User talk:GabeMc/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Dan56

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)

Hey Gabe, regarding Dan's input on ...And Justice for All, as I've said at the talk page, he falsified a couple of sources (Allmusic and a book by Robert Dimery) in order to justify the genre change. But very oddly, after doing that and re-wording the music section, he suddenly quit his work and left the article in poor condition. One month later, when I stepped in, he restored his interest in the article, filling it with dubious sources regarding the genre. Moreover, he did something in similar manner to Black Sabbath as far as I've noted. I'm sure there are ten more cases like these two, and the community would be interested in checking this out.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 00:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like intentional sabotage. Please save those diffs, because if we are going to make a strong case at RFC/U, we will need diffs. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

No problem, already got them. By the way, I think that sociopath thing was referring to me, lol.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 00:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, well either way its a personal attack, so save all those diffs as well. If we can show that he might be intentionally sabotaging metal articles he will likely get indeffed. As always, save the diffs. That goes for you too Rvd4life; it would be helpful during the RFCU if you had diffs that demonstrate Dan bullying you vis a vis genres. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I too have noticed the Black Sabbath ordeal. I'll try and rack my mind. Rvd4life(talk) 00:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• Вик Ретлхед and Rvd4life, I'm not going to open an RFCU on Dan due in part to JG66's assertion that I am only doing this because Dan challenged me at AYE. I'm too involved with him at this point and the RFCU would end up being about both of us. So, I guess he will continue to dominate genres until an uninvolved editor decides to take action. Sorry. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

JG66 made a good point. In his defense, Dan might say that you've been crusading votes against him, and for me, well I've said some unpleasant qualifications about him that he may use against me. So I think the best thing to do is to wait and see his next move.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 20:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• I have also had trouble with this user in the past, Especially on London Calling he removes reliable sources and try's to dictate what the sources meant, or says only his sources or reliable. Keep in mind he was blocked less than a month ago for edit warring. I would recommend asking Toddst1 or another admin to indefinitely block him cause looking at his appeal [[1]] he's already broke several of his promises and isn't going stop edit warring.--76.107.252.227 (talk) 01:51, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Someone else needs to address his behavior issue. Good luck. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Category

You may be interested to know that I have populated a category Hendrix is in, Category:Garfield High School (Seattle, Washington) alumni. Congrats on bringing the article up to an FA!Hoops gza (talk) 05:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

DYK for The Beatles' rooftop concert

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The Beatles discography

Hi GabeMc. There is a discussion on the Beatles talk page about whether the band's American albums should be included that might be of interest to you. Your input is appreciated! TheOnlyOne12 (talk) 17:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Question

My previous account was indeffed in 2005. I've been editing under this new account since then. The Wookieepedian (talk) 22:00, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Did you get permission to open another account, or are you evading an active block? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I got permission. I was an immature teenager when I had my first account LOL. The Wookieepedian (talk) 22:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

How did you ask for permission and who granted it to you? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh man, that's been a long time ago. I don't remember who it was or how I was allowed a new account. The Wookieepedian (talk) 22:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

• Toddst1, can you be of any assistance regarding this matter? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm not really familiar with Wookie. S/he's been editing here long before I have. Toddst1 (talk) 22:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, they readily admit that their previous account was indeffed. If they went through the proper channels to get permission to open another account, wouldn't that be on record somewhere? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:54, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 30 January

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Are You Experienced page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Yoko Ono

Could you take a quick look at this please? An editor has put it up for a GA review here, and I'm contemplating quickfailing it as I think the sourcing simply isn't anywhere near what's required for a GA. Thanks. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:14, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

At a glance, I don't see any serious issues with the sourcing, but there looks like a lot of little stuff like italics and whatnot. If I have more time later I'll take a better look, but as of now I'm not sure a speedy fail is in order. Is a specific concern that you can point m towards. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:03, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

All of the issues I've raised so far on the GA review will need to be fixed, but my biggest concern is several long paragraphs containing personal details are either unsourced or cited to dead links, blogs or tabloids - all of which are problematic per GA criteria #2. Some of the unsourced paragraphs in the "Musical career" are less controversial, but inline citations will be required to pass a GA review. However, when I GA reviewed Paul Butterfield, the author did have sources but was simply unaware of the inline citation requirements for a GA, and it eventually passed, so hopefully it's simply a matter of tidying that up. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:24, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I thought you meant that the actual sources were dubious, but its more a matter of unsourced statements. I would suggest giving them an opportunity to properly source everything, but that's just me. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

That seems like the best option, although I have to say that I don't consider this source to be a good one for a GA candidate. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree; that source is not reliable, and there may well be others, but as I said I only glanced at the article. If you have any other specific doubts feel free to ask me about them. Cheers! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Are You Experienced

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Are You Experienced you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 10:10, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

About Larkin

Hey Gabe, know you're busy with the GA nomination, but just to ask if you can find the star-rating of Killing Is My Business... and Business Is Good! in Larkin's Encyclopedia of Popular Music. Thanks and good luck with the nomination.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 15:35, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, Вик Ретлхед but I don't own that book. I have a copy of Larkin's 1000 all time albums, but it does not include any star-ratings. Cheers! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:56, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Hi Gabe, I agree with your edit on the Roger Waters page. I'm new to wikipedia (well, 6 months about) and so sometimes I am new to protocol standards about pages. I appreciate what you wrote. Kind regards, Kingslove Kingslove2013 (talk) 20:41, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Are You Experienced

The article Are You Experienced you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Are You Experienced for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 22:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, FunkMonk! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:56, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar

Hi again GabeMc! I don't know how to write you a personal message. I stumbled across a user that I'm troubled by in regards to his edits on music pages. Since I frequent music pages, I noticed said user on your page and further checked out his edits, which seem to be his edit warring in the highest order. He practically edits every day page after page of music and much of it appears to be detrimental to the articles at hand. Anyway may I talk to you about it? I'm not sure how to write a message. Kind regards, Kingslove Kingslove2013 (talk) 21:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

If you want to edit talk pages, just click on edit. As far as the troublesome editor, you'll have to ask someone else, preferably an admin. I am not an admin and its not my place to get involved in dispute between editors. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Wow! If only all complaints and questions came in the form of a Barnstar! I note your loitering at FAC and shall pop along in the next few days. Cassianto^Talk 23:45, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Apparently, they don't know how to contact people except by way of barnstar; how fortunate for me! Thanks, mate. As always, I would appreciate your input at FAC. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Can you recommend anyone to review my article?

Hi, I cleaned up a band's article (Zapp) drastically, it's been a while since I put it up for GA review. I think it meets the criteria, but I'm having trouble finding anyone to speed up the review process. Not sure if you're willing, but it's not a rock band so I don't know if you'd want to. Can you ask any soul/R&B people who pull enough strings to review it? Kaleidoscopic God (talk) 16:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not a GA reviewer, nor do I know of any way to speed-up the process (my last one took a month). Patience is a virtue, but I suppose you could ask an active reviewer to jump in and help. Cheers! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK Are You Experienced?

GabeMc, would it be all right with you if I submitted Are You Experienced? as a DYK hook? — Maile (talk) 22:23, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Of course! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Can you please look at Ref # 153, that supports the Mojo magazine review of the album? I keep getting "unexpected error" and nothing comes up. — Maile (talk) 22:50, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks like that page is down right now. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Here it is. Feel free to add or change if necessary. — Maile (talk) 23:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Jimihendrix1969mug.jpg

Masem, while I tend to agree with you and DDD that the RfC is the way to handle this, as there is no reason to believe that the image has consensus for inclusion, I also know that Doc will appeal the result if its not in his favour. Perhaps we should consider closing the NFCR and the deletion review, and opening another FFD, now that we can be sure that there are no reliable sources with which we could source any commentary about the image. I feel that Doc might respect the FFD discussion, but he will not abide by the RfC. Any thoughts on how we should proceed? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Axis: Bold as Love, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Demo version (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) 09:00, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Abbey Road

Hi Gabe. If you're got a minute, could you offer anything over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums#Abbey Road - citations to chart positions needed? I read Ritchie333's post and figured, of all people, you might have a source or two for Abbey Road's worldwide sales figures. Just a thought(!) – would be fantastic to finally see a Beatles album up to GA status, of course. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 01:58, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

It looks like four individual points need sourcing, which would be quite difficult. I'll always wonder why someone would make the effort and add such specific facts without also including some kind of source. The stats might be true, but I think it would be maddening to try and hunt down proper sourcing for them. I'm not sure about the 10 million claim, Everett seems to imply that it was Pepper. If Richie wants to start a GAN, I recommend removing all four of the claims pending verification. They can always be added back later; there omission isn't anything that would compromise a GAN. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:26, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

That's right, "four individual points need sourcing" there. I had a quick look in Miles and Badman's books, thinking the individual statements (say, regarding an October 1972 figure) might be there – nothing so far. Woffinden perhaps … Thanks for the Everett link anyway, that's useful. Best, JG66 (talk) 02:39, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I've done exactly what Gabe has suggested, removed all uncited claims (though I did manage to get cites from The Official Charts Company and The Guardian, so it's not a total hatchet job) and put it up for GA. IIRC, all the Floyd album articles are at GA, with several FAs, and we really ought to do the Beatles justice in the same manner. BTW, JG, I was surprised you didn't nominate McCartney (album) for GA - I read it last night and it was a good read. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:07, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Are You Experienced

Orlady (talk) 13:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Apology

Hello GabeMc,

In my enthusiasm to keep the mugshot image, I did Google searches trying to find information about the image, and I admit that I made too much out of some of the Google hits. The Giacomo Papi book is an example. I should have been much more clear that I did not know what the content was, and that it was merely a promising Google hit deserving of more research. I apologize for that, and for making you spend money on a book that is not at all relevant to Hendrix. Please be aware that my mistakes were made in good faith, out of a sincere desire to learn more about this phase of Hendrix's life, and that I did not intend to mislead anyone. I hope that you will accept my apology, and that we can collaborate in a more friendly way in the future. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Well of course I accept your apology; thank you so much. I hope you know that my mistakes were also made in good-faith. I agree that we should move forward as friends, and I sincerely apologize for being rude. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:23, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

As I said on my talk page, I have a thick skin and nothing you said bothered me all that much, so that's OK. I have great respect for the work you do on music articles, and now I have a stack of Hendrix book to read, which is a good thing. I understand your point about not over-emphasizing particular aspects of his life, and I will take a close look at your new Toronto article. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:29, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Cullen. That means a lot, and FWIW I will absolutely not hold a grudge; I look forward to expanding the arrest article with you! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Rihanna Unapologetic

Hi there, I've contrabuted on the Rihanna Unapologetic talk page and was wondering have you heard anything else?AlisaJay (talk) 21:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, I've given up an that; its too tedious. Cheers! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Ideas for vital articles (10'000)

Hello Gabe, I had many ideas for additions to the vital 10'000 whilst away and busy. But thought I would ask others opinions of the almost 100 articles that came into my mind before flooding the project talk page with them. If you have time let me know which articles you like and which you dislike. I am still looking for removals as well by the way. (I listed my ideas on my own talk page, here). Carlwev (talk) 16:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey, Carl. Off the top of my head I think I would support: Lighthouse, Cathedral, Megalith, Cannabis (drug), and Optical illusion. Actually, it looks like I would support more of your ideas than I would oppose. I'll take a longer look later on, as I'm kinda in the middle of something. Thanks for asking me! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

An AfD to delete my latest article

... is taking place here:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jimi Hendrix: Canadian drug charges and trial. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:18, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

NPA

Gabe, please keep your cool. "You like drama" is kind of a personal attack, and particularly ironic since in the actual edit you're telling an editor they shouldn't judge intent--you're doing the same thing. Drmies (talk) 21:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Right on, but if you look closely, you will see that Masem has been fanning flames on this dispute and its not the first time that I wondered if his intentions were the best for Wikipedia. FTR, are you warning me "as an admin", or as a fellow editor? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) FTR, I was going to respectfully suggest you take a cool down too, as a previously uninvolved editor who supports your position. Arguing with every editor who disagrees with you repeatedly and within minutes of them posting any comment suggests that you're taking this way too personally. Take a break, the AfD will be open for 7 days. Ivanvector (talk) 23:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't really matter, as far as I'm concerned. I'd hate to see you get blocked for taking this AfD too personally. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Are you really threatening me with a block for saying that Masem likes drama? Aren't you the same guy who gave Radiopathy a sweet deal with a one-week block for repeated racial slurs? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

FTR, I am absolutely not taking this personally, and I resent how you throw that around as a smear tactic; weak! Masem has offered some of the worst advice I have ever seen in four years on Wikipedia. But yeah, I'll try to not insult him further. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Why is every word to the wise automatically a threat? Drmies (talk) 00:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Its not; that's why I asked, because I've only ever seen you with your admin hat on. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Maybe that's because I got to Nine to the Universe before you did. Drmies (talk) 00:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

There's that one syncopated moment in "Jimmy/Jimi jam", do you know what I mean? It builds to that moment where Jimi hits like three of four perfect notes; its real dry with that slight harmonic pinch. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I can't tell you how weird it was when I got the tracks off of Napster, and it turned out there were uncut versions available (of "Drone Blues" and "Easy Blues"). So you're swaying away in the middle of a solo and all of a sudden there's notes you'd never heard before. (I bought it on vinyl back in the 80s.) "Young/Hendrix" was always my favorite song, and after reading the article I see that I need to go buy some box set. For more Larry Young, see Love Devotion Surrender (a DYK in 2009). Drmies (talk) 01:52, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• Okay, I hear you guys and I acknowledge your concern. I won't respond to Masem again, but shouldn't he do the same? Why does he get to badger every comment? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:18, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Let him. His behavior has been noted. Overcommenting in an AFD does not help your case.  The Steve  10:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Jimi Hendrix

This is a note to let the main editors of Jimi Hendrix know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on March 4, 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/March 4, 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:

Jimi Hendrix (1942–1970) was an American musician, singer, and songwriter. Despite a relatively brief mainstream career spanning four years, he is widely regarded as one of the most influential electric guitarists in the history of popular music, and one of the most celebrated musicians of the 20th century. Born in Seattle, Washington, Hendrix began playing guitar at the age of 15. In 1963, he moved to Clarksville, Tennessee, and began playing gigs on the chitlin' circuit, eventually moving to England in late 1966 after being discovered by bassist Chas Chandler of the Animals. Within months, Hendrix had earned three UK top ten hits with the Jimi Hendrix Experience: "Hey Joe", "Purple Haze", and "The Wind Cries Mary". He achieved fame in the US after his performance at the Monterey Pop Festival in 1967, and in 1968 his third and final studio album, Electric Ladyland, reached number one in the US. The world's highest-paid performer, he headlined the Woodstock Festival in 1969 and the Isle of Wight Festival in 1970 before dying from barbiturate-related asphyxia on September 18, 1970, at the age of 27. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Hi Gabe! As a devout music fan, I want to give you this barnstar for all of your great contributions to some of my favorite artist's music pages. Thank you for making wikipedia a balanced and reliable platform for some of my favorite musicians and bands. Here's to years of continued service and excellence! Kingslove Kingslove2013 (talk) 14:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Talkback - from N4

I can't help but get the feeling you're being trolled, Gabe. Check out his history; this "new user" N4 has been here for one week. Joefromrandb (talk) 11:39, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, good call, Joe. For some reason I thought I saw this account a while back, but I agree that its behavior is awfully strange for being so "new". Nice to see you around; hope all is well! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Making lemons into lemonade

Though the mugshot books by Pellicer and Papi were of no use in the Hendrix debate, I used them to improve the history section of Mug shot. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:12, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Nice work, Cullen! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Canadian drug charges and trial of Jimi Hendrix

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Canadian drug charges and trial of Jimi Hendrix you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ritchie333 -- Ritchie333 (talk) 21:22, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

New editor changes WP:VA

Dunno if you're still following WP:VA, but perhaps you want to do something about this edit. Cobblet (talk) 22:25, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Done. Thanks, Carl! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:30, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Canadian drug charges and trial of Jimi Hendrix

The article Canadian drug charges and trial of Jimi Hendrix you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Canadian drug charges and trial of Jimi Hendrix for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ritchie333 -- Ritchie333 (talk) 18:12, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Canadian drug charges and trial of Jimi Hendrix

The article Canadian drug charges and trial of Jimi Hendrix you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Canadian drug charges and trial of Jimi Hendrix for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ritchie333 -- Ritchie333 (talk) 19:42, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Your mission (should you decide to accept it) is to turn Hendrix into a Good Topic. As I hinted in the review, it does seem a little imbalanced to have this good article while Chas Chandler languishes in sub-start class. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:17, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Drama dari Krakatau FAC

Hi. Just pinging you that I commented on some of your comments at the FAC review. diff. --Stfg (talk) 15:34, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Lewisohn perhaps?

Hi Gabe, hope you're well. I've recently returned to an article I was expanding back in November, John Barham, and I've been tearing my hair out trying to find a source to support a statement there: that Barham wrote/arranged the choral score for the Beatles' "Long and Winding Road" and "Across the Universe". Suitably shame-faced, I'd added the point with a Beatles Bible cite after coming across it in another article. I cringe when I see the reference now, I really do ... but I remember being confident that I had the statement in one of many print sources I own. (Then – on that very day, in fact – I received my copy of Graeme Thomson's Harrison bio and got consumed by that plagiarism saga.) Having returned to the article in earnest over the last week, I'm still no nearer to finding the citation I'm convinced I've got somewhere. I'm thinking it has to be in Lewisohn's Recording Sessions, seeing as the Bible page quotes from that book. I know you're got this and a number of other Lewisohn works – could I ask, when you've got a minute, would you mind checking? In the article, the sentence appears at the end of the first para under Association with George Harrison, btw.

Also, I'd like to add my congrats on your Hendrix Toronto-bust article. I find it quite inspiring how an issue that appeared to begin as a bone of contention among editors can lead to the creation of such a strong article, which adds immeasurably to readers' understanding of the artist in question. Don't mind admitting, it's given me plenty of ideas for starting a few topical articles, rather than seeing existing ones cluttered with detail. Fabulous; hats off to Roy Harper, for want of a better phrase! Best, JG66 (talk) 03:07, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey, JG66. On page 349 of Lewisohn, Mark (1992). The Complete Beatles Chronicle: The Definitive Day-By-Day Guide to the Beatles' Entire Career (2010 ed.). Chicago Review Press. ISBN 978-1-56976-534-0., Lewisohn writes: "Spector did not write the orchestral scores. Richard Hewson arranged and conducted 'I Me Mine' and 'The Long and Winding Road' and Brian Rogers arranged and conducted 'Across the Universe', while John Barnham noted the top lines and vocal harmonies for the later two songs." MacDonald agrees that Richard Hewson arranged "TLAWR".(3rd edition; page 340) I hope this helps; let me know if there is anything else I can do. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Gabe, you're a champ: thank you, thank you, thank you … I can't tell you how happy that's made me! Cheers, JG66 (talk) 18:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Anytime, JG. I'm glad I could help. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

While we're on the subject Gabe, I have come across numerous Lewisohn citations while editing, and obviously it's a vital source for Beatles articles. With one or two exceptions, all of the offline sources I've used on WP have been books I've owned for years, and I don't have my own copy of this. I've generally found that Ian MacDonald's Revolution in the Head is just about good for all recording facts and figures, and has continually received rave reviews. So, simply put, what has Lewisohn got that MacDonald hasn't (other than a tick in the box for "used lots of sources" from the FAC reviewers)? Oh, and on a tangential subject, who does play the guitar solos at the end of "You Never Give Me Your Money" - the third hand references to Lewisohn suggest it was Lennon. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:13, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I would say that its a good practice to use both Lewisohn and MacDonald. The former is unequalled in terms of the amount of research he has done regarding the Beatles, while the latter relied heavily on Lewisohn's research and his own opinions, which are at times a little silly, IMO. As far as the lead guitarist at the end of "YNGMYM", I'm not sure that MacDonald or Lewisohn indicate who played those lines, but if I find anything I'll let you know. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:05, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh yes, that's a good point about MacDonald's personal opinion, but fortunately I find it stands out very prominently and can easily be skirted around. I used his breakdown of "I Want You (She's So Heavy)" for the background and recording dates, but left out that he considered the track to be a damp squib. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Exactly; I'm glad that you know what I mean. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:33, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Pinging comments

Sorry if I appear(ed) brusque: I'm suffering from a recurrance of an insomnia problem at the moment and my usual gumpiness has been worsened even further by the problem. I'll try and curb the snarkiness in future! - SchroCat (talk) 19:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

No worries; it happens to the best of us! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:36, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Reviews

I grinned at your "hint, hint" on another page. I am not especially diligent in keeping an eye on current FACs and PRs, and if you would like my input on any review it's probably best to throw a brick through my window on my talk page. By the bye, I've just been looking at your user page, and I noticed "non nobis solum". Did you know that was the school motto of the Liverpool Institute, attended by Messrs McCartney, Harrison and Riley? Non nobis solum, sed toto mundo nati. Be that as it may, don't hesitate to give me a shout if you are masochistic enough to want my quibbles, queries and nit-picking on anything. Tim riley (talk) 18:02, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I didn't know that; thanks for telling me. I always appreciate your reviews, Tim, and as of late I seem to be having a heck of a time getting anyone to look at my work. I currently have Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Are You Experienced/archive1‎ at FAC, and nobody will touch it (hint, hint). GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll go and look at it now, and I promise to comment. Tim riley (talk) 18:14, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Tim. I appreciate that! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

PD vs FU

Hey, we're all good, of course. But I wanted to point out something. If an image is in the Public Domain, there is absolutely no need for a FUR. A free image does not need a non-free rationale. When you reinstated this image here, you said it was PD in the edit summary and included a PD template; but you also included a FUR template. The PD claim of licensing for File:US album cover of Are You Experienced 1967.jpg is completely invalid, as the image was not published prior to 1923. I'm certainly not going to make a big deal about it, but an image cannot be both PD and have a FUR. Cheers :) Doc talk 09:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Doc9871. Yes, I am aware of that, but until the image is re-instated at Commons I thought I would leave the detailed FUR for anyone who objects. When the image is re-instated at Commons and safe from deletion I will remove the FUR. FTR, its definitely PD, as it was released in 1967 without a copyright notice and there is no evidence that a copyright was ever renewed on the image. Are you debating its status as PD, or just commenting that I used the wrong template? Okay, so I used the wrong template, but why didn't you just say that? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

We can upload it to the Commons as PD with that template rather than here: it's safer that way. I can do this if you want me to... Doc talk 04:24, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Are You Experienced - US cover-edit.jpg had been deleted from Commons, but its now been restored. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:38, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Cool! Cheers :) Doc talk 02:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Fighting back

If, my dear Gabe, you are minded to retaliate for my critique of your Hendrix article, I have Falstaff up for peer review at the moment, or if opera is not your thing, then in about two weeks or possibly less I shall have John Gielgud up for PR. Tim riley (talk) 20:02, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm honoured that you would ask; of course I'll take a look! I don't know much about opera, but I do enjoy Verdi and Wagner. IMO, Sir John Gielgud was one of the finest actors of the 20th century. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Good! Very pleased to have your thoughts on both articles. And I repeat with all the emphasis at my command, please always let me know when you would like comment from me at GAN/PR/FAC on any of your articles. Tim riley (talk) 20:14, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Tim. Would you like me to make comments somewhere ala FAC, or shall I just contribute some edits as I see fit, understanding that you'll revert any that degrade the prose or change its meaning? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd leave Gielgud till he gets to peer review, and meanwhile your comments on Falstaff at PR are invaluable! Thank you so much. Tim riley (talk) 17:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Jimi Hendrix

Precious again! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Congrats!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

FA nominee

Hey Gabe, what's up? It's about the list I nominated some time ago. If there are no further issues, can you please cast your vote whether you support or oppose the candidate being promoted to FA? Thank you and have a nice day.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 17:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations on Today's featured article

Congratulations on having the article you helped improve to Featured Article, Jimi Hendrix, appear as Today's featured article !

Great job,

— Cirt (talk) 17:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Cirt! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

You're most welcome, impressive effort, — Cirt (talk) 18:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Imagine (song) revert

Hi GabeMc, can you please explain why you justifying your revert with the link to WP:IINFO? I don't understand what the connection between both shall be. Thanks VINCENZO1492 12:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, there are two issues with the edit. 1) "With this footage the single was premiered at the Dick Cavett Show as Lennon was not able yet to rehearse a live band after the album recordings. The show, that featured Ono too, was taped on September 7, 1971", none of this is actually detailed at the provided source, which states only that Lennon and Ono appeared at that show. So this first part is unverified. 2) "incidentally almost exactly 30 years before the September 11th attacks after which Clear Channel Communications included Imagine on its tracks not to play memo with songs termed "lyrically questionable" post 9/11." This is already covered at Imagine (song)#Recognition and criticism, so the first half is not supported by the provided source and the second repeats info already included in the article. Hope that explains why I reverted your edit. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Mitt Romney

This is a note to let the main editors of Mitt Romney know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on March 12, 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/March 12, 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:

Mitt Romney (born 1947) is an American businessman who was Governor of Massachusetts from 2003 to 2007 and the Republican nominee for President of the United States in the 2012 election. He was raised in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, by his parents Lenore and George Romney, and spent two years in France as a Mormon missionary. He married Ann Davies in 1969, with whom he has had five children. After studying at Brigham Young and Harvard universities, he joined the management consultancy Bain & Company before co-founding the spin-off investment firm Bain Capital. He unsuccessfully ran as the Republican candidate in the 1994 Massachusetts election for Senate against Ted Kennedy. He relaunched his political career after successfully running the Salt Lake Organizing Committee for the 2002 Winter Olympics. Elected Governor of Massachusetts in 2002, he helped enact state health care reform legislation, the first of its kind in America. Romney won the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, becoming the first Mormon to be a major party presidential nominee, but lost the election to Barack Obama by a 332–206 electoral college margin and by 51–47 percent in the popular vote. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I mentioned your situation

... here. Best, vzaak 23:31, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for violating WP:3RR at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums and personal attacks). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Bbb23 (talk) 19:47, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

{{unblock}}reason=What personal attack and which three reverts? This smacks of ganging-up. Bbb23, I think you miscounted, because I didn't revert three times. I reverted only once. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The personal attack is here. The four reverts were completed (when the revert consists of consecutive edits, I'm using the time of the last in the sequence) at 17:31, 18:41, 18:49, and 19:09 UTC.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:59, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

That's not a personal attack, that's a request that they stop playing Dan's personal enforcer. So, at 3RR you said that StaticVapor also reverted three times. Did you block only one party when both reverted the same number of times? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You need to read what I wrote more carefully. You reverted four times as outlined above, and that wasn't the only basis for the block.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Bbb23, I don't think you counted right, because per WP:3RR: "a series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user ... counts as one revert". How do you look at this and count four? I see maybe two, which Dan did as well and Static did at least three per your own comment. I think you miscounted, so will you please double-check? I only reverted once, not four times. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Bbb23, the edit at 17:31 isn't a revert, and neither is the one at 18:41 and neither is the one at 18:49 or the one at 19:09. You need to double-check your math because this is a bad block. None of the edits you mentioned above were reverts. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
• Bbb23, this is quite an unreasonable situation where you've blocked one participant in a dispute and not the others. STATicVapor was edit warring as well, and you can see here that once he was on the verge of breaching 3RR, he enlisted the help of a friendly who turned up at the page to continue the edit war. ([2] and [3]. This is very definition of meat puppetry and wikibullying, and I'm shocked that you've come down on only one of the parties here. Either the page should have been locked for discussion or the lot of them should have been blocked. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 13:42, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• That's a bit melodramatic ("shocked"). The diff you show for the other user is not the definition of meat pupppetry or wikibullying. At worst, it is mild canvassing. That said, if Gabe would focus on his own conduct and on policy and show some understanding of both, I would be more sympathetic. He hasn't a clue as to how 3RR works: I reverted twice, I reverted three times, I reverted once. He accuses others of bullying and being a "personal enforcer" (gimme a break). Here he accuses people of "ganging-up" on him. Who precisely is doing that? And who initiated the report at WP:AN3? So far, all I've seen is I didn't do anything wrong and life is unfair. That doesn't bode well for the future. Blocks are supposed to be sanctions for past conduct that prevent future misconduct. How can I unblock him if he doesn't even get it?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry for the melodrama, but I still think this was a one-sided enforcement. A cursory look at the interaction history behind these editors reveals problems on all sides, and I think it sends the wrong message that GabeMc was blocked and the others were not. They've all been following each other around music articles for months edit warring over genres and other things. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 14:45, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• Bbb23, what I don't get is how you count four reverts, because at the most I reverted twice, which Static did also and so did Dan. Spike is right, as is PbP. You blocked one party when you should have blocked both or neither. I do get it, but if you can't demonstrate which four of my edits were reverts then I think you made a mistake. If I made four reverts I'll admit that I was wrong and agree to not do it again, but I don't see how I violated 3RR, or if I did violate it, so did Static. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:13, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not going to spoonfeed this to you, Gabe, so let's start with a question. In the context of 3RR, what is a revert?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• I think that you had better take a good look at the edits, because several of them were not restoring material that Static removed. I think some of the edits that you are characterizing as reverts were "new" edits that tweaked the prose, but were not restoration of removed text. To answer your question, a revert can be adding something back after it was removed or removing something that was added back. All I'm saying here is that if I violated 3RR then you should be able to provide the four diffs that were reverts, but I don't think that you can. All I'm asking here is that you provide me with diffs for the four reverts so that I may answer to the accusations. You seem reluctant to provide the diffs, which I think is inappropriate. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• I'm trying to get you to understand the policy. "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." It can "involv[e] the same or different material". You made four changes to the page, each a series of consecutive edits. Way above on this page, I gave you the time of the last in each of those series. Pick one of those series and tell me why it's not a revert.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:41, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• Bbb23, the edit at 17:31 isn't a revert, and neither is the one at 18:41 and neither is the one at 18:49 or the one at 19:09. As far as I can tell, none of the four edits you listed above are reverts. I think you assumed that al those edits were attempts at the same end, but they weren't. Can you please explain how any one of them is a revert? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not going to mention anything about the 3RR or why only one side of an alleged edit war is blocked, but the "personal attack" accusation, is really reaching for straws, seems to be a acceptable response, and hardly "out of line". Mlpearc (open channel) 17:54, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Your diffs are wrong because you are looking at the edits singly rather than as a series. It's the net effect of a particular series that determines whether a change is a revert. For example, you could do two consecutive edits. Let's assume the first is an obvious revert, i.e., you remove material that was just added to the article. However, in the second edit, you self-revert. The two combined do not constitute a revert. In any event, here is the correct diff for the first series. You changed the text in both paragraphs of the lead. Those changes constitute a revert. Some editor or editors wrote that language. You undid their "actions" by changing it. Generally, the only edit that doesn't qualify as a revert is a completely new addition to an article (not a restoration of material). You asked me for just one, but I'll do the second as well. That's this series of edits. Again, you changed the first two paragraphs of the lead. As I understand it, the fight was over the wording of the lead, so it's hard to maintain that your changes were of little consequence. Sometimes, when an edit is technically a revert but is very minor and clearly not disruptive, I and other administrators will not count it. I wouldn't label either of these reverts as falling into that category. But as I said at WP:AN3, I might not have been inclined to block you for violating 3RR had there not been other circumstances that, in combination, I felt justified a block. The instructions at the noticeboard say: "When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first." You should have expected your behavior to be evaluated, and WP:BOOMERANG is a powerful and oft-used essay on administrative noticeboards. Bluntly, I felt your motives in bringing the report were self-serving.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:07, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• the edit at 17:31 and the one at 18:41 aren't reverts, Bbb23, they are copyedits. The first one I made before anyone reverted anyone, so who was I reverting? The edit at 18:49 is a non-contentious copyedit unrelated to Static's revert. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:20, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I give up, Gabe. I've tried repeatedly to explain policy to you, but you're either unwilling or unable to understand it. Perhaps someone else can help you, but I'm done.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:33, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Bbb23, you just took a huge paragraph to explain why you think Gabe violated 3RR. I realize you are an admin and questioning admins on this site is foridden, but it sure looks like you are digging pretty deep looking for a reason to block Gabe. Now that may not be so, but your description above doesn't give the impression that a normal person would think Gabe violated 3RR. Also, you blocked him for 3rr and then when confronted you claimed personal attack. If Gabe actually violated personal attack it seems reasonable that you would have said that in the edit summary the first time. Not after you were confronted. I recommend unblocking Gabe because your admin actions here seem very questionable. 172.56.3.58 (talk) 18:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

"I realize you are an admin and questioning admins on this site is foridden" -- Admins are not immune from questioning you know and I would think of you as weak for not doing so if you disagreed with one. I would even go as far as to say that some should be questioned more than most as time after time we see them fucking up and making bad decisions. Cassianto^talk 15:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The block notice, the block log, and the result at AN3 all include personal attack.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:33, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, but you are still digging pretty deep looking for a reason to block gabe when the other editor involved did more and included obvious meatpuppetry and they didn't even get blocked. This just seems very personal and one sided. Frankly it looks like you used bad judgemnt in this block. 172.56.3.58 (talk) 18:36, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• Bbb23, this is a non-contentious copyedit that is completely unrelated to the material Static reverted. Yet above you mentioned it as one of my four reverts. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:29, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• Bbb23, per WP:MEAT: "The term meatpuppet is derogatory and should be used with care, in keeping with Wikipedia's civility policy. Because of the processes above, it may be counterproductive to directly accuse someone of being a "meatpuppet", and doing so will often only inflame the dispute." That does not explicitly say that accusing someone of meatpuppetry is a personal attack. So, the claim of PA is bogus as are the accusations that I made four reverts. This is a bad block. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:38, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I for one agree this is a bad block. I mean lets look at your history, you have been here since 2009 and have never been blocked before today. This just doesn't pass the sniff test and unfortunatey on Wiki a block is a bad mark that is there forever. I have seen even bad blocks that were later taken back used against the editor later. There is no way to remove a bad block, its there forever, all the more reason they should be used with care and used sparingly. Not handed out like candy as they are when dealing with a veteran editor. 172.56.3.58 (talk) 18:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, thanks. FTR, I don't care about the block log, as I do not want to become an admin. Bbb23 has shown an embarrassingly incorrect interpretation of what constitutes a revert and I think this thread is a black mark on their reputation, not mine. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• Mark Arsten, what are your thoughts on this block? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• Bbb23, re: "You changed the text in both paragraphs of the lead. Those changes constitute a revert. Some editor or editors wrote that language. You undid their "actions" by changing it." Are you equating copyediting with reverting? As in if I went to John Lennon and copyedited the lead you would call that reverting? Really? By your logic then, editors may only make three edits to any page per day, right? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• Bbb23, per WP:RV: "Reverting means completely reversing a prior edit, which typically results in the article being restored to a version that existed sometime previously." So how does this support your position that any changes to existing text constitute a reversion? I think that you need to re-read some policies. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• According to Bbb23, " Remember, a revert is changing information on a page, and that include edits that you might not think of as disruptive." No, that's called copyediting. Am I in the Twillight zone, or is this patently false? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:23, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

  As a relatively new editor I opened a Q here since the definition of revert seemed indistinguishable to me from normal copyediting. FYI, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:04, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• It seems to me that any change that cannot be connected to a specific edit and a specific editor is not a revert. I.e., if you can't say that I reverted XXX editor, then you shouldn't call it a revert. Bbb23 that this non-contentious copyedit is a revert, but then who did I revert? Beeblebrox and Dreadstar, is the edit really a revert? Per you above comment: "Any admin worth a damn knows how to tell the difference between edit warring and fixing up an article", are any of these four edits reverts? the edit at 17:31, the one at 18:41, the one at 18:49 or the one at 19:09. Because these are the four that Bbb23 used to justify my 3RR violation. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

If I understand what is going on here correctly, you are asking for my opinion on this specific situation due to a comment I made two years ago. While I stand by that comment, I have no desire to get involved in this discussion and have not reviewed this case. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

RFC/ADMIN

Hi, the disruption surrounding Bbb23 seems to consist of two parts: the unique interpretation of "revert", and Bbb23's behavior surrounding the problems it causes. The WT:EW RfC (or something like it) should address the first part, but remaining is the second part, which I see as an ongoing problem. In my initial encounter with Bbb23 I was, like you, unable to obtain specifics about what the heck he was talking about, and he even deleted such requests. My last encounter with him resulted in a direct violation of WP:ADMINACCT, and there are further behavioral problems in the sublinks therein.

I am considering bringing an RFC/ADMIN based on the behavioral problems, putting aside the question of interpretation (though in my view they are related). I'm not sure about the details, though, or whether our case would qualify. Because I was following Bbb23's talk page during our last encounter, I remember Inanygivenhole running into related behavioral problems from Bbb23, but I don't know how wide/narrow the scope of a given RFC/ADMIN is. vzaak 20:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Last night I was thinking that there should be a way to hold admins accountable for specific reasons, such as Bbb23's bizarre and self-serving 3RR interpretation, but to my knowledge there really isn't. Having said that, I think a RFC/ADMIN would be in order and I am certainly willing to participate in such a process. He is basically taking the position that any four edits that change existing prose can be used as justification for blocks, which I think is absolutely ridiculous. That taken with his unwillingness to discuss his position makes for what I consider to be a disruptive editor. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

In your RfC, when you refer to diffs you need to consolidate consecutive changes. You were blocked for this diff, which is a copyedit plus something else. Thus you were blocked for "change = revert", not for "copyedit = revert", and I think the RfC title should reflect that. vzaak 22:42, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Vzaak, do you mean like this? 1st group, 2nd group, 3rd group,4th group? ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

You have a repeat in there, but yes that's the idea. I get: [4][5][6][7]. The last diff has a copyedit plus new material never seen before, and on those grounds it's not a revert. vzaak 23:09, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

You copied your duplicate diff onto Wales' page. Use my diffs. vzaak 23:18, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Right, and the first series wasn't a revert either, was it? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:20, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the diffs as a whole, each one inserts the idea of "not a policy or a guide" or "does not override MOS", which are pretty similar. In that sense your case seems less strong than my initial impression. Though that addition seems pretty uncontroversial, you could have started a talk thread sooner asking about the objection. On the other hand, per WP:EDITCONSENSUS you were just trying a different wording in good faith. A recent WT:EW thread discussed the contradiction between WP:EW and WP:EDITCONSENSUS, but nothing came of it. In any case, admins are able to evaluate such situations with that perspective in mind, except for Bbb23.

Your recent comment on WT:EW also has the duplicate link. vzaak 00:40, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Speed limits and "laws of prohibition"

Speed limits are more complicated than you might think, see here. Are they gameable? Probably. The maximum posted speed is a bright line, but safety considerations override it in practice, so e.g. if one runs over a pedestrian when it would have been possible to avoid hitting them only by speeding up (something which happens on motorcycles pretty often) then one might well incur liability, and, conversely, if given a speeding ticket in such a situation it might provide a defense. Then there's the maximum safe speed thing which overrides maximum posted speeds. And your idea about "laws of prohibition" is an equally wild generalization, and less supportable. Surely, you say, prohibition of the possession of a controlled substance is perfectly clear. Nevertheless, there are many federal cases interpreting and deciding how one can tell if something is in someone's possession for purposes of the law. If it were possible to write laws that were ungameable and that could be interpreted algorithmically there'd be no need for appellate courts, eh?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

What I meant was that if a speed limit is set at 40Kmh, then anyone caught going 50Kmh can be ticketed without the need for police discretion. Reckless driving is another matter that is somewhat subjective. Laws of prohibition are explicit in that they prohibit the use and/or possession of certain substances. If someone is caught with heroin, its not a matter of the discretion of the police to decide if their case is especially egregious. Possession is possession regardless of the amount except in cases where small amounts are allowed, which is still explicit in that possession of less than one ounce of marijuana is allowed, but possession of more is not, i.e. 95 oz is legal, 1.5oz is not, but its still a predetermined bar that is not subject to the personal opinions of narcotics officers. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

But what if the heroin is in a drawer in a hotel room with three people's names on the hotel register and six other guests in the room. Who possesses the heroin? Also, if someone has heroin sewn into the lining of their hat, which they bought at a thrift store and didn't know it was there, do they possess it? What if it's welded into a secret compartment under a car, which car is then stolen and the thief tried for GTA? These things really truly do happen. Also, what about when a cop arresting someone for possession picks up the heroin? Does the cop possess it at that moment? Possession is an exceedingly complicated concept in Anglo-American law. That's why the laws are written simply and then the facts are interpreted by the judiciary. Possession is not possession, it's just not that simple. The more one tries to write all these possibilities into the law the more unintended consequences are produced. That's why it's much safer to stay with simple laws, appellate interpretation, and a general but not robotic adherence to stare decisis. That's what I think, anyway.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:39, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I said: "Possession is possession regardless of the amount", but yes, intent is a factor as is prior knowledge. Most countries require that the prosecution prove the mens rea, which actually ties in quite nice with requiring a warning for 3RR violation; if an editor has been warned that they are edit warring then they cannot claim ignorance of the situation. In this case, I was discussing the edits at the talk page when I was blocked, which was after the supposed edit-warring had stopped. Further, in this case the only reason why Bbb23 could claim multiple edits was that Static had edited the page as I was copyediting, but what if I hadn't looked at the page history? Do most editors check the revision history after each edit? How are they to know that they are at 3+ non-consecutive edits if they havn't checked the page history? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Sure, but now you're back to trying to rewrite a general rule so that it would have prevented one particular situation, which I don't think is a good idea usually.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I can't think of many good reasons to not warn someone first. Can you? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:53, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Asked and answered, Senator!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Falling Barnstars!

		The Anachronistic Guitar Barnstar
		For getting Canadian drug charges and trial of Jimi Hendrix‎ through the gruelling FA process. I wonder what Hendrix would do with a Parker Fly? Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:47, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

That is one kicking BS award, Curly, and you know how much I love BS. Thanks much for the excellent review. As for "what would Hendrix do" ... he'd jam. He would definitely jam. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, GabeMc, for doing most of the work on this excellent article. I am honored to have done a little bit. You deserve most of the credit, but I am pleased to have contributed as well. Well done, Gabe! Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:57, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Globalization of WP:VA/E

I'd be curious to know where else on the WP:VA/E list you'd support increased diversity. For example, it doesn't seem right to me that the only folk songs we have are either American or British. I see the Beatles are represented by both Sgt. Pepper and "All You Need Is Love"; what would you think of removing the latter and adding "Hava Nagila"? Cheers, Cobblet (talk) 21:41, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

That sounds like a fine suggestion; I would support that swap. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:56, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. One more: what's your opinion of swapping out American standards like Stardust (song) and Saint Louis Blues (song) for the Great American Songbook? Cobblet (talk) 01:20, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, GAS looks like a pretty low-quality article at the moment, but that's not really a great reason to not add it; I'd have to think more about that one, but my instinct says no. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:04, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Would jazz standard be any better? My concern is whether any standard is vital on its own, even though the genre is undoubtedly vital as a whole. Of course, the same could be said of many of the songs we've currently selected, so I don't know if these two are necessarily the best songs to cut – would you say that either song has a better case over the other to stay? Cobblet (talk) 21:32, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Maybe, but if we are to have two American jazz standards then Stardust (song) and Saint Louis Blues (song) are pretty strong candidates. Perhaps we should take a detailed look at what's currently listed and discuss ways of organizing and improving that aspect of VA/E at VA talk. At the very least I think that we can remove one of the two Beatles songs, as "I Want to Hold Your Hand" is currently listed there as well as "AYNIL". Cheers! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

FA congratulations

Just a quick note to congratulate you on the promotion of Canadian drug charges and trial of Jimi Hendrix to FA status recently. If you would like to see this (or any other FA) 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 1,323 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 22:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Wow, and for Are You Experienced too (do I spot a theme?!) Bencherlite^Talk 14:31, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

No RfC/U … phew

Hi Gabe. I'm relieved to read your post on my talk. I've never been involved in anything RfC/U, but from what I've seen, these conflicts between editors can get so complicated as the problem snowballs. That was what was behind my reluctance to go down the RfC/U route back in January, because I could see a secondary issue growing and thereby clouding what was a very legitimate complaint, one that a few of us shared. (Also, I was trying to protect you back then, you know. I couldn't help thinking that you might come out of any quasi-official review looking none too good, simply because of actions taken in response to the main issue.)

This time around, I think the "clouding" has come most recently with your messaging various admins. By that I mean, your reaction has become bigger than, or as big as, the issue itself, and admins and other editors therefore start to misread the genuine problem. I understand you get upset, I really do; it's that same passion that drives you in your many successes on Wikipedia. But I do think you need to step back from constant posting about all this, because it's a form of "interference" (in the strategic sense) that actually ends up benefitting the other guy. Seems to me that John has been very sympathetic, for instance, but there's always a risk of exhausting his patience. To me, this message from him would feel like a welcome vote of confidence; I think he nailed it. And I'd have shut down all communication on the issue after that post.

It's just my take on things – but in the time it's taken me to write this, things might've moved on again, with further exchanges. Best, JG66 (talk) 00:34, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, as always thanks for your input, JG66; you're right that things seem to have taken a turn for the better and not a moment too soon! Ritchie and I are waiting for your paragraph on "WIWY"; I hope that you still intend to write at least that much for the Pepper article. You also made several salient points regarding the background that I encourage you to add. Cheers! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah, that's right – the spirit of detente is very welcome. And I was really pleased to see you rewarding John with a Barnstar. Quite right.

I'm sort of committed to putting final touches to Gary Wright and using info I gathered during the Back to the Egg rewrite into articles such as Wings, Wings Over the World, Mac's musical career, etc. (Strike while the iron's still warm.) Not to mention finally getting McCartney up at GAN sometime soon ... But I'll definitely give some thought to Pepper again, and I'm pleased to read your comment about my suggestions on Background – I figured that maybe no one was too interested in those points.

Have you got Nicholas Schaffner's The Beatles Forever, btw? I was looking at it recently, hoping to provide something on the Pepper prog/art rock debate. What I found instead was four or more pages of incredible insight on the album's cultural impact – very well-written, and obviously by someone who lived it at the time. Schaffner's style reminds of Doggett's: he's clearly a passionate fan, but that love for the group is channelled into translating their magic into something clear and incisive for the reader's benefit. I was planning to add a few choice quotes from Schaffner at Talk:Pepper … but it's just impossible to know where to start, with so much quality material(!). That book really is a must for all these Beatles articles, I suggest. Best, JG66 (talk) 06:24, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank You

I've been checking out the exemplary work you've performed on behalf of Wikipedia. I simply wanted to thank you for being an A+ editor and all around classy contributor. Your work product is outstanding in every way. You're a truly prolific and accomplished Wikipedian who is the real deal. In addition to your excellent contributions to Wikipedia articles, your diligent work in keeping problematic Wikipedia editors on the straight and narrow is nothing less than impressive and entirely commendable. No question, Wikipedia could use many more editors with your skill set. Thank you for doing such a great job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.244.11.175 (talk) 19:08, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Two things

One, I wanted to ask you honestly why you are making such a big deal out of this one source. I have stood up for your sterling work in getting the article promoted, but you have to ask, would this have made a difference to the overall quality of the article? Two, I am warning all the editors involved in this edit war that any further reversions at all pending a proper talk page consensus one way or the other will lead to a block. This includes you. I know you've committed to 0RR for 48 hours, which is great; can you hold on until the talk page discussion is complete? --John (talk) 23:57, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

1) Why? a) It adds absolutely nothing of substance to the article; its lame blurb-cruft from someone who does not understand anything about rock guitar; the only "reason" as far as I can see to include it is because Dan likes it and Dan pushes Christgau on literally everybody so that every Wikipedia article about music prominently features his parochial opinions. Dan even pushes BC at Metallica album articles. b) If I thought that the reception legacy should be longer there is much higher quality material that I would add before this token name-drop. c) I don't like being bullied around, particularly by people with hidden agendas, which is exactly what I think Dan's is doing with the Christgau quotes at a broad swath of articles in content dispute with several editors. 2) Absolutely. In fact I agree to not revert the Christgau quote at AYE until this is completely resolved. Thanks again for helping us resolve this. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

A third thing

I would say start an SPI, take it to ANI, start an RfC/U. It's not the kind of thing one single admin can handle and probably requires a CU. Drmies (talk) 23:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Copyediting assistance

Hey Gabe, it's nice to hear you in a while. First of all, congratulations on bringing Are You Experienced to FA status and good luck in doing the same with Sgt. Pepper. What I wanted to ask is if you have some free time this period to do a copyediting on Megadeth. I saw that you were awarded for doing this on Pink Floyd, so I thought you could give me a hand in bringing Megadeth to featured article. Everything the best.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 20:08, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, sure. I'll give you a hand, but it won't be for a few days or so; hope you're not in a hurry. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm not in a hurry. Take all the time you need. And thanks for accepting this ungrateful task (of reading such a large article).--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 20:24, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Sgt Pepper

Aged Liverpudlian keeping an eye on your work in progress. Please don't forget me when looking for peer reviewers. Tim riley (talk) 23:38, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Hillary Rodham Clinton move request

Greetings! A proposal has been made at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton#Requested move 8 to change the title of the article, Hillary Rodham Clinton to Hillary Clinton. This notification is provided to you per Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification, because you have previously participated in a discussion on this subject. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Are You Experienced? (song)

Hi there. Please could you move Are You Experienced? (song) back to Are You Experienced (song). The title of the song per the original release of the album is "Are You Experienced", without the question mark. The title with the question mark can be put as an AKA in the lead. Andre666 (talk) 22:22, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

It is also used this way on the official website if you needed any current evidence: click.Andre666 (talk) 22:24, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

You're right that the original UK version did omit the mark, but that was an error that Reprise corrected. I'm not sure about the website, since you can't see the actual printing, but my 2010 re-master includes the question mark in the title of the song. I think we should go with the WP:COMMONNAME, which is "Are You Experienced?". GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:39, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Seeing as I initially requested the move, it seems fair that you should request the move back, rather than just making it. Too late now, I guess. Andre666 (talk) 08:28, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Slight change in the White Album move discussion

The proposed move of The Beatles (album) to The White Album has been altered slightly, to the simpler White Album. I'm letting you know in case you'd like to review your vote. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 01:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Sgt. Pepper

George Martin gives an almighty whack to an IP user who edited his Wikipedia article to say "he knew the fab four were off their heads on waccy baccy"

I do not advocate the use of drugs, but it's historically significant that "Pepper" was largely conceived, written, performed, and mixed by people under the influence of certain substances. Thoughts?Learner001 (talk) 17:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Right; I intend to address that issue before GAN or FAC—most likely in a dedicated sub-section—as you are quite correct that drugs were a significant influence on the album's composition and recording. I thought I would pull together the relevant sources that confirm the influence and connection, while also pointing out that many of the rumoured references are specious; e.g. "doing a garden, digging the weeds" and "Fixing a Hole", which is thought by some to reference heroin use, but Macca has said that fixing did not yet have the drug connotation at the time of the song's writing. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:34, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think drugs were really that big a part of the album, with the possible exception of marijuana. While it's reasonably well documented that Lennon was doing LSD like it was going out of fashion, Sgt Pepper isn't really that much of a drug album, when you compare it with what Floyd and Hendrix were coming up with.

Anyway, two things while I'm here - I did get my copy of Lewisohn, but it turns out I got the 1988 book (large size paperback summarising studio activities) rather than the 1992 book (complete day by day breakdown of everything ever). It's still not a bad source to use, and does go into a few things like ADT that MacDonald doesn't, but when I first flicked through it I did think "This is what Gabe thinks the best source going is?" Ah well - nice photos. What's left to do for GAN? There are a couple of cites and the sections is still a little bit of a hodgepodge. I'll have a thorough digest tomorrow and see how I feel about it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:45, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, the 1992 version is the one that I was talking about, but as you said the 1988 one is quite handy for details about recording sessions, though I think that the 1992 version includes most of that as well. If you're still book shopping I would highly recommend Womack and Everett as great multi-purpose references that mix history and musicology in a handy way. I think we are still a ways off GAN; maybe two or three weeks, but I hope that it will be nearly ready for FAC at that point as well. I'm trying to make my way through the sections now, adding important details while copyediting the stuff that's there. Nice work today with sourcing, BTW, which is often half the battle. Cheers! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreement with most of above. Weed is not the issue; that was all over Rubber Soul and Revolver as well. I'm talking LSD, and mostly Lennon. Direct George Martin sources would probably be the best. He was there. He knew what was going. I agree that the album wasn't a "drug album," per se'. Lucy: I believe the coincidence, but maybe I'm an idiot. Fixing: McCartney was not a heroin user, no matter what the status of the term at that time. I think the more powerful creative forces were the "freeing up" from touring, and the move into pure studio work with unlimited budget (for the time) and wider instrumental options at their disposal. Of course, the genius of Martin as well, which cannot be overstated for this record, many contend. Best wishes on a most worthwhile endeavor!Learner001 (talk) 14:10, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

In no way can this be considered a reliable source, but I suspect what is said in the clip ("Well the Beatles never took drugs in front of me") is funny because it's something George Martin probably would say. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:31, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

From what I can tell the Beatles made efforts to "hide" the drugs from Martin, but Harrison has said that he would nip around the corner and smoke a joint during sessions. Lennon famously took the wrong pill at the start of one session and after he began to act strangely Martin took him up to the roof for fresh air, which didn't last long as the LSD started to take effect. So, Martin certainly was aware of their drug use even if he made an effort to look the other way. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:38, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I fully agree as to Martin, and that's why his unbiased, sober recollections would perhaps be most valuable. It's pretty difficult to conceal the fact that one is under the influence of powerful hallucinogens, so if anyone was tripping, he would know it. He might not make an issue of it, but that's not the point. Not sure how to best treat the whole "issue," but I think most students of the album and era would agree that the subject should be addressed on some, albeit minor level.Learner001 (talk) 14:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Hendrix

I still believe a subsection on "Hendrix and the Counterculture" (or titled however) should be considered. The issue of whether Jimi was a participant, passenger, or victim is up to the sources/consensus. But that was his time, he was there, and he generally embraced all but the political aspects of the era. No rush. I'm still thinking. Hope your are too. Anyhow, many very much appreciate what you did with that to get it to FA!Learner001 (talk) 14:23, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

My reading of the RSs suggests that Hendrix was largely apolitical. Etchingham said that he never talked politics and that he couldn't even name the British Prime Minister. I'm not sure what could be said other than that these movements tended to want his participation more than he actually wanted to make statements. We don't normally develop a section to assert a negative; in this case that he wasn't much interested in politics or counter-culture beyond his own hedonistic lifestyle. What point in particular do you think should be made? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:06, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, it may be a matter of semantics, as the counterculture era was comprised of far more than simply leftist politics. Much of the Hendrix phenom ran directly against the status quo. From his radically new music and flamboyant dress, to drug use or the "plaster casters" bit, a good bit could be considered part and parcel. As I mentioned, (but I have yet to do) I will draw up some well-cited prose and run it by you to see what you think. Still no biggee, but part of the tale...Learner001 (talk) 14:53, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Abbey Road

When the dust settles on Sgt Pepper, do you think we could give this a go at FAC? I've done a few copyedits, as have other people, and I don't believe the sourcing is too far off. There's some stuff about the jam band Furthur's cover of the album which has slightly flaky sourcing (though it only cites the fact they played it), a whole paragraph of Walter Everett's opinions (that I think Dan56 had something to do with) has never sat comfortably with me, and the notes about informal names for the side 2 medley are uncited. I'll carry on trimming down prose as I see it, but to be honest sourcing and research is my expertise, and copyediting for FAC bores me to tears the few times I have given it a go. What do you think? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:40, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, sourcing and research are at least half the battle, so its great that you are willing and able to do that. I'm up for bringing Abbey Road to FAC after Pepper gets promoted. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

As people are fond of saying to Noel Edmonds these days .... "deal!" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Abbey Road, you say? The best Beatles album, and I'll fight to the death anyone who says otherwise. Gabe, let me know if you need copyediting help or anything similar over there. I'll be too busy for a co-nom or anything like that, but I'd love to help out if I can! And I'm certain I left you hanging on quite a few things; if there's anything we talked about (or didn't) that you'd like my input and/or help on, let me know. Hope to see you around some more! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Nice to hear from you, Evan! Of course we would appreciate your copy-editing skills at Abbey Road! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Another work worthy of very special attention! Learner001 (talk) 01:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band

The article Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band for things which need to be addressed. Acalycine^{(talk/contribs)} 00:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band

The article Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Acalycine -- Acalycine (talk) 01:31, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, that was the smoothest on-hold GAN I've ever seen! Nice work, Gabe! Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Evan! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Congrats on Pepper GA!

Another job well done! Learner001 (talk) 14:37, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

You are a machine, GabeMc! I thought of you when I went here and took this snap today: no tours allowed that I know of. If I get in again I'll take better pix, but at least we got one free one. Cheers :) Doc talk 06:27, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Nice work, Doc! I've never been there, but its on my list! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:22, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:49, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Million award!

		The Million Award
		For your contributions to bring Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (estimated annual readership: 1,106,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! -- Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:27, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Source

The consensus of January is no more. There's a new discussion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums#Piero_Scaruffi_as_a_reliable_and_published_source Could you write your point of view? Thanks Woovee (talk) 16:48, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Legacy vx Influence

Hello GabeMc: I am not opposed to your reversion, but I am wondering what the definition of "legacy" is here, as McCartney is still an active musician, so he is not anyone's predecessor yet? Isn't "influence" more accurate?--Soulparadox (talk) 00:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

In my mind, Legacy is recognition and awards and chart accomplishments. Influence is stuff like: "McCartney's bass playing has influenced a generation of musicians, including, X, Y and Z. His use of a Fuzz bass on "Think For Yourself" inspired Flea to record "A Similar Song". GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Peer Review for Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band

Hi Gabe,

I left you some comments on the peer review for the song. Only several things I felt needed addressing. Wish you luck in getting another FA! Keep up all the work you put into Beatles-related articles, I see you got three of the four members to FA status!!

XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 07:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I took a quick look at the first two sections of the article and made a few copy edits, but it is in very good shape. I'm so far behind on my WP obligations that i am afraid that that's all the time I can give it. It reads quite well! Good luck! -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Apology

Hi. Sorry if I managed to aggravate you yesterday for one reason or another, but I've gone on record before saying your work here is generally excellent, and I'd hate for all that to just fall down on some silly misunderstanding. I'm off the weekend, so take care. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Colin Larkin (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) 08:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Comma

I'd say that it should be "in" instead of "with": "The group adopted an experimental approach to composition, IN songs such as..." -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:58, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Megadeth

Hey, I'm not sure if the music is up your alley, but the Megadeth FAC has been sitting there for nearly a month with no reviewer other than me. I thought I'd ask you to chip in if you could find the time since you've got experience doing music FAs, and I think the article itself is pretty close to FA standard, if maybe not quite there yet. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 11:31, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I've currently got my hands full at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band/archive1, and I'm not great at jumping around different topics, but if the barrage of comments subsides and we arrive at a consensus to promote, I'll re-evaluate my time and try to see if I can help out there. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:04, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Cher Peer Review

Hi, GabeMC! Do you remember me? We were working on a Cher peer review between December 2012 and February 2013, but stopped due to a simultaneous PR by Wikipedian Penguin. WP's PR is still open, but he's not answering for at least six months. Since our PR, the article has evolved and is now much better, though there are still issues to be worked on. If you have the time, we can continue our review or start a new PR. Sorry for my errors, I am STILL learning to speak English fluently. Hahaha. Lordelliott (talk) 01:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Elliot. Sorry, but I'm too busy with RL and my own Wikiprojects. I recommend closing any open peer reviews and requesting another. Or, just nom the article at FAC to get an idea of where it stands now. Cheers! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Gabe. As you can see here, I asked for user PeterGriffin's help in some points he made about the prose in the lede, but I understand that he may not be able (time, interest in the subject) to help me. Unfortunately, there's not much I can do alone in terms of prose, and there are not many fluent English speaking users interested in helping too. So I'm giving up. Anyway, thanks for having helped me so much in our peer review. Lordelliott (talk) 18:43, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Move review notification

Because you participated in the most recent discussion regarding the proposed move of Hillary Rodham Clinton, you are hereby notified per Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification that the administrative determination of consensus from that discussion is being challenged at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 May. Please feel free to comment there. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

List of 1960s musical artists

Hi, you and @Ritchie333: might expand this. Surprised to see it missing. I was looking for a list of 60s musicians!♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:05, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a glaring omission. I'll bet Richie could expand that far beyond my narrow interests, but I'll certainly have a look. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:10, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

It's looking adequate now anyway!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:56, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band

Just saw this became FA, congrats :D! XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 12:18, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Second! Fantastic work on the article, and congrats on the much-deserved recognition for your hard work. Thanks for the barnstar as well! You're far too kind. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, XXSNUGGUMSXX. Your PR comments were most helpful. Evan, you also made some very helpful suggestions at the PR that significantly contributed to what's now an exceptionally tight article. Nice to see you around and I hope to work with you again in the future! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar

Gabe, although I did some work in sourcing and copyediting where I could, and fielding questions at PR and FAC, there is no way this would have ever been probably one of the best and most important FAs on Wikipedia of all time without your input and time and dedication in fielding the most nitpicking of nitpickers that FAC throws at editors. Well done. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:25, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Ritchie. That's very kind of you. Thanks also for being the catalyst that got the Pepper FAC ball rolling. I'm not sure that I would have ever revisited the article had you not made the suggestion. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:30, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

PS: I'm just about to check over Ashford, Kent, nominate it for GA, then have a rest! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:27, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, I hope to see you around more in the future. Cheers! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:30, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Seconded, you're a gem of an editor on here! Congratulations! My personal favourite though is the White Album because of its diversity!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

What a generous compliment, thanks! Yeah, I used to swear by the White Album for the same reason – its also really long, which is nice when you want to settle into a mood that lasts longer than 35 minutes. I still think that its probably better than almost anything else they did. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:37, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I suspect we'll get the White Album to GA before the year is out ... but only if this blasted move discussion goes away! I haven't touched "Release" onwards, which needs major work (starting with why is Lennon and Ono's miscarriage important enough to put there?) and the article up to there has still got unsourced content and I only used two sources for the song annotations. Needs more variety. And of course there's copyediting after all that. It's going to be a while. A worthwhile exercise, though. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:44, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I think the name change controversy is over for now; there won't ever be a clear consensus for that dispute. If you want to diversify your sourcing, consider Womack and Everett. I also suggest looking for any books that were written by respected music scholars specifically about the album, as the broader sources tend to skim over some nice details that help flesh-out the narrative when you're writing only about the album and its background. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:01, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I came here to thank you GabeMc for the barnstar and then saw this about the RM - I wasn't aware there was a long history of these on that article. Sigh, the amount of time WP burns on repeated move requests over and over ... I tried to give some examples there of why it should stay where it is. About this one, I feel about it the same way I did when Zoo TV Tour made it to FA - a good amount of what I wanted got in, some of what I wanted didn't, but I'm glad that it made it, because if ever an album (tour) deserved to be an FA topic, this is the one. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:05, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Wasted! You made several key suggestions that helped tie the narrative together, so I'm grateful for your participation at the PR and FAC – it would have been nice to finally earn your support, but maybe next time! I wish all articles could be as long as we wanted, so almost everything could be included, but until that time we will continue the balancing act between exhaustive and comprehensive. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:33, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	For your superb work on Sgt. Pepper's, easily the best album article on Wikipedia. May your wonderful FAs long continue! Cassiantotalk 01:50, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

That's remarkably kind, Cassianto. Thanks! The Pepper Peer Review and FAC were two of my all-time favourite Wikipedia processes. The quantity and quality of the suggestions were outstanding, and as I said in the thank you barnstars, I couldn't have done this without all the great help. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:33, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

And Argus still looks like that!♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:40, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

The work of a content builder is never done! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:33, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't know whether to go for another album article or a Kentish town (as opposed to Kentish Town) next. I was in Faversham today and dropped into the local tourist centre looking for a few general purpose history books, but there wasn't really anything I'd describe as a meaty source to make a GA out of. Hey ho. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:58, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I think that you and JG should finish Abbey Road or the White Album. I see that you're a musician; what do you play? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:13, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

With the best will in the world, I simply don't have the time and patience to get Abbey Road to FA to the same level you did with Pepper. I can only snatch hours here and there and I'm already overdoing a bit recently I think. Anyway, back to music - I play guitar, keyboards (especially Hammond organ, one of my favourite improvements to GA), bass, clarinet, bit of saxophone, sing the odd bit, play in two bands and present a weekly radio show where I do occasionally mention "my spies from Wikipedia" when I dig up old bits of band trivia to chat about. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:34, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Ahh, so you're a multi-instrumentalist; quite impressive. I play guitar and a little piano, and I bang on the drums once in a while, but I'm not any good at anything except guitar. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:40, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Gong, with much admiration

		The Liverpool Institute Star
		From an old boy of Paul's and George's school, an overdue gong for your indefatigable work on Beatles recordings. – Tim riley talk 20:19, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Tim. I appreciate the positive feedback, which also helps to satiate my thirst for shiny objects! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:40, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I closed your VPPOL discussion

Sorry. I killed your discussion because the foundation disapproves of CU bots. I didn't want to create a needless discussion, but if you still want your answer, yes, it's possible to write such a bot.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 00:16, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

• A note on the same topic, a CU bot would be useless on a wiki of this size. Given that there are whole countries that route all of there IP traffic through 1-2 IP addresses and that odds are people of the same geographic area often edit similar articles, and there are other cases that I could go into. Any kind of CU bot would flood our already over worked CU's with so much false positive information to render it a net negative to the whole process. If this where a smaller wiki with under 10,000 users the chaff that would be created may be minimal, however we have over 10 times that amount of just registered active users, if you start including IP addresses that number probably triples. Werieth (talk) 02:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band

This is a note to let the main editors of Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on June 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 present, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 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:

Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band is the eighth studio album by the English rock band the Beatles (pictured). Released on 1 June 1967, it was an immediate commercial and critical success. After the group retired from touring, Paul McCartney had an idea for a song involving an Edwardian era military band, and this developed into a plan to release an entire album as a performance by the fictional Sgt. Pepper band. Knowing they would not have to perform the tracks live, the Beatles adopted an experimental approach to composition, writing songs such as "With a Little Help from My Friends", "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" and "A Day in the Life". The producer George Martin's innovative recording of the album included the liberal application of signal processing. The cover, depicting the band in front of a collage of celebrities and historical figures, was designed by the English pop artists Peter Blake and Jann Haworth. One of the best-selling albums of all time, Sgt. Pepper is regarded as an important work of British psychedelia and an early concept album. One music scholar has described it as "the most important and influential rock and roll album ever recorded". (Full article...)

You (and your talk-page stalkers) may also be interested to hear that there have been some changes at the TFA requests page recently. Nominators no longer need to calculate how many "points" an article has, the instructions have been simplified, and there's a new nomination system using templates based on those used for DYK suggestions. Please consider nominating another article, or commenting on an existing nomination, and leaving some feedback on your experience. Thank you. UcuchaBot (talk) 23:02, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Peer review request

Hi Gabe,

I seem to remember you saying you wanted to return the favor for FA promotion after I helped you in the PR and FAC for Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. In that case, I would appreciate input here. Given how you've brought a number of music-related articles to FA, I thought you'd be able to give some good pointers.

Snuggums (talk • contributions) 23:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band

fills me with pleasant sounds, including the horn calls played by Neill Sanders, - precious again! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:41, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

It's a good day for Beatles fans on the main page, Sgt Pepper for TFA, and Watford Gap services mentioning them on DYK. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:46, 21 June 2014 (UTC)