User talk:GabeMc

If you are an unregistered user editing as an IP you may contact me at User talk:GabeMc/IP

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)

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)

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)

Danny Boy

For ages Iv'e had an inkling Dan56 edits on albums he doesn't care about or has even listened to, just look at his contributions. Rvd4life(talk) 22:04, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Rvd4life, I agree 100%. He brags that he hasn't even heard the music that he controls the genres on. I am putting together diffs for an RFC/U. My hope is that he will agree to 1) stop genre warring and, 2) also agree to look over his FAs for plagarisms, of which there are many. He might be looking at a topic ban from genre editing, or at least a 1RR restriction. If I file an RFC/U, would you be interested in participating? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:23, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Its just his dominance and lack of discussion or compromise. I often feel hes raped the early Beatles albums; there all over the place in the genre department. It was fine before he stumbled in. Funny thing is, other than his dominance and lack of discussion, I've got no real problem with him. Sure mate, I'll contribute to the RFC/U. Rvd4life(talk) 22:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's just it; besides his overbearing dominance of genres I don't have a problem with him personally either, but his propensity for plagiarism is unsettling, and his refusal to commit to improving the problem is more than a little concerning. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:10, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

To him, talking with other users isn't important and his opinion is all that counts. Sure sources are credible but what about the context or reason the author is suggesting? Very problematic! When are you starting the RFC/U?Rvd4life(talk) 23:35, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly the problem. I also noticed that when it comes to others, the source needs to be very explicit, but when it comes to him, the source can intimate or imply. I am hoping to get at least one more user to agree to the RFC/U, which would make four of us signing-on, before I file. It will likely be in a day or two. I'll keep you posted. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:40, 26 January 2014 (UTC)