said, I am glad of one thing: A while ago, someone made a deletion nomination for Ulisses Soares, and it was good to know that one failed. In my mind, there are similar grounds to contest the deletion of articles about General Authority Seventies in general, and those in the Presidency of the Seventy in particular. I wish that there weren't so many editors with the kind of bias we have seen in relation to this issue. I also wanted to ask if you could double-check the work I did in trying to resolve this issue as you suggested in an earlier subject on this page. I think I have left a pretty clear trail in terms of how far I went to try and resolve it, and if you have any other suggestions, I'd appreciate hearing them. Thanks for expressing your concern in my behalf. The attitude towards articles about GA Seventies hasn't helped, but my health is the main reason I have not been around as much here on Wikipedia lately. Hopefully things are moving in a positive direction to the degree that I can get back to editing here regularly. In the meantime, I will continue to do what I can as I can whenever I am able to be here, including contributing to the project in question. Thanks again. --Jgstokes (talk) 09:23, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Are university presses legally affiliated with the Univ. independent of the parent ORG of the University?. Very glad to hear form you, be well.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:24, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * E.M.Gregory, thanks for your response. I have looked over the relevant section to which you shared a link above. Are you suggesting that an extension of that argument could be a suitable and reasonable argument for the problem of general authorities not being seen as sufficiently independent of the Church resources which cover their ministry? Just wanted to clarify. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 02:54, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It might be. But only if sources were available to establish the editorial independence of each specific Church linked publishers.  Such info, if it exists, could be added to each page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 03:07, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I will see what I can find. Thank you. --Jgstokes (talk) 03:43, 13 November 2018 (UTC)