User talk:Jgstokes
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Welcome!
|
[edit] Did you know? Nomination
Hi. I've nominated Quentin L. Cook, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article at Template talk:Did you know#Articles created on October 6, where you can improve it if you see fit.Alan 19:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Presidency Succession
JGStokes, please see my *most most recent comments on : Talk:First_Presidency_(LDS_Church) I look forward to your thoughts. Ryancwa (talk) 05:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Comments
Thanks for your comments at Talk:Dieter F. Uchtdorf; I appreciate that, especially as they come from you, who I'm afraid I have offended in the past with my actions or comments. I can assure you, I have many motes in my eyes, but I think you were right that User:HLT was a bit overboard there. I don't really care anymore if the categories are included or not; I'd just like to see some more input on whether or not they belong. Snocrates 05:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Message
I've left a message for you at Talk:Presiding Bishop (LDS Church). Thanks. Snocrates 20:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Your work
Thanks for your ongoing attention to detail with the LDS Church apostolic succession details. This is a difficult area; I just wish there were more sources about these things! Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Undid revision
On the list of the Apostles, you said, "Deleted irrelevant and redundant information about the new First Presidency, All readers want to know is WHY a vacancy was created. Drowning in redundancies isn't a help. It's a deterent."
Your reason for removing what I had added was nearly as long as my text itself. I can appreciate that you feel it should be short and to the point, but saying it was irrelevant (opinion), redundant (it wasn't), implying you know what all readers want to know (you don't), repeating your comment about redundancy (which is redundant itself), and saying it deters from the point (opinion), lead us back to the fact that Christofferson filled the spot Uchtdorf left, not Hinckley. Check some of the comments on earlier apostles on that same table. I think just saying Hinckley died is not enough. Struhs (talk) 21:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Liahona aka International Magazine
The Encylcopedia of Mormonism has an outdated article on the International Magazines. I refer you to it at http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/EoM&CISOPTR=4391&CISOSHOW=3784. Heg24 (talk) 06:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Heg24 (talk • contribs) 06:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] EOM
I'd be interested in what particular information from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism you've found wanting (as referenced by you on Talk:Liahona (magazine). I know of some of the specific articles that were approved by one or more apostles, so I'm curious as to which ones you've read that you view as perhaps not 100% accurate. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- I'd have to look it over again. I do know that I've found a few things that weren't an accurate reflection of what Church leaders have taught. Nothing particular comes to mind at this time. I'd have to look some things over again to be sure. However, my main point was not so much the accuracy of what was said as some of the statements not being supportable because of what Church leaders have said. I'm sorry I can't be more specific than that at this time. I'll tell you what I will do, though. If I have some time over the next few days, I'll try to find what exactly it was that I found lacking in accuracy. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 05:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- That's OK — no rush, and you don't need to do it necessarily. I was just curious more than anything. If you want to do it, great — but if not, I won't be upset or anything like that. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'd have to look it over again. I do know that I've found a few things that weren't an accurate reflection of what Church leaders have taught. Nothing particular comes to mind at this time. I'd have to look some things over again to be sure. However, my main point was not so much the accuracy of what was said as some of the statements not being supportable because of what Church leaders have said. I'm sorry I can't be more specific than that at this time. I'll tell you what I will do, though. If I have some time over the next few days, I'll try to find what exactly it was that I found lacking in accuracy. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 05:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)