User talk:GabeMc/Archive 2

Question

Hi GabeMc. How would you feel about posting a message about the straw poll at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Beatles? It probably would generate more comments from editors who have contributed to Beatles-related articles. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 00:25, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

List of best selling boy/girl bands

Hi, I reached you because you commented on the AfD discussion page of List of Best Selling Girl Groups http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_best-selling_girl_groups. First I want to say that I'm new in this, so I would like to seek your advice as to what step to take regarding this. You see, the male equivalent of the page, "List of Best Selling Boybands" has been deleted as per the consensus here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_best-selling_boy_bands. I strongly feel that this is inconsistency, just as this guide explained. The argument for deletion was the exactly the same and yet the consensus was different. I would like to know if there's a place somewhere where I can bring this issue up, so that consistency can be reached. I've tried contacting the admin here but he said there's nothing he could do because he was only following the consensus. Thank you. Krystaleen (talk) 04:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Linking first use of publisher in footnotes

What you're doing does no harm, but I can tell you it is one of the most hopeless tasks in all of WP. All it takes is one piece of text to be moved around, or one set of multiple cites to be simplified, or any of several other changes, and all your work is undone. It's especially true on an actively edited article like this one. There should really be a bot that does this ... Wasted Time R (talk) 01:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Beatles links

A click to the document and a click to a page that has a bunch of stuff to sort through to get to a page are not the same thing. I still think its worth having the links. On the other hand, the download savings will be imperceptible. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 07:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Went ahead and changed it back. Good work, BTW - just thought these could stay. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 07:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Mitt Romney

Hi! Could you please explain on the Mitt Romney talkpage why he is not the nominee? Though not yet formal, all news agencies are now reporting he is the nominee. He has enough delegates, thus he is the nominee. Also, what is this Wasted you quoted in your undo? Thanks. Andrewrp^Tally-ho! 03:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure thing, its posted there now. Wasted Time R is currently the articles main contributor, I shorten it to Wasted when mentioning them. — GabeMc (talk) 03:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for !voting

	at my successful RFA
	Thank you, GabeMc, for !voting at my successful RFA; I am humbled that you put your trust in me. I grant you this flower, which, if tended to properly, will grow to be the fruit of Wikipedia's labours. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Abusive harassment by admin Jayron32

Hmmm? [1]. --Jayron32 04:01, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Since you asked yes. Please !vote, comment, whatever, but leave the mediation poll text alone. Many Wikipedia contributors worked very hard for several weeks on the poll, in good faith, so please respect it, it will be over in less than 30 days. We are trying to end this and put it away so it never bothers anyone anytime soon, so please allow us to do that. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:13, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Regardless, if you've got a problem with something I've done, I expect you to come directly to me. Instead you've a) gone to Feezo and had him do your bidding and b) removed my post without discussing it with me first or even discussing it with me. Neither of these is acceptable. Feezo isn't your mommy, so there's no need to tattle to them. If I do something that offends to you, you come to me, and we talk it out and come to an understanding. Please do not do either of those things again to anybody. Deal with problems, don't hide behind others to do your work for you, and don't delete someone's comments without at least explaining to them directly why you have done it. We all have user talk pages for a reason. Use them. To the original issue: Had you come directly to me and discussed the matter with me, this would have been resolved amicably. Had you even once come to my talk page and explained to me what you just did, there is a good chance I would have understood and modified my post so it didn't bother you. Instead, by covertly deleting it and by asking others to speak to me, what you've done is piss me off. Take this as an object lesson: when there is a problem, approach people directly, state your case in clear, rational terms, and work it out face to face. Don't do what you did here to other people. There are good and bad ways to solve problems. What you did is called the bad way. --Jayron32 04:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Leave me alone please and do not comment further on my talk page again as your behaviours are alarming to say the least. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:27, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

What is alarming? I haven't insulted you. I havn't attacked you. I've asked you to discuss the removal of my comments. Since you felt it necessary to remove my comments from the discussion, it would be right and just to at least discuss the matter with me, n'est ce pas? --Jayron32 04:30, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll ask you again, please leave me alone, I've never spoken to you before today and I do not want to speak with you again. I find your behaviour insulting, dominating and aggresive. We have nothing to discuss, you are harassing me for sport, its so obvious. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:34, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I apologize then. I did not intend to give you that impression. It was not my intent, but clearly I am in the wrong here. I am sorry for my actions. I will bother you no more. Carry on. --Jayron32 04:40, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

• Jayron32's latest inappropriate alteration of my talk page, 17 October 2012.

Please consider this your third formal request to leave me, and my talk page alone. I do not want to discuss anything with you and your continued bulling of me is inappropriate and unbecoming an admin. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• Another editor soliciting aggresive admin bullying and abuse from Jayron32 against me. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Quick note

Just wanted to stop by and say that this is not actually in the passive voice. A lot of armchair grammarians tend to lead people to conclusions like that by giving them "words to watch" in their writing to identify passive prose, when that's actually a terribly ineffective way of doing it. What you want to look for is whether the subject of the sentence is performing an action or having an action performed upon it. In this case the only way to get that sentence into the passive voice would be to phrase it as "Thirty-two number-one singles on the Billboard Hot 100 were written by McCartney", or something similarly obtuse. Both versions in that diff are in the active voice; yours uses the simple past tense, while the other utilises the past perfect. Anyway, it's no big deal. I try not to be an obnoxious grammar cop, but I just thought you might want to know. :) Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, right you are, but you missed the run-on, or no? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Reviewer user-right granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. The discussion on its continued use concluded with consensus in favour of its removal, without prejudice against future reinstatement based on consensual discussion. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. -- Dianna (talk) 02:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Redundant content/fork

Hi. I was wondering if you could lend your expertise to a content dispute. I'm having a disagreement with an editor at Talk:The Weeknd#Music... over whether an addition is trivial or not to a musician BLP article. Should the editor's addition of a song accolade and description be distributed to the associated album article, House of Balloons, or to the recording artist's article, The Weeknd, where it doesnt seem to have any biographical relevance (in my opinion)? Feel free to comment here or at Talk:The Weeknd#Music.... Dan56 (talk) 17:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Re:Infobox member order

Sorry, I missed that. Thanks for pointing it out. I'll bring it up for discussion on the main talk page to see what everyone has to say. Friginator (talk) 01:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

YGM

Hello, GabeMc. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Mlpearc (powwow) 02:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Jimi Hendrix's largest American audience

Gabe: On January 28, 2013, you made an edit in line 215 of the Jimi Hendrix Wiki page dealing with what is now footnote #131. First let me say that I wholeheartedly support your edit, even though it deleted a footnote reference to an article I authored. I originally inserted that previous reference in order to establish the fact that Hendrix's performance at the Second Atlanta International Pop Festival (July 3-5, 1970) was to the largest American audience of his career. However, my article did not so much 'establish' the fact as merely reference it, while your edit provided a somewhat more substantial source for the fact. Unfortunately, the sentence now referenced in the Hendrix Wiki page includes an erroneous statement about the size of the festival audience, "nearly 500,000", that should be revised or deleted.

In association with research I did while preparing an application for an official historical marker for the Second Atlanta Pop Festival, by far the most time I spent on any single subject was while trying to corroborate crowd-size estimates for the festival. In fact, THERE ARE NO CREDIBLE ESTIMATES FOR THAT CROWD. The only published estimates are widely disparate statements from newspaper articles of the time that range from 200,000 to 600,000, and NONE OF THEM ESTIMATE THE SIZE OF THE AUDIENCE ACTUALLY SEATED IN FRONT OF THE STAGE FOR PERFORMANCES. Also, no photos or film footage exist (and I have seen a lot, including un-released film footage) which would enable any estimate at all for the night-time crowd during Hendrix's set. Finally, even though I was personally at the festival working on the stage crew, and was on stage during Hendrix's set, I cannot provide any credible estimate of my own for the crowd size. Having said all this, my research did give me sufficient grounds for arriving at a general estimate that I can personally believe in for the size of the crowd that actually witnessed Hendrix's performance, but even that covers a range: 200,000-300,000 (with the greatest credibility in the lowest part of that range). This was also, in my opinion, the largest the front-of-stage crowd ever got during the festival.

Despite all this uncertainty, this still means that the Atlanta festival was Hendrix's largest American audience, and other Hendrix scholars and authors I consulted during my research agree. It's just that any use of a figure like '500,000' is simply erroneous and embarrassing, and should be avoided. We need to come up with alternate wording that can be defended. Unfortunately, once we do that, a direct reference to the authors you currently cite (Schinder & Schwartz) might be considered slightly awkward unless we shift the order of the sentence, with the current footnote referencing the "largest American audience of his career," coming first, and with a re-worded crowd-size estimate following that (e.g.: "based on attendance estimates from officials and news reports ranging from 200,000 to 500,000."). If we do that, it would work AND it would be accurate, credible and defensible. Please let me know what you think. Bmankin1 (talk) 16:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Bmankin1. Thanks for your comments. Per WP:VERIFY: "Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." Based on this guideline I have simply removed the figure and stated: "Hendrix played to the largest American audience of his career.[131]" Hope this resolves the issue. Cheers! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:38, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

FAC troubles

Gabe, thanks for the encouragement at my talk page. Yah, this FAC(s) (Sesame Street research) has given me fits. I don't think I've had as much trouble as my first-ever FAC, way back in 2008--The Wiggles, which went through 5 FACs, mostly due to my inexperience as an editor. This time, I think it's because the topic is surprisingly complicated and off-putting to reviewers. When I resubmit, I think that I'm going to be a bit proactive about it and ping involved and interested editors to help support it, something I tend to avoid doing because I think it borders on gaming the system. I think I should make an exception with this article because I'm not sure it's going to pass otherwise. That bring me to my question. I was intending to resubmit the article to FAC in a couple of days, but you seem to suggest on my talk page that I should resubmit in two weeks. Would it be untoward if I resubmitted so quickly? I don't really want to wait two whole weeks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 07:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Dobroslav Jevđević

At Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dobroslav Jevđević/archive1: thanks much, this is a very slow time for Milhist reviewers at FAC for some reason. But ... I'm not sure the delegates will count that as a review. Was there anything in particular you liked or didn't like about the article? - Dank (push to talk) 19:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

FAC

Hello sir, we would like your suggestions on the fac. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Priyanka Chopra/archive1. Please , review it and represent your thoughts. Thsnk You.Prashant  ✉  18:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Omayra

Hi Gabe, thanks for your review. I'm still a bit confused over the inconsistencies comment. ceranthor 23:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey Ceranthor, its now resolved so I have stricken the comment. You had one cite with BBC and another with (BBC) in brackets. I'll find time later and take another look. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Awesome, I look forward to it. ceranthor 00:50, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi again Gabe

Hey Gabe, I'm taking you up on your promise to go look at Sesame Street research, which I've just re-submitted for FAC. [2] You'll see that I was a good girl and waited the obligatory two weeks, and that I'm obviously not above begging. I thank you for your assistance ahead of time. ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:09, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey Christine, glad you're back! I've started my review. It will take me a few days to get a handle on what you want the article to "sound like", and for me to thoroughly grasp the content, so please bare with me. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Cleanup

Hello, GabeMc. You are invited to join WikiProject Cleanup, a WikiProject and resource for Wikipedia cleanup listings, information and discussion. To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Resuming review

Hi Gabe, Just to let you know I have left some more comments on the Jimi Hendrix death article. I will continue over the next few days :-) -- Cassianto^Talk 08:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey Cassianto, thanks for the excellent comments. I believe I have now resolved your most recent concerns. Thanks again for the insightful review! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Cher PR

Hi! I'm so sorry for not being able to keep the Cher PR in the last days. I will reply to your suggestions right now. Hope you're not bothered with the delay. Cheers, Lordelliott (talk) 18:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

No worries Elliott. I would strongly prefer if you finished your work with WPPeguin before I proceed with the review. If any lingering issues remain after that, then ping me and we can continue if you wish. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Alright. Would you mind replying the questions I made on the PR before we stop it for a while? Lordelliott (talk) 03:44, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Finish your work with WPP first. Then, if there are remaining concerns at that point, ask me to revisit. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:54, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Gabe. Wikipedian Penguin said to me he is taking a two-week to one-month break from Wikipedia. Considering this, I was wondering if the order could be altered - we finish our PR and then, if there are remaining concerns, Wikipedian Penguin can revisit. That would save a lot of time. Lordelliott (talk) 16:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, had you not started the PR with WP in the first place, the PR I started would already be finished. Now, I am in the middle of several projects and I really don't have the time to finish the Cher PR with you at this time. When I first agreed to do the PR, I politely asked you to be sure that the previous one was archived. You ignored my request and began yet another PR, which significantly slowed the pace of "our" PR. For all I know, WP will come back in two-weeks and want to re-start his PR. I do not want to review under a deadline, as there is far too much work left to be completed with the Cher article. In the future, please stick to one PR at a time, and please finish what you start before asking others to commit to such a large project. I'll say it again: After you archive any and all other open PRs, ask me to revisit. I am not interested in workshopping the article, nor do I have the time. Sorry, but really, you should have followed my advice and not tried to take on too much at once. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:40, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Alright. Just to be clear, I asked WP to start a PR way before we started our PR. In fact, I asked him when the article was a FAC. Lordelliott (talk) 20:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, you asked him first, that's fine, but did he begin his PR before I began mine? That's my main point here. Please don't have two or more PRs open at once for the same article. It matters little to me who was asked first. Once one is opened, you shouldn't open another until after the first is completed and archived. Have you added alt text for every image in the article? Have you improved the FURs for the ogg files? Understand? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:39, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

No, he began his PR after you began yours. I had forgotten that I asked him when he began his PR, actually. I think the alt text point is a tough one, and I thought we could work on these points after the prose/trimming review. Lordelliott (talk) 21:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Then IMO you should have politely asked WP to wait until we had finished and archived "our" PR before starting his. As I said above, had you not taken so long to address my comments (an issue caused or exacerbated by your working on two Cher PRs simultaneously), then "we" would already be finished. I hope you get my point here Elliot, I'm not trying to be a jerk about this. I truly enjoyed working with you, but you should not have attempted two simultaneous PRs on the same article IMO. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Alcohol laws of New Jersey

I noticed that you review many feature articles. Would you be able to review alcohol laws of New Jersey? It has been nominated as a feature article. DavidinNJ (talk) 01:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take a look when I get a chance. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:43, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much. DavidinNJ (talk) 03:13, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I updated the article per your comments. I also found an alternative to resolve the comma-colon syntax issue. DavidinNJ (talk) 02:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I replied to you at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Alcohol laws of New Jersey/archive1. I found a much better liquor store picture and reduced the captions on a number of the images. DavidinNJ (talk) 19:27, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

You commented on the FAC nomination for Alcohol laws of New Jersey and we appreciate your considerable detail and keen attention in this matter. We believe that we have addressed your concerns (to date) and improved the article, can we now count on your support? --ColonelHenry (talk) 16:26, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Gabe, Thank you for very much for supporting our article, and for the extensive amount of time you spent reviewing our article. It is greatly appreciated. DavidinNJ (talk) 02:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

You are most welcome David, glad I could help. Nice work! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:14, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Hendrix

Congratulations on the promotion Gabe. Thoroughly deserved! -- Cassianto^Talk 22:43, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, and for your excellent review. Cheers! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Request for Comments on Talk:Karl_Marx#Threaded_discussion

Greetings! You have been selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Karl Marx. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. Please delete if not interested! — RFC bot (talk) 12:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patriot1010 (talk • contribs)

Congrats

Hey, Gabe. Just wanted to stop by and extend my congratulations on getting Death of Jimi Hendrix to Featured status. It's a great article and you did a fantastic job on it! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Evan, that's very nice of you. The article was a labour of love/hate, as the subject matter was decidedly dismal, and I am quite glad to be "finished". Hope all is well with you, cheers! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:31, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

A belated congratulation from me as well.--Tomcat (7) 10:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Death of Jimi

I went ahead and protected it for a few days. Thanks for being vigilant on the page, lemme know if they come back to cause trouble. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:21, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Vital Articles

Hi Gabe. Earlier today DirtLawyer1 asked for my continued participation in the dustup at the Vital Articles pages. One frustrating thing is that the breakup into 10 - 100 - 1,000 - and 10,000 means there are four talk pages regarding the four lists, with several very long talkpages being confusing. In my thinking, one central place is needed to regularize matters. That place, logically, should be the over-arching Wikipedia:WikiProject Vital Articles pages, of which you may already be aware but are not a member of. DirtLawyer1 and I have just joined it, and I see PBP is already a member. At the talk page there, we can all hopefully establish a centralized discussion regarding goals, methods, priorities and pacing of proposed changes.

Also, we need to ensure that the proposed changes do not conflict with WP:CORE which is highly similar and which, frankly, I find redundant in some ways. In any case, my hope is that you and others involved in the current effort at "Vital" can join PBP, DL1 and I in this WikiProject and that we can entice others formerly involved here to add their expertise to the mix. With best wishes, Jusdafax 03:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The Beatles in India

Hi Gabe, After posting on the talk page and not receiving any feedback I've gone ahead and made a bunch of copy edits and moved several sentences around for better organization. I've also added some new sourced content in several places. If you have any time to take a look at the article I'd appreciate any feedback or comments you may have about my work. Thanks so much. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:36, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello Keithbob, nice to hear from you. Sorry for the delayed response. Would you like me to do a full peer review of the article, or are you just looking for a few comments/edits? Cheers! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:37, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi! I've made a lot of additions and some changes too, so I just thought it would be nice to get comments and edits from a new pair of eyes. No need for any kind of formal review. Thanks for taking an interest :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Gabe for the many detailed edits to the article. I did my best with the ref formatting but I'm unfamiliar with that advanced style of citations, so again thanks for picking up after me! One more small favor, regarding this talk page thread. Any thoughts on how that issue of seemingly conflicted sources should be handled? Thanks again!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:50, 24 March 2013 (UTC) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:50, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Pattie Boyd

Hi Gabe, its me again :-) As you know I did some significant editing and clean up a year or so ago on this article. However, I was chased away by Andresegde. In my absence he/she undid all of my edits and recreated issues I had tried to resolve. I have concerns that this article no longer meets GA standards. This concern has been echoed by editors at BLPN. (My concerns and links to the BLPN discussions can be seen on the talk page here). At this point there are two things that can be done 1) reassess and remove GA status or 2) fix it up so it can retain its GA status. I would prefer the latter but after my last experience I would prefer to work alongside one or two other editors. Would you be interested in this project? or do you know others that would like to work on it with me? Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:07, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey Keithbob. While I would be glad to work with you on Boyd (thanks for asking), I kinda have my hands full right now with the George Harrison FAC, and until Evan and I can get that article up-to-par, I really shouldn't start any other long-term Beatles projects. If and when Harrison passes FAC, I will ping you and ask if you still want to collaborate on the Boyd article. FWIW, I agree that as it currently reads, its not GA standard, so if you want to start a GAR, I would support that effort. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:14, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Gabe, thanks. Do have any idea how long you will be working on the GH article? weeks? months? That would help me make a decision. Best,-- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I should be available to help-out at Boyd within about a month or so. Hope that helps. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, the article has been in poor shape for many months, so I don't think one more will matter too much. I'll put a note on the talk page that you and I plan to do some major clean up in a month or so and if anyone wants to nominate it for a GA reassess before then, they may. So give me a ping when you are free. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:02, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Help with IP

Hi. I'm having trouble discussing genre changes with an IP at Are You Experienced. After reverting my cleanup of his OR-filled, poorly cited genre addition, he avoided commenting on the content and once again accused me of something and threatened to "report me" somewhere at this talk page. My attempts to his talk page before were deleted by him, and soliciting comments from other editors naturally led the IP to comment similarly (here and here). Could you comment at Talk:Are You Experienced#Researching genres? Dan56 (talk) 19:33, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

That's it I just reported you to the last admin that blocked You enough of this foolishness Quit trying to Edit war as you down here [[3]] sock puppeting as you done with 82.39.108.194 and EDIT WAR BY PROXY(Having others revert edits for you) [4], [5] [6] and Violation of WP:Npov — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.65.123.86 (talk) 19:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	You're just such a bloody hard worker. Our readers are grateful for all you have done. You're also a pleasure to work with. John (talk) 20:50, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks John. I really needed some encouragement right about now, and it means alot coming from you. Cheers! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Hang in there. Remember I am here for you if you ever need a third opinion. In the case of your recent drama I'm recommending just walking away. Often that's the best. It's a big place, and there are always new horizons. Do please give me a shout if you like the next time. --John (talk) 21:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Award

		The Mediation Award
		Regardless of who did what to create the issues that led to the dispute, I find this apology and good faith effort to renew peace and harmony in Wiki-land to be a courageous act of kindness that is worthy of recognition. Peace!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:28, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

RE: Hendrix...

It's all good. Others assisted, and the IP naturally went away. Appreciate the response. Dan56 (talk) 23:23, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Vital articles

Hi, GabeMc! Actually, I support including both politicians, that's why I voted double. --NaBUru38 (talk) 22:39, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I support having the three of them. --NaBUru38 (talk) 14:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello

I am dropping by to say thank you for your input on some of my suggestions, although some of your views really baffle me, I don't want to put you off or annoy you. We are agreeing on a lot now which is good. We will have to agree to disagree on some topics and wait for others opinions too. I like that you suggested Gibran good call. I hope we can all push the project forward slowly but surely. And if you agree on half of a swap thread but not the other please say, we will get a clearer picture. Carlwev (talk) 23:17, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Sure thing Carl. I think this will all work out well in the end. FWIW, I enjoy working with you. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:24, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Feature Article

GabeMc, alcohol laws of New Jersey was made a feature article. Thank you for your help. We are petitioning to have it placed on the main page for a day - Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. DavidinNJ (talk) 12:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

George Harrison's FAC

[7] I think you've made a very wise decision, difficult though it must have been for you. It's all down to the delegates now, so don't give up hope just yet. Malleus Fatuorum 22:21, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

That's just what I needed to hear. Thanks Malleus. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:23, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

If it doesn't get through this time (I think it probably will) I promise to help make sure it gets through next time. Malleus Fatuorum 22:28, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

You really are the best Malleus. I hope you know that. Thanks so much for all your effort, advice and encouragement. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:31, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Try telling that to ArbCom, they're straining at the leash to find some excuse to ban me. Anyway, chin up, I think you've done enough to get that little gold star. Malleus Fatuorum 22:36, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Arbcom already knows that you are the best. IMO, that's one reason why they are afraid of you, because you keep people honest. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think they're afraid of me, they just don't like what I represent in their eyes: a growing class of content contributors with no respect for their "superiors". Malleus Fatuorum 22:57, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

That's exactly what they are afraid of, if not you, then what you represent. All I can say is that for every admin type who tries to shut you down, there are 3 or 4 non-admin types rooting for you. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Pattie Boyd

Hey Gabe, thanks for your willingness to help out with the PB page. I know you are busy, so I don't expect you to do a lot of work but I would just like you to look at my edits from time to time and give feedback on the talk page on any issues that arise. For example, I have made a few bold edits today. If you could look at those and if you have any objections or input, please make a note on the talk page. Thanks! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:10, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Good edits at PB today. I will also continue. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:10, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

George

Congratulations on passing FAC with the article. I can see how much work you put into it and it's very exciting to see it in this condition, baubles aside. Harrison is my all-time favorite musician and I've been grimacing at his article since at least 2007, wishing I had the time and energy to improve it. Kudos! --Spike Wilbury (talk) 18:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Very well deserved. A lesser editor might have been tempted to give up, but you stuck with it. Malleus Fatuorum 18:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much Malleus and Spike! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Gutted I missed this! A hearty congratulations on what looked like a very difficult review. Your resilience knows no bounds. Despite my regret at not knowing of it sooner, It would have been difficult to get too involved as my FAC is imminent and is taking a lot of my time of late. I sincerely hope my dear Gabe that a certain Mr Starkey will be next? -- Cassianto^Talk 21:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Indeed he is! Thanks for the congrats Cassianto. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• Congrats. You did some good work on that article. Hot Stop (Talk) 14:07, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations! I've been watching the progression of this FAC, and I'm very happy to see that it was successful. szyslak (t) 19:45, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks HotStop and Szyslak. Your encouragement is much appreciated. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Have one on me, too! A great accomplishment. -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:28, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Ringo Starr

Hi Gabe, the reference for Ringo playing on the stereo album versions of "Love Me Do" & "P.S. ILove You" is also Mark Lewisohn in the album liner notes for Anthology V.1 and in his book on Beatles recording sessions. So what's your problem?The Dart (talk) 22:42, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello, The Dart. Alhough I am not refutting the accuracy of the datum, I also don't see anything about the stereo album versions on page 59 of Lewisohn 1992. Also, this is really excess detail that belongs at "Love Me Do" IMO. If you disagree, then this conversation should take place at the Ringo Starr talk page, not here. Cheers! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:52, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: George Harrison

This is a note to let the main editors of George Harrison know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on May 4, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or one of his delegates (Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), Gimmetoo (talk · contribs), and Bencherlite (talk · contribs)), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 4, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

George Harrison (1943–2001) was an English musician, singer, and songwriter who achieved international fame as the lead guitarist of the Beatles. By 1965 Harrison had begun to lead the other Beatles into folk rock through his interest in the Byrds and Bob Dylan, and towards Indian classical music through his use of the sitar on "Norwegian Wood (This Bird Has Flown)". He developed an interest in the Hare Krishna movement and became an admirer of Indian culture and mysticism, introducing them to the other Beatles and their Western audience. Following the band's break-up in 1970, Harrison released several best-selling singles and albums as a solo performer, and in 1988 co-founded the platinum-selling supergroup the Traveling Wilburys. A prolific recording artist, he was featured as a guest guitarist on tracks by Badfinger, Ronnie Wood and Billy Preston, and collaborated on songs and music with Bob Dylan, Eric Clapton and Tom Petty, among others. He also organized the 1971 Concert for Bangladesh with Ravi Shankar, a precursor to later benefit concerts such as Live Aid. Harrison was also a music and film producer, founding Dark Horse Records in 1974 and co-founding HandMade Films in 1978. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Heart of a Woman FAC

Hi Gabe, since you helped out at my last FAC (Sesame Street research), I thought I'd ask if you could help out again with my latest one [8]. Would you mind? It's been languishing for a while, so I'm drumming up folks to review it. I'd really appreciate it, thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Marie Lloyd

Hi Gabe, Lloyd is now starring FAC, so any comments would be most welcome. Hope your well! --Cassianto^Talk 09:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Ringo Starr

Hi, Gabe. If you don't have immediate plans to nominate Ringo Starr for FAC within the next two weeks or so, I think I'll be moving forward with the Zeppelin article before too long (thanks for your help over there, BTW). Let me know if that works for you. Thanks! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Silly dispute

Hi. Could you comment at this POV dispute? It involves whether material from a source should be included in an article. Dan56 (talk) 23:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

McCartney Kt

I suggest that the mention of his Kt is germane to both sections (chronology, awards & decorations) and the two mentions are so far removed from each other that, unless we care to assume that every reader will read the whole article, it is a courtesy to the reader to mention this point both places (e.g., a reader who clicks immediately on the outline link to "Awards" will not find this important award). Patrickwooldridge (talk) 07:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

We don't intentionally repeat information in a FA so that readers can find it in multiple locations within the article. If you want to make an argument for including the information in the Awards section and not in the biographical chronology then please do so at the appropriate talk page, Talk:Paul McCartney. Cheers! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Copy edits

Hi GabeMc. I've replied about MOS:LQ on my talk page. It's a very interesting question, and I'm hoping that stalkers may drop by and offer advice. May I gently suggest that it's time to drop the line of questioning of Torchiest on the election page? Obviously it's only my suggestion, but you're pushing him for justification of why he voted for someone else rather than you; it doesn't reflect very well and it might even boomerang. He has voted for you at least once, so I'm confident it's not personal. (I actually agree with the distinction he's making between copy editing and article expansion, by the way. It's not completely sharp, but it's there, I think). Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 21:56, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect, I find the way that you guys always stick-up for each other a bit off-putting. He's !voted for you 3 out of 8 times. Does he need a defender while I do not? Also, I don't care whether he likes my copyedits or not. It's not about why he didn't !vote for me, its about why he !voted for the CE that required the absolute least amount of effort. If the contest is more about correcting mistakes and not improving articles, then perhaps the goal of the contest is not the best. Anyway, I guess I'll seek out an article written by an ESL speaker so as to maximize the amount of minor errors I can correct. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

JG66

FYI, I've left a message for JG66 asking him to stop leaving messages on your talk page. I've advised him to hash out any content disputes he has with you on the appropriate article talk pages and to use dispute resolution if necessary (WP:3O, etc.). --Spike Wilbury (talk) 16:33, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, GabeMc. You have new messages at Odysseus1479's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Odysseus1479 02:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at Odysseus1479's talk page.—Odysseus1479 03:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC) Hello. You have a new message at Odysseus1479's talk page.—Odysseus1479 06:00, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The/the redux (kinda)

You might be interested in this discussion. Hot Stop talk-contribs 04:33, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey, HotStop. Nice to hear from you! Thanks for the heads-up; I just left my cents at the thread. Hope all is well with you and yours. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:22, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

RFC on MOS:LQ

Hi. Please would you take a look at WT:MOS#RfC on MOS:LQ? and maybe also this comment by User:Tony1? I don't know whether the current RFC is as out of process as Peter and Tony imply, but it does seem that a new one with a somewhat different question is what we really need. I would close the existing one, but can't, as I'm obviously involved. As the raiser, you can withdraw it, I think. Would you be willing to, please? It may then be that someone will wish to raise an RFC specifically proposing the adoption of option 4. Regards, --Stfg (talk) 10:59, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Done. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:02, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

VA/E

Gabe, I am glad to see that you are participating in the VA/E topic discussions again. Hopefully, you will find that the better organization and increased participation by others is contributing to better discussions and outcomes, and ultimately to an improved VA/E list. Cheers, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:19, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks DL1. You guys are doing a great job and I agree, the increased participation and improved organization are indeed impressive. Nice work! Thanks for the note, cheers! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:34, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Vital folk

Given how suportive you were of globalizing the music section last time we worked on it I really would havr thought that you of anyoe whould be able to see why the folk and country list needs some people that are not Americans. What is your rationale for keeping all those American country musicians and opposing adding an Irish band?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll take another look and reconsider my !vote. Cheers! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:55, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

If you have other ideas for non-American folk artists that would be great as well. I wasn't 100% that Fairport is the best example of Brotosh folk for example.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I think Fairport is a fair suggestion: I've just now added my support. Nice to see your active participation there, BTW. Cheers! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll Get You/Imagine

The first two lines of "I'll Get You" is "Imagine I'm in Love with you, it's easy if you try..." so how is this unsourced? That's the lyric, written one year before Grapefuit and three years before Lennon read it. Hotcop2 (talk) 22:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking in terms of WP:VERIFY: "Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." I'm pretty sure the addition falls under WP:OR. If you think I am in error, than please do start a talk page thread at the article space. We might be able to find a WP:RS that specifically states the assertion. Also, the lyrics to "I'll Get You" state: "Imagine I'm in love with you, It's easy cos I know", not "it's easy if you try". Cheers! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

VA/E: alphabetical order for topics

Gabe, is there a reason for de-alphabetizing topics within the VA/E categories? I have been doing my best to keep discussion topics in alpha order, notwithstanding the fact that some participants don't seem to get it, and just add topics willy-nilly. . . . Please advise. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I think they should generally be placed logically not alphabetically. Categories are easier than alpha, IMO. I'll try to do better, but as I said, some need to be placed in the right spot regardless of the alphabet, IMO. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:58, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, the topics are supposed to be placed under sublist/category headers (e.g., Films, Actors, Politicians, Writers, Technology, etc.) and then alpha order within the sublist/category. The organizational system seems to have broken down in my absence over the holiday, with a bunch of recently added discussion topics; it appears I have some reorganization to do (again). LOL Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:12, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I caused you more work, DL1. I'll do my best to respect the alpha order in the future. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, Gabe. I think your minor rearranging is the least of it. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

POV dispute

Hi. If it's no bother, could you comment at this discussion at Aaliyah (album)? It concerns this removal/revision made by an editor. Dan56 (talk) 21:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Talk:New Brighton Tower

Hello, sorry to bother you but I noticed you had been a huge contributor to The Beatles article (well done on that by the way, it looks fantastic) and I thought you might be able to help. Yesterday, the New Brighton Tower article was on the front page DYK and someone pointed out that it is likely the hook used was incorrect.

"Did you know... that the Beatles played at New Brighton Tower (pictured) a total of 27 times, more than any venue except the Cavern Club?"

From briefly looking at the Beatles article the New Brighton Tower doesn't seem to beat the Hamburg venue. Would you be able to confirm if this was the second most played UK venue?

Thanks very much, ツStacey (talk) 10:15, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Stacey! After a quick perusal of Lewisohn I cannot say for certain that the Tower Ballroom was the Beatles' second most visited venue, but clearly it would appear to rank quite high, along with the Cavern club and others. I'll keep an eye out for a more definitive answer. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:43, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your response =) I quite like the idea that it was the second most popular venue (but then I want the article to be interesting!) though I realise it needs to be factual too.. =P Thanks again! ツStacey (talk) 19:52, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

FAC comment

Hi. An editor that I rubbed the wrong way in a previous dispute may be using my FAC here as a venue for continuing their incivility. They appear to be making claims that are unlikely and posed only for the sake of argument. If I'm wrong, the FAC could you an opinion from an experienced editor either way. If it's no bother, could you comment/vote yourself at my nomination? It's a relatively short article to review. If not, feel free to ignore this message. Dan56 (talk) 04:39, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Never mind, no need as they have seemed to quite down since my response. Dan56 (talk) 23:22, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Ringo Starr FAC

I'll take a look at this FAC and provide a review after you're done with the long list provided by the other reviewer...hoping that user's comments will call to attention anything I might notice. No sense duplicating a moot point, eh? The article looks good and will definitely get my support. If you have the time in between addressing your FAC's reviewers, I'd love to have your review for an FAC for my work on the article Trees (poem), which can be found at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Trees (poem)/archive1, and for a featured list candidate, List of colonial governors of New Jersey which can be found at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of colonial governors of New Jersey/archive1. Thanks. All the best, --ColonelHenry (talk) 23:01, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

VA/E

Why did you close the "Add Flamenco, Remove Robert Joffrey" proposal? It has 75% support, it just need to go over the 6 vote limit. --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

It lacked 5 supports after 20+ days, so the percentage is irrelevant if the proposal does not reach the minimum of 5 supports, not? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:11, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes but the proposal can stay for 90+ days. There is no need to close them early. Same goes with "Add Chewing gum". --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Its not early if its after 15 days. Feel free to revert me, but you have also closed threads that where much less than 90 days old, not? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes but they were ones which either had enough votes, or consensus was very unlikely. 15 days is the minimum time. I don't think we should close proposals without enough votes, unless they have too many opposes and it is very unlikely it will be accepted. --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Like I said, go ahead and revert my closures if you want, its not worth the debate IMO. I was just trying to help with the page upkeep and I will say that your opinion is not represented in the agreed upon rules as they are currently stated. So while I don't necessarily disagree in principle, its also not how the current rules are written. Is it? Also, surely we must have some contingency for NO CONSENSUS, since many threads are ignored for weeks and some editors have decided to not weigh-in. If after 20+ days you only have 2 support !votes for a proposal then its chances of passing are slim to none. Further, are you suggesting that we leave props open until there is consensus? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)}

I think we should wait until either it gets enough supports to pass, or it gets enough opposes so that it is very unlikely that it will pass. It would be best if everybody would vote on each proposal so that we don't have these kind of situations. I don't see anything about "no consensus". The top of the page says: "Individual topic discussions may remain open for 90 days or more, but will be archived when it becomes apparent that consensus is unlikely to be reached. ", but nothing specific. Maybe we should set some rules about how long can should wait before closing. --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

GOCE June Copy Edit of the Month Gold!

		The Guild of Copy Editors' Award
		Thanks for your submission to the June 2013 Copy Edit of the Month contest, and congratulations! For your work on Sue Me, Sue You Blues, you've earned the Gold. Great job! —Torchiest talkedits 01:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Ringo

Hi. I added some comments about the Ringo Starr article. Take a look when you have a chance. Jimknut (talk) 22:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks much! I've resolved your concerns. Cheers! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Paul McCartney

Re his awards: they don't come bigger than a knighthood. If the article is going to have a section titled "Awards" then the major awards have to be listed, regardless of whether they are mentioned in the text or not. There is no rule against referring to something in two sections. On the other hand, if you omit the MBE and the Knighthood from the section, anyone who looks at it critically will know immediately that something is lacking. It is simply not encyclopedic to have a section headed "Awards" and then leave them out of it! If the doubling up really offends you, then remove it from the chronology and state it more fully in the "Awards" section.

Amandajm (talk) 10:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with the notability of the awards; it has to do with not repeating information in an FA. Also, its not about offending me, its about pleasing FAC reviewers, who would not allow material to be repeated in two places. FWIW, I completely agree with not repeating material in multiple locations so I've moved both the MBE and the Knighthood honours to Awards and removed them from the chronology. Cheers! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment?

Hi. I'm close to losing my composure (probably have already) at a POV discussion here with two editors who regularly contribute to the article in question and have been contesting what I feel are my improvements to the article. If it's not too much of a bother, would you care to chime in? An impartial view would be much appreciated, particularly one that doesn't continuously make reference to their own personal "knowledge" of the topic. Dan56 (talk) 22:19, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Joefromrandb

Let's do it! You might also want to take a look at what's gone on on his talk page, where I ask him to stop personally attacking me (and you), and he says nothing but "Go troll somewhere else kid", even when I inform him that I'm neither a kid nor a troll pbp 18:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to add diffs and sign on to the RfC/U, which is currently at User:Purplebackpack89/JoeRFCU. With two editors signing on and more than a dozen diffs, we can get it to Wikipedia-space tonight pbp 21:41, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you ready to make it live? pbp 23:34, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely! I'm just not very up on the proper procedure, but if you think that we have enough then lets do this asap! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

It's live now. Since you've signed on, you can just sit back and wait and see what happens. pbp 00:23, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - Just wanted to be thorough and let you know I moved your comment to the talk page per the instructions. I didn't do it to try to hide your comment or anything, that's just the way RfC/Us are structured. It might help to reword it to give it context, but I didn't want to presume and put it into any kind of context in a way you didn't intend so I just copied and pasted it exactly as it was. - SudoGhost 02:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, GabeMc. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

I think there's two I sent, one yesterday and one today. Read today's first, it concerns certain things that happened yesterday evening and how to generally improve the RfC/U pbp 14:58, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Next Sesame Street article up for review

Hi Gabe, since you reviewed the last Sesame Street article up at FAC, I wondered if you could review the most recent one up there now: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Format of Sesame Street/archive1. I need it done quickly, so that I can get into the finals of the Wikicup in ten days, something I'd really like to accomplish. I'd appreciate your assistance greatly. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 01:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

FAC: Trees (poem)

Finally got a few minutes to address your initial comments on the FAC. Would you be able to give the FAC nomination for Trees (poem) a second pass. So far, I've resolved a lot of comments, there were few suggestions you proffered that I disagreed with. The article does need a little support.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Jimi Hendrix

You reverted an edit I made and thereby removed this text. Why?
Charles R. Cross biography references army medical documents that show that Hendrix declared himself to have homosexual tendencies to aid discharge.
I have read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jimi_Hendrix/Archive_6#Hendrix.2C_Army_discharge_and_homosexuality but I still don't understand why you insist that nothing about this difference of opinion by his biographers be mentioned in his Wikipedia article.--Lidos (talk) 08:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

This isn't a "difference of opinion by his biographers". Its one biographer making a mistaken claim that is not supported by any verifiable sources. We don't repeat factual errors in Wikipedia articles just because an author or two has gotten their facts mixed-up. In 95 pages of documents detailing Hendrix's Army career, including each and every infraction, the word homosexual does not appear even once, which it certainly would have had this been an issue. Also, if Cross knows this is be a fact, then where is the note pointing to his source? Further, the officer who recommended Hendrix be discharged did not mention homosexuality in his report and the officer that discharged Hendrix also did not mention Hendrix's sexuality. Why not, if this is a known fact and driving reason for Hendrix's discharge, then where is the primary source explicitly stating this? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations!

		The Music Barnstar
		For all your hard work to get music articles to good and featured status (most recently Ringo Starr), I hereby award you the Music Barnstar! GoingBatty (talk) 13:13, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikilove

	The Beatles award of excellence
	Brilliant work on your latest FA! However happy he is about it though, Ringo wants to remind you of two possible future FA's of the men who made this group possible. CassiantoTalk 19:58, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Congrats

On getting Ringo through! I wish I'd had more time to help out content-wise, but you handled it more than adequately. Fantastic work! (And a P.S. let's make that postscript: I should be through early in September to finish addressing your comments at ye olde Led Zeppelin FAC. I may or may not get around to re-nomming it anytime soon, but you brought up legitimate issues I want to address to improve the article. Thanks! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:21, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Another Beatles award for you

	The Beatles Award
	Thanks for your great Beatles contributions! (taking a "sad" article and making it better!) :) Ensignricky (talk) 15:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Roger Waters

This is a note to let the main editors of Roger Waters know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on September 6, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or one of his delegates (Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), Gimmetoo (talk · contribs), and Bencherlite (talk · contribs)), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 6, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Roger Waters (born 1943) is an English musician, singer, songwriter and composer. He was a founder member of the progressive rock band Pink Floyd, serving as bassist and co-lead vocalist. Following the departure of bandmate Syd Barrett in 1968, Waters became the band's lyricist, principal songwriter and conceptual leader. The band subsequently achieved international success with the concept albums such as The Dark Side of the Moon, Wish You Were Here, and The Wall. Although Waters' primary instrument in Pink Floyd was the bass guitar, he also experimented with synthesisers and tape loops and played rhythm guitar on recordings and in concerts. Amid creative differences within the group, Waters left Pink Floyd in 1985 and began a legal battle with the remaining members over their intended use of the band's name and material. They settled the dispute out of court in 1987, though the four members did not play together until Live 8, nearly 18 years later. Waters released Ça Ira (a three-act opera based on the French Revolution) in 2005, and in 2010 staged The Wall Live concert tour, an updated version of the original Pink Floyd album. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• All right! Pink Floyd FTW! Good job. :-) Kurtis ^(talk) 06:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

re: closure

Hello - sure, I'm happy to explain my thought process there. Apologies that I can't take the time right now to find the diffs, because I'm on a deadline now, but I want to let you get any challenge or wider discussion rolling while I'm away working on this other project. This is also kind of off the top of my head so forgive me if I repeat myself - I'm in a bit of a hurry, and I may not be back on Wikipedia until late this weekend, so don't be surprised if I don't participate in an ANI discussion about it. It's not for lack of interest, but I have to pay the bills. :-)

I read and reread the RFC for about an hour - I read it several times, then I went to do some other Wiki-things while I thought about it, then I came back and repeated the process, which is what I usually do when I close something like this. 26 people isn't exactly a cross-section of Wikipedia, and the RFC had been without activity for weeks, so those 26 opinions were all we were going to get right now. I felt there were cogent arguments for both positions.

Less than a year ago there was an RFC in which more than 130 people participated about this issue in regard to the Beatles (in which I did not participate). That poll was widely linked and publicized, and because the discussions there are referenced in this RFC, they are relevant, as are the discussions and questions afterward. Again, good arguments for both positions.

In the aftermath discussion, when asked if the RFC applied to how other band names should be capitalized, Future Perfect at Sunrise said (emphasis added):

Since the MOS recommendations – based on the same empirical findings about usage and the same external style guide prescriptions as cited here – had already been saying lowercase for a long while, the default assumption is that that recommendation would go for other band names too, not because of this mediation, but because it's been the standard rule all along. If individual band articles have gone for a different solution, I would assume this should be justified by some individual, well discussed circumstances (e.g. in the case of the linguistically irregular "The Who" and the likes.) Where such special considerations obtain, they obviously continue to be valid. Where not, a case for standardizing towards MOS-conformant lowercase can obviously be made. This should be done on a case-by-case basis.

There was no challenge to that statement.

The 2012 RFC had much higher participation and passion, so I thought it interesting that a MOS discussion about changing the precedent project-wide drew so few editors. Since the arguments were sound on both sides, I found myself in Newyorkbrad's position about closing the 2012 RFC - I'm not a bot either. However, that RFC had 140 people participate; there were only 26 editors who participated here, and that's a factor in the closure. We routinely relist AFDs to get wider participation, and I really wish I could have done that here. 26 editors, split 17-9, 58%-42%. Given the low level of participation here, the passion of the 2012 RFC, and that RFC's aftermath statements by arbitrators, I could not in good conscience find consensus to amend the MOS.

That's my thinking here; if ANI decides to overturn it, that's okay. Well, it's not okay, because I believe I'm correct to go to the side of caution in this particular case. But I abide by the will of the community; at least it will get wider attention and I'll get some feedback on my thought process. Thanks. :-) KrakatoaKatie 22:41, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

While I think that you've completely missed the point, I also don't wish to expend any more energy regarding this issue. Cheers! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for going into so much detail, KrakatoaKatie. To be honest, I didn't know so much care was put into discerning a consensus. It's rather ineffable and goes without explanation. Yours is the first time I've seen an Admin describe their process. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

• It looked to me like consensus in the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Music discussion was to support removal of the noted text from Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Music. Also, it is not clear that removing the text would or would not result in changing whether these things should be done on a case-by-case basis. That being said, I see Katie's point. The venue Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation reaches a much broader spectrum of editors than the venue Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Music. No only were there five times as many participants in the Requests for mediation than Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Music, most of the participants in the Requests for mediation provided arguments that had significantly more detail than those provided by the seventeen at who supported removal of the text. Consensus is determined by looking at strength of argument. See WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS. In hindsight, the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Music also probably needed to take Future Perfect at Sunrise's statement head on with vigorous argument. I think the short answer is that changing guideline created from a widely participated discussion with strong arguments on both side by using a venue (Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Music) that has significantly less traffic and resulted on only attracted relatively modest participation is not the best to change guideline. GabeMc, I know that was not your goal/intent, but it is what the situation was. Your post at AN was not a dispute resolution request, so it should not have been treated that way. It was a request to determine whether the closer of the discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly, which every editor has a right to do. (We do need a better place to post such discussion close review requests than AN so the request does not come off as a dispute). In short, in view of her explanation above, I think KrakatoaKatie did not interpreted the consensus incorrectly at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Music. -- Jreferee (talk) 02:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

• Jreferee, are you suggesting that the next step in this process should be to request a formal mediation so as to garner wider participation? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:57, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

• Since you do not have a dispute with KrakatoaKatie, there is nothing to mediate. Your options: 1. open a discussion at WP:AN that begins with "This is a request to review the close at MoS/Music_talk - Names (definite article) to determine whether the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly. I discussed this with KrakatoaKatie Here (link)." followed by what every you want to say. See Challenging other closures (which I just modified). A second option 2. wait until time passes to where you can post a new request to have the first two sentences at MoS/Music - Names (definite article) deleted. Since KrakatoaKatie's close was no consensus, you should be able to immediately post a new request to have the first two "Names (definite article)" sentences deleted. KrakatoaKatie's post above provides lots of guidance on how to make a second passage deletion request in a way that may lead to the close you are looking for. You probably need to post the second passage deletion request at a general discussion area, such as Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) or Wikipedia:Requests for comment (KrakatoaKatie may be able to give you an idea as to the best venue to list the request). If you want help with either option, let me know. -- Jreferee (talk) 23:28, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, GabeMc. You have new messages at Deor's talk page.
Message added 23:10, 14 September 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

re band name RfC thingy

Thanks for bringing that to my attention. Everything you did was fine and fair and by the rules, and I'm not complaining, but just noting that it's nicer, better for the culture, and more effective as a practical matter to be careful not to give off an adversarial vibes when it can be avoided. Herostratus (talk) 06:59, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:30, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Little help?

Hi GabeMc. I'm hoping you can help, as anonymous IP 107.215.236.170 has been making tons of edits to music-related pages, including Beatles pages, and as I and several other editors continue to revert them, it isn't stopping.

I put a notice here, but after 24 hours there's been nothing done. I'm not even sure I put a note on the right page. I also left a note on the IP's talk page but that seems to have been ignored, just like the other notes from other editors have been ignored.

Can you help in any way? Thanks.

Rockypedia (talk) 06:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I left a note at the IP's talk page and I'll keep an eye on the situation. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Hendrix hatnote

Hi, there is a necessity for a hatnote when there is a disambiguation page that it links to. There is a disambiguation page primarily because Hendrix is a surname, Hendrix is a crater, and Hendrix is a town. So when people type in "Hendrix" and get redirected to Jimi Hendrix, they might be looking for one of these other Hendrixes. In fact, having Hendrix redirect to Jimi Hendrix was a close decision in the first place, one which I implemented, due to the fact that there are so many other uses of the term Hendrix.Hoops gza (talk) 01:11, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

When I type Hendrix in the search box, all those pages pop-up. Nobody is being directed to Jimi's article in favour of the others; there is a drop-down menu which makes the hat-note redundant. Don't try to make hat-notes do what a search engine should be doing, it's distracting and unsightly at the top of an article. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:16, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

What if the person just enters Hendrix? There is also no guarantee that the person is using the search engine to see those other choices. This is how hatnotes are applied across Wikipedia.Hoops gza (talk) 01:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

That's what I mean, type in Hendrix, and all those options come-up, even the disambiguation page. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:41, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

You are missing my point. I believe it is a Wikipedia standard policy to have a hatnote for an ambiguous redirect. See Wikipedia:Hatnote#Ambiguous_term_that_redirects_to_an_unambiguously_named_article for the best example I can find of this.Hoops gza (talk) 01:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how that justifies cluttering the lede with links. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Sex Pistols discussion

Hi GabeMc. There is a discussion on the Sex Pistols talk page about whether the band should be described as a British or an English band which might be of interest to you. Your input is appreciated! TheOnlyOne12 (talk) 03:07, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your helpful input on the Sex Pistols talk page, GabeMc! Appreciate it. Also, great job on the Beatles articles, as well as the Jimi Hendrix article! Looks like it could be up to featured article status soon. TheOnlyOne12 (talk) 14:44, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

You are most welcome! Let me know if I can be of further assistance. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:21, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Greeting and salutations

You're the shit! Jimi Hendrix (and the rest of your work) is looking awesome. I have a keen interest in guitarist articles so if you ever need a hand, please let me know. I have access to a library so I'm happy to look for sources or even just do a proofreading before you take something to FAC. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 21:24, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey, Spike. Thanks for the kind words! I'll definitely take you up on that offer to proofread or research. In fact, right now I wish I could find a public domain military picture of Hendrix for use in the article. While I am pretty sure that some must exist, I cannot verify that any are PD. Seems like there would be a military archive of some sort, but I can't find that resource. Any thoughts? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:35, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I know my library has subscriptions to at least two databases of images that are created by the US government, and thus public domain. I will do some searches and see what I can find. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 21:40, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I came up blank searching US government databases. I did find some Hendrix military photos here. His portrait holding his hat with the palm tree decor should be public domain as it was created by the US government, but I can't prove that it was. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 13:21, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, thanks for looking, but I think all those images are copyrighted by private parties, which is odd because surely there must be a PD military image of Hendrix somewhere. I'll keep digging. Thanks for your effort! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:23, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

A strange one

Hi Gabe, I hope you're well. Ditto from me on the Hendrix article, btw – I'd been looking at it a couple of weeks back, it looked great even then.

Hey look, I've got a real odd one here … If you're not too busy, would you be able to look in at User talk:Quadell#mirror images? It's regarding a new Harrison biography, which – well, it basically rips off Wikipedia's Harrison album and song articles. Very strange, but no less true.

What I'm hoping is, you might want to follow the link from Quadell's page and hit "helpful" on my Amazon review for the book – which I've signed as "HariG". In the interests of drawing attention to this issue of an author quite obviously taking material from Wikipedia – which, the more I think about it, is really concerning and far-reaching – I'd simply like to ensure that the review is helpful/popular enough to register in the listing's main space. Quite understand if you'd rather not of course (but I sure hope you do!). I've rallied together a few others, you'll notice. Many thanks. Best, JG66 (talk) 20:13, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, this happens from time to time. An author wrote a book about Hendrix a few years ago that copied heavily from the Wikipedia article. I went to Amazon and "liked" your review. Cheers! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:34, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Big thanks, Gabe, I really appreciate that. God, I can't believe that about the Hendrix book … Well, what am I saying – of course I can (now)! Cheers, and happy Hendrix-ing, JG66 (talk) 21:03, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Million Award

		The Million Award
		For your contributions to bring Pink Floyd (estimated annual readership: 5,101,000) George Harrison (1,515,000) Paul McCartney (2,504,000) Ringo Starr (1,295,000) Imagine_(song) (692,000) and Roger Waters (749,000) to Featured Article status, I hereby present you four Million Awards and two Half Million Awards. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment--most Wikipedians will never write one article of such prominence, much less five-- and thanks for all you do for readers worldwide. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:13, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

The Million Award is a new initiative to recognize the editors of Wikipedia's most-read content; you can read more about the award and its possible tiers (Quarter Million Award, Half Million Award, and Million Award) at Wikipedia:Million Award. You're also welcome to display these userboxes:

This editor won the Million Award for bringing Paul McCartney to Featured Article status.

This editor won the Million Award for bringing George Harrison to Featured Article status.

This editor won the Million Award for bringing Ringo Starr to Featured Article status.

This editor won the Million Award for bringing Pink Floyd to Featured Article status.

This editor won the Half Million Award for bringing Imagine_(song) to Featured Article status.

This editor won the Half Million Award for bringing Roger Waters to Featured Article status.

If I've made any error in this listing, please don't hesitate to correct it; if for any reason you don't feel you deserve it, please don't hesitate to remove it; if you know of any other editor who merits one of these awards, please don't hesitate to give it; if you yourself deserve another award from any of the three tiers, please don't hesitate to take it! Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:13, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

PS--I think this is the largest of these I've ever given out! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:13, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

@Khazar2:, wow. Thanks much; this really made my day! I had no idea that those articles got so many hits. Cheers! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:26, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, there aren't a lot of writers out there in any field who can count on 11 million readers a year! Keep up the good work, Khazar2 (talk) 19:40, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Wallace and Plant Strider

Unfortunately I am not much help on either count. Although Plant's Strider is too old to do a fresh check on, at least according to the log it is unlikely Wallace and Strider are connected from a technical perspective. We don't publicly link IP addresses/ISPs to accounts, so I cannot grant your second request. NativeForeigner ^Talk 08:17, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Precious again

Imagine
Thank you for quality articles, such as Imagine, a "world at peace, without the divisiveness and barriers of borders, religions and nationalities, to consider the possibility that the focus of humanity should be living a life unattached to material possessions, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:48, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 328th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:06, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks much, Gerda! Your efforts to recognize hard working editors go a long way towards softening-up a sometimes hard and unforgiving place. Thanks for all that you do to encourage others! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:55, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! Did you see my latest infobox effort, my own? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:56, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I just had a look; nice work! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:24, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

By the criminal ;) - Did you vote? - I look for someone unafraid of arbcom sanctions to add the infobox to a journalist, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:45, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I always vote! Hmmm, normally this would be right up my alley, but I think that crew would eat me alive! What's the fuss about anyway? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:13, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't blame you for not trying to find out what the "wiki-torture" would be. What's the fuss is about I don't know. I asked ;) (This was probably meant as an answer.) - I asked the candidates my three questions and found their answers promising, including the two who were involved in Teh Case. - Be careful what you say, our chat was mentioned on my talk ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:56, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

re Gambaccini

Hi Gabe. Did you mean Giuliano, Geoffrey Giuliano? "Gamba" was a UK-based American DJ in the 1970s and '80s; a very fair commentator, by all accounts, certainly not one for those gratuitous "Hey, let's hang a Beatle" critiques in the style of Carr & Tyler, Feng-Torres and others from the period. What you're describing, though – the public condemnation from Olivia – sounds like Giuliano and his book Dark Horse: The Secret Life of George Harrison? (I know Badman's Beatles Diary Vol. 2 details the various steps taken by Olivia and others to condemn the Giuliano book.)

If it's Gambaccini – yes, a good source, because (I imagine) he'd be writing about the music made by a musician named George Harrison. In other words, the author's well qualified to write on that subject.

Giuliano: I have to confess I've never read his book. Everything I've heard about it, eg from other Harrison biographers or from readers' reviews, has been far from positive. So I guess that might make Giuliano's book a source to avoid. On the other hand, there are plenty of reasons for giving, say, MacDonald, Clayson, Huntley, Inglis and others a pretty wide berth, imo. (Inglis because he'll get a simple fact wrong about a particular song and then his discussion of the song spirals off, becoming ever more wrong. Huntley because, quite honestly, he's a shameful plagiarist. [I keep meaning to suggest that Huntley's book be removed from the list of sources on the project page …]) But personally, I still use those sources, selectively, in articles I work on (perhaps too much so in Huntley's case), because I think it adds to an article's credibility when it can be seen that a wide range of sources have been used.

So – long way of saying! – my advice re Giuliano would be to cite him very selectively. I certainly wouldn't give him a substantial "presence" in the article or its sources list, if that helps. Best, JG66 (talk) 03:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I meant Giuliano, not Gamba. Thanks, that does help! I think you're wise to include a diversity of sources while also using certain ones sparingly. I used Clayson extensively during the Ringo FAC, because his is really the only thing close to a reasonable bio on Starr, but wow, he's a bad writer, IMO. You've done a nice job as always with on all the Harrisong GAs, BTW. Keep up the great work! Happy Holidays! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:29, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I know what you mean about Clayson's Ringo bio – one has to make the gesture almost of featuring it heavily as a source, because of the lack of alternatives. As to quality, oh boy … To my way of thinking, he (Clayson) is his own worst enemy as a writer, because he can't help injecting himself into the narrative. That same trait is far more frustrating in his Harrison bio, I think, because it undoes all the great work he otherwise brings to the book. (I remember mentioning this in a long treatise on Harrison bios, of which Yeepsi's talk page was the lucky recipient. Yeep didn't talk to me for a week – but I think it just took him that long to read it!)

As an editor, but also as a general reader, I can't stand to see an author's personal agenda permeating the text when it's clearly such an ungenerous one. You can almost detect Clayson sniggering as he writes – it's not attractive. That's why I simply adore Peter Doggett's book: he's a generous soul, a big fan – that comes through loud and clear (and it's obvious too in his fantastic blogs written at the time). With that established, when he dishes out forthright rebukes on each of the four Beatles, which he most certainly does, his argument carries such weight each time. And just as impressively, rather than recycling a whole load of half-truths and ever-snowballing myths, his references demonstrate that he's hunted down the original sources for his information. I so admire that, same with the way Doggett readily acknowledges a valuable insight provided by Jon Wiener, Simon Leng, etc.

Sorry, I'm writing this as if no one else could possibly have read Doggett's book – I'm sure you're pretty familiar with it yourself! Was hoping to have a most wiki-productive day, so I'd best get down to that right now ... Cheers, JG66 (talk) 00:11, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

US date

The Rough Guide to Jimi Hendrix book verifies the US release date as 23 August 1967 (by Reprise), but the googlebooks site doesn't show the page numbers. What do you think would be the best way to cite this? Dan56 (talk) 00:29, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

McDermott also has the release date as August 23, and I've now added the cite. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Civility Barnstar

Just a recognition for your effort in trying to improve Are You Experienced. Don't let a small dispute with Dan to back you off from editing that page. I had a similar argument with him a year ago, but that wasn't an obstacle for getting the Metallica album to GA status. Cheers and continue the great work. Hendrix's albums are important and should be high-quality Wiki articles. Вик Ретлхед (talk) 13:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for the encouragement Вик Ретлхед! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:48, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations

Thanks, Dr. Blofeld! The positive reinforcement is much appreciated! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:15, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

More congrats on the Hendrix FA. Where will you be spending that well-deserved bonus check? —Ojorojo (talk) 18:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! That's funny, but I'm an unpaid volunteer like everybody else here. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

More congrats! A very hearty "well-done!!!"Learner001 (talk) 18:48, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words! The truth is, I started editing Wikipedia because I wanted to improve Jimi's article, and I waited until I thought I was good enough to do it justice. I certainly hope that I have, because he is one of the most important musicians of the 20th century, and he's given me hours of enjoyment over the years, not only through his music, but he inspired me to take-up the guitar when I was just 15 years old. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:53, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

A fine tribute to Hendrix. I'd loved to have seen Hendrix and Vaughan live together! Nobody played an E7 sharpened 9th better than Hendrix!!

It would be great to get some of Hendri'x songs/albums up to GA status. Turn! Turn! Turn! is also a favourite of mine and one I'd be interested in working on. [[♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm working on Are You Experienced and Electric Ladyland as we speak, and yes, Jimi and Stevie would have made quite a ticket! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

A Tesla Roadster for you!

	A Tesla Roadster for you!
	Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia! Gg53000 (talk) 01:13, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Sweet. I needed some new wheels. Thanks, Gg53000! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Acid Rock

I have not contributed much of anything to any of the music pages, but I know more than a little about the rock era. I think of the term "Acid Rock" as the stereotypical expression that a late-'60s era grandfather might use to describe the "horrible," loud screeching music emanating from a suburban basement or garage. I believe it's an outmoded, and, in retrospect, derogatory descriptor mostly used by detractors of the hard rock genre prior to the rise of metal, per se', and actually a semantic prescursor to the term "Heavy Metal," having far more to do with big amps than acid. "They're playing that acid rock again." But not worth the energy to argue, as you noted. :)Learner001 (talk) 15:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

My sentiments exactly! What used to be derogatorily referred to as acid rock eventually became known as heavy metal, and as you pointed out, it had more to do with big amps then drugs. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for formatting Homer at Vital Articles. RJFJR (talk) 19:09, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

You're most welcome, RJFJR! Thank you for participating; we need as broad a perspective as possible, and sometimes progress there can get bogged down in group-think, so new editors are always welcome. Cheers! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Are You Experienced, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Roger Mayer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Jimi Hendrix mugshot image

As you have shown interest in this image before, you are invited to comment on its deletion discussion. It can be found at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2014_January_8#File:Jimihendrix1969mug.jpg. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 18:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	GabeMc, for your skilled writing on a series of rock music FAs which have been further complimented with the promotion of Jimi Hendrix. Sorry I couldn't get there to vote, but for what it's worth, I would have supported nonetheless. Congratulations! CassiantoTalk 21:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Cassianto. I wasn't sure I would ever finish, but I think it turned out nice. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:12, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

FA congratulations

Just a quick note to congratulate you on the promotion of Jimi Hendrix to FA status recently. If you would like to see this (or any other FA you may have helped to write) appear as "Today's featured article" soon, please nominate it at the requests page; if you'd like to see an FA on a particular date in the next year or so, please add it to the "pending" list. In the absence of a request, the article may end up being picked at any time (although with 1,329 articles in Category:Featured articles that have not appeared on the main page at present, there's no telling how long – or short! – the wait might be). If you'd got any TFA-related questions or problems, please let me know. Bencherlite^Talk 17:07, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Vital articles

I just added a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles#Discuss: Momentum? for whether momentum should be a vital article. I'm not sure if it should be formatted differently. (Also, is the page supposed to be pink?) RJFJR (talk) 16:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Vital articles advice?

I've got two items I'd like to add to vital articles but only one I'd recommend removing.

Add Momentum and Magnet. Remove Candle.

Do you have any advice for me? RJFJR (talk) 20:24, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey, RJFJR. Ideally, if you are going to start a swap thread, the topic you want to remove will come from the same sub-list as the topic you want to add will belong. For example, if you want to add magnet, its helpful if you also propose the removal of an item from the same sub-list that currently contains magnet. This is not required of course; you can propose anything you want really, but IME its more effective to swap apples for apples, versus apples for oranges. If memory serves me, I think candle was added somewhat recently, but I might be mistaken. The best advice I have for you is to increase your involvement there, and don't get discouraged if your first few proposals fail; most of mine still do! Hope that helps; let me know if I've failed to answer your question and don't be shy about asking more questions. Cheers! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. RJFJR (talk) 20:53, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Question on procedure at Vital Articles. We already started discussing momentum. But now I'd like to propose: "Add Momentum and Magnet and Remove Potential energy and Kinetic energy (on the grounds they are already covered by energy, though that would be an easier argument if energy were better written)." Do we close the current momentum section, add to it, or put remove in the existing discussion and add another section for magnet with remove one of the energy-subarticles? RJFJR (talk) 15:20, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, since no poll has been formatted, it looks like an informal discussion on momentum. I think you cold go ahead and format a poll, but you need to decide if you are going to do it in two !votes or one. IME, the fewer topics per proposal the better, so I suggest that you pair them up and make two swap threads using the format in use at the talk page. Hope this helps. Cheers! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. RJFJR (talk) 18:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Striking "Keep"

I am editing with a mobile device right now, which won't handle long blocks of text. I would be grateful if you would strike through the first of my keeps. Thank you very much. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Will do. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Some advice

Hey Gabe. If you're not too busy with other projects on Wiki, can you take a tiny little look at List of awards and nominations received by Megadeth? I've nominated it for FA, so feel free to leave comments here. The band hasn't scored many notable accolades throughout their career, so that's basically all I managed to find. At least it doesn't require much time to review it, lol.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 00:11, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take a look, but I don't know anything about featured lists; I've never written or reviewed one before. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Sources

I saw that you edited out the reviews of this music writer several times. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums#Piero_Scaruffi_-_Final_Verdict_on_using_him_as_a_source_in_reviews Could you explain why here? There's a final discussion about this, at the moment. Thanks. Woovee (talk) 18:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Recent edit

My recent edit to ...And Justice for All (album) was not POV pushing. WP:CHERRYPICK says not to exclude "contradictory or significant qualifying information", so I included the writer's sentiment that although the album is similar to the band's previous work, there's something different. Otherwise, it would be misrepresenting "misrepresenting what the source says". I'd appreciate it if you restored that quoted material back. Dan56 (talk) 23:07, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I think you are obsessed with genres, which is fine in and of itself, as long as you don't bully every single page on your watchlist into including only the genres that you want. There is only one reason to include the text-string of which you speak, and that's to cast doubt on the album's authenticity as a thrash album, which is unquestionable, IMO. That's the POV that you are pushing at AJFA. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Uhm not really. Are you familiar with qualifiers? The line by the writer starting with "yet..." is one, so it should probably be included. Why are you ignoring this? Dan56 (talk) 23:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

The album is thrash metal that verges on progressive metal; its both. Can you play every riff on the album? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Havent listened to it. Not interested in it. Frankly, I'm more interested in accurately representing the writer's point of view than metal music, so if you could address the fact that the Sputnikmusic line has a qualifier that should be included...? Dan56 (talk) 23:47, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Exactly! That's what concerns me; you do not understand the music you are categorizing. Have you ever heard the song "Remember" by JHE? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

And you are interested and have a personal opinion that you continue to bring up. That's what concerns me LOL. I have listened to Hendrix and Rihanna, but even though I don't always agree, I always defer to the most reliable sources I can find when editing. Anyway, if you're not going to restore the qualifier, I'm just going to get formal and use RfC or something to show other editors that the qualifier should be included in order to adhere to WP:CHERRYPICK. Dan56 (talk) 23:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I seriously think you do not know what you are talking about. Stop bullying people. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

No, you are not interested in "accurately representing the writer's point of view". Since you're a big fan of Christgau, I guess you're healing your frustrations by demolishing articles about heavy metal albums. You are falsifying sources to prove a point and then saying other editors are nuts with a straight face. How low.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 13:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

"References" vs. "Citations"

"References" is a preferable section heading title for a list of footnotes; see WP:FNNR. "Citations" is not exactly wrong but, as that section explains, could be a source of confusion. Of course, Hendrix was the subject of legal citations! Why do you prefer that term? --BDD (talk) 18:42, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I've used citations for years, with only maybe one or two objections. My logic is that a citation is this, {{sfn|Smith|2014|p=100}}, and a reference is this: {{cite book|last|Smith|first=John|title=Sourcing 101|year=2014}}. Per Wikipedia:Citing sources: "A citation, or reference, uniquely identifies a source of information". Our guidelines repeatedly refer to those inline-cites as citations, e.g. How to create the list of citations, How to place an inline citation using ref tags, Separating citations from explanatory footnotes, and Short citations. I don't see many uses of references in our guidelines when referring to cites. I do agree that either is acceptable, but I've used citations in all 9 of my FAs. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:53, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I'd argue that, since they're front-facing, section titles are more about readers than editors. I wouldn't give too much weight to what our documentation says, then. I don't have any statistics at hand, but I strongly suspect "References" is far and away the most common name for these sections. Some articles use it where "Bibliography" or "Sources" might be used instead, but omitting it altogether just doesn't seem to make much sense. I would even prefer "Notes" if that weren't taken in this case. --BDD (talk) 19:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Like I said, both are perfectly acceptable as far as I know, and since I prefer citations I don't see any reason why I can't use the term in articles that I take to FA. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

We doing this?

Perhaps you weren't serious about improving the article with an image like this at 1993 child sexual abuse accusations against Michael Jackson. I've seen attempts to claim that California county and town law enforcement agencies do not fall under the general state permissions of {{PD-CAGov}}, but who knows? We'll find out! I will upload the image myself on the Commons, and we'll see what happens. Cheers. Doc talk 09:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, no I wasn't serious. In fact, I'm not a big fan of including these humiliating images in articles. Of all the good images that we could be including, these are among the absolute worst choices, IMO. My point was that surely MJs mugshot is far more notable and consequential to his career then is Jimi's. I'm still not sure why you are fighting so hard for this; what do you think the reader gains from excluding an image of Hendrix at Woodstock while including his mugshot? Its undue, IMO, when there are infinitely better non-free images that we could make a strong argument for. Take Woodstock for example. Numerous reliable sources critically discuss his attire at the concert, and some describe images of him performing there as "iconic". Jimi's mugshot is not iconic, IMO; its trashy and tabloid-esque. To bend over backwards trying to Wikilawyer so that it remains is POV, and an odd choice to say the least. FTR, if the image is kept, then I intend to write a dedicated topical article about the arrest so that the image can reside there and not at the Hendrix bio. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:03, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

We can't just pick any non-free image in place of this one. It doesn't work like that. We cannot use an image from, say, Corbis or Getty because we are "allowed" such an image. Why? Because those companies charge money for their images. Whoever took the Woodstock photo is not about to let us use their image as FU, so just forget about that. Anyhoo, I put the Michael Jackson mugshot in two articles, and so far they've remained. I think the articles are better with them in there. Cheers :) Doc talk 01:36, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey, its with all due respect. We just see it differently. Doc9871, if the image is proven to be PD, then the issue is of course moot; we would certainly include the mugshot if its free. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

NFCC #4 does not apply, clearly, because the image was previously published with the permission of the copyright holder. #4 is for other sorts of images, maybe like those in one's scrapbook taken by someone else that one wants to publish here. Only #8 and #3a can be argued here. Cheers :) Doc talk 08:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Doc9871, I'm not aware of any proof that the actual copyright holder has publisher the image. As far as I can tell, nobody even knows for sure who the copyright holder is, let alone if they publisher the photo. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

The source for the mugshot is The Smoking Gun. That is owned by TruTV, which is owned by Time Warner. Time Warner probably has decent editorial oversight and abides copyright when publishing things. There is no question that this meets #4; but arguments of #4 and #8 and such are best suited for FfDs, not RfCs. Doc talk 11:24, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's a good start, but if we do not know who owns the copyright, then how can we be sure that the copyright owner has published the image? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

The people who know for sure who owns the copyright will be the source (which unfortunately does not list a credit and has not responded to my e-mail) and the publisher of the mugshot book. These aren't basement publishing houses: they have legal counsel (or an entire legal department) to make sure they don't get sued by copyright holders. A site that directly answers to the deep pockets of Time Warner is not about to overlook something like blatant copyright infringement. Doc talk 06:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, you might be right about that, but at this point its just WP:OR. I ordered a copy of the mugshot book, so hopefully that will shed some light on the copyright question. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: The Autobiography of Malcolm X

This is a note to let the main editors of The Autobiography of Malcolm X know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on February 21, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 21, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

The Autobiography of Malcolm X (1965) was the result of a collaboration between the African-American Muslim minister and human rights activist Malcolm X and the journalist Alex Haley. Haley based it on a series of interviews between 1963 and Malcolm X's assassination on February 21, 1965. It is a spiritual conversion narrative outlining Malcolm X's philosophy of black pride, black nationalism, and pan-Africanism. While Malcolm X and scholars contemporary to the book's publication regarded Haley as the book's ghostwriter, modern scholars regard him as an essential collaborator who subsumed his authorial voice to allow readers to feel as though Malcolm X were speaking directly to them. Haley also influenced some of Malcolm X's literary choices and Haley's proactive censorship of antisemitic material significantly influenced the ideological tone of the Autobiography, increasing its popularity although distorting Malcolm X's public persona. A New York Times reviewer described it as a "brilliant, painful, important book" and Time named it in 1998 as one of ten "required reading" nonfiction books. A screenplay adaptation provided the source material for Spike Lee's 1992 film Malcolm X. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	GabeMc, I award you this barnstar for all your contributions to Jimi Hendrix, but especially for your recent addition of two iconic images. We haven't always agreed, but I have deep respect for your contributions to this article and this encyclopedia. Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Check my post at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles?

I proposed 2 swaps in physics: add Magnet and remove Kinetic energy; add Momentum and remove Potential energy. Can you see if I formatted them correctly? Thank you. RJFJR (talk) 17:26, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I made a very minor tweak, but otherwise it looks great! I'm glad to see that you're participating. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:33, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Wow that's fast. Thank you. RJFJR (talk) 17:35, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome! I just logged-in a few minutes ago. Cheers! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:36, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---