User talk:Jgstokes/Archive 3

ISO format for dates

Why did you change all the dates from day month year format to yyyy-mm-dd format. That format is much more difficult to read and the whole reason we went through and put in the <span style="display:none">yyyy-mm-dd</span> codes in was so that they would sort correctly. Overtime people keep changing it to the unfriendly ISO format and I don't understand why --Trödel 01:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I welcome the chance to clarify. Thanks for asking. The only dates whose format I personally altered were the date of sustaining for those sustained in 2009. My reason for formatting these? Simple. All the other dates on the page are like that. I was going for uniformity. If you really feel like the current date format is problematic, and wish to challenge that format, you may do so at your convenience on the talk page of the relevant article or articles as the case may be. I personally have no problem with keeping the current format or altering to a more user-friendly format, as long as the consensus agrees. But again, the only dates I altered were for those brethren sustained in 2009, and I did it in exactly the same format as was previously on the page. I look forward to seeing what the consensus decides on this issue. Thanks again for the question. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 20:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome

Thank you for getting all the new names in - I hadn't had time to get that done and, from my point of view, it is much more time consuming that the fix I did. --Trödel 12:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. It actually wasn't too bad when I got down to it, especially since I had all the latest information on hand. Incidentally, the Church has released a list of new area assignments that will be effective August 1. Someone (you, I believe) in years past created a subpage where the new changes could be immediately incorporated to the GA page on August 1. If we could do that again this year, that would be great. Are you able to set that up? In case you can, here are the relevant sources: New Presidency named for Pacific Area, New Presidency named for Pacific Area, New Area Leadership Assignments. Also, on another note, there is currently a dispute going on between myself and another WP editor about defined Church terminology. I know you have commented on other Church-related issues in the past, and wanted to invite you to weigh in on the discussion so that it's more than two of us deciding what WP policy should be in this case. If you could look it over and give your opinion, that would be great. Thanks again for all the work you do. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 19:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

August 2010 changes

Sorry I didn't get your email/wiki notice until today - I went ahead and merged the page histories even though you had already implemented the changes manually. Thanks for all the work that you do on keeping this information up to date. --Trödel 18:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]