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)

FYI

You accidentily created User talk:Jgstokes/Archive 17 in the article space. I have moved it to its proper place. Just thought I should tell you. Have a nice day. NightWolf1223 <Howl at me•My hunts> 22:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know and for your assistance in fixing this. User:Jgstokes (talk)—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 05:21, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Political Graveyard

Can you explain why is the line regarding "Lawrence Kestenbaum, The Political Graveyard" relevant in the context of the post-production section of Iron Man (2008 film)? I've added a section in the talk page regarding this. 2401:7400:C80A:9A9D:C4CB:2C4F:36E3:2966 (talk) 03:24, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

No, I can't. My revert stated what the issue was, and that was that you removed that information without discussing it on the talk page first. If it was in the article, there must have been both a reason for including it and a consensus to do so. Until you have a clear consensus (majority opinion) for removing it, it should be allowed to stand, which is consistent with Wikipedia policies. User:Jgstokes (talk)—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 03:29, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Ok. Your reason was "relevant text", hence my question was why is that relevant, and you haven't answered that. Regardless I have added a section in the talk page on that and appreciate if you can share your reason on why that is relevant over there. 2401:7400:C80A:9A9D:C4CB:2C4F:36E3:2966 (talk) 03:35, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

It is relevant because at some point, it was put in the article. That was done by previous consensus, so a new consensus is necessary to remove it. I don't have strong feelings either way whether it stays or is removed, but you unilaterally removed it without prior discussion and consensus, which is the problem I had with this situation. So whatever the consensus (a majority opinion) decides here, I'm on board with it. User:Jgstokes (talk)—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 03:44, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't see much historical engagement on the Talk page itself, so I don't know how we can go with "a new consensus is required for removing content". Especially one that is obviously irrelevant to the context as this is. I see many changes to the page that is accepted as long as it is not controversial, and you haven't actually given a satisfying response to the relevancy of the said text, other than "it was put in the article at some point", which is really a non-reason. 2401:7400:C80A:9A9D:C4CB:2C4F:36E3:2966 (talk) 04:01, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

That's not the point. The point is your removal of this content has been challenged, and when content is challenged, it takes a talk page consensus to decide the issue. That is Wikipedia policy. In challenging your removal, I am merely asking you to follow Wikipedia policy. Whether you choose to do so or not is entirely up to you. But because the edit in question has been challenged, it would take a talk page consensus to support the removal of the information. If you're unable (or unwilling) to seek consensus support, then my restoration of the text you unilaterally moved will stand. That is also consistent with Wikipedia policy. So the ball is in your court. You choose whether to play or not. User:Jgstokes (talk)—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 05:33, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

This was actually a typographical error in that {{Pg}} (which mentions the unrelated Political Graveyard piece) was being used instead of (to cite the page numbers of the cited book). I have corrected this, which was a minor mistake. Trailblazer101 (talk) 07:51, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Colonia Juárez Chihuahua Mexico Temple

Hey!
You reverted my edit on Colonia Juárez Chihuahua Mexico Temple. I removed about a paragraph of text describing the area around the temple because it was written in a different style to the rest of the article. While I realize I could have just re-written it to match, but your edit summary of "Was correct as shone" makes it seem like it doesn't need rewriting. Was the problem that I just deleted it outright, or that it doesn't need to be altered?
Thanks,
I can do stuff! (talk) 15:33, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

P.S., your userbox for Brigham Young is broken, the image isn't showing up.
I can do stuff! (talk) 15:50, 2 August 2024 (UTC)