User talk:GabeMc/Archive 1

Wright's departure

During the recording of The Wall, the band became increasingly unhappy with Wright's lack of contribution to the album. Gilmour said that Wright, "hadn't contributed anything of any value whatsoever to the album—he did very, very little", and he "got the boot because he wasn't contributing in any way to anything." According to Mason, "Alas, Rick's contribution was to turn up and sit in on the sessions without doing anything, just 'being a producer'." Waters added, "he was not prepared to cooperate in making the record ... [and] it was agreed by everybody ... either you can have a long battle or you can agree to ... finish making the album, keep your full share ... but at the end of it you leave quietly. Rick agreed."

Playboy Interviews

Hey, Gabe. I'm going to advocate going against the LoC form here for clarity's sake. I would list Sheff as the sole author and Golson as (in parentheses) the editor--the closest analogy we have in "Sources" at the moment is Southall, where Perry is also named (in parentheses) as a contributor. The full title of the book is perfectly sufficient to convey Lennon's and Ono's participation.

And great work picking up the book. Hope it's a good read. Happy New Year's! DocKino (talk) 22:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

RfA

Hi, I suggest you withdraw your RfA and work on the areas that have been mentioned and try again in six months or so. I can point you in the right direction for tips on how to improve, if you'd like. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 20:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I hope that you withdraw it. RFA is a lesson in humility and it is usually best approached by letting others tell you that you are ready. Check the RFA archives if you want. Royalbroil 14:40, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• At some point soon someone is going to close the RfA as a snow fail; before that happens it would be better if you closed it yourself. Many admins fail at their first RfA (I did). It's not a pleasant experience, but neither is it a harmful one. Sometimes an RfA fails because people have a concern about a single issue which then tends to dominate. When you apply again in six months times, and people look back at your first RfA, they'll see it was about an issue that has not been repeated, and will either see that you withdrew with good grace and understanding, or that you left it open beyond reason until someone else closed it. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:37, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
• There is no great consensus as to the minimum requirements for adminship, different people look for different things. Clearly you don't yet have enough of the particular types of experience that are expected by most RFA !voters. But none of the reasons why you are being opposed are for bad things or for things that should take long to fix. There is an unwritten rule that RFAs must be at least three months apart, and if this fails then I'd suggest waiting at least that long and practising at least one, better two of the skills that the opposers wanted to see. As for withdrawing that's entirely up to you, a few months ago I ran on meta and did much worse than you are doing here, but let the RFA ran its course to see if anything other than "no need for the tools" emerged. You have the option of withdrawing, but you could alternatively install twinkle, read the CSD criteria and spend an hour or two patrolling newpages. If my judgement is correct you'll demonstrate with a few tags that you can tell what meets the CSD criteria for deletion and what doesn't. As for vandalism, do you have any troublesome articles on your watchlist that you just visit to revert vandalism? I used to keep an eye on Beaver. Adding a few vandal targets to your watchlist would be an easy way to get the experience needed for rollback and to convince your current opposers that you can spot vandalism. Alternatively just spend an hour or two at recentchanges looking at the edits of Accounts and IPs with redlinked talkpages and reverting the ones that are vandalism. ϢereSpielChequers 12:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

RfA withdrawl

Thanks for your advice. I thought I should just ride it out, and learn as much as I can, since its already gone south. I learned much last night, after I should have closed it, so I am torn between learning as much as possible about the process, and closing. Also, if I choose to close it, how do I do so without causing more errors. — GabeMc (talk) 21:51, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for delay responding. You edit the RfA page and replace

<span class="plainlinks">'''[{{fullurl:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GabeMc|action=edit&section=5}} <span style="color:#002BB8;">Voice your opinion on this candidate</span>]'''</span> ([[Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/GabeMc|talk page]]) '''{{RfA tally|GabeMc}}<!-- WHEN CLOSING THIS RFA, REPLACE THIS PART WITH {{subst:finaltally|SUPPORTVOTES|OPPOSEVOTES|NEUTRALVOTES|[OPTIONALMESSAGE] OR [result=successful] OR [reason=SNOW] OR [reason=NOTNOW] OR (blank)}} SEE TEMPLATE FOR MORE DETAILS -->; Scheduled to end 02:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)'''

with

{{subst:finaltally|9|36|7|Withdrawn by candidate }}

You may add a brief reason, or just leave it at that. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:08, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• You know, while I didn't support your candidacy, I really do admire you for going the distance with it. Also, being a content contributor myself, I really identify with your frustrations about coming "across an editor who, for a lack of a better phrase just does not get it?" and wastes time. Hope you're not discouraged by this experience--many of our best admins failed on their first try. Regards, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. Its now been closed early due to WP:SNOW I imagine, but it was an educational experience that I will take much from. — GabeMc (talk) 22:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

WereSpielChequers' advice is good. Go through the RFAs for the last year or so and have a look at why and how people vote. Kudpung's RFA criteria User:Kudpung/RfA_criteria#My_criteria are fairly comprehensive and typical. New page patrolling is an excellent way to develop admin skills. Install Twinkle and go slowly with tagging articles for deletion. Read the criteria in WP:CSD carefully... too many people tag articles CSD-A7 when they're about topics A7 doesn't cover. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 14:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Your RfA was unsuccessful

I have closed your RFA early as it was highly unlikely to succeed and I think you have received all the constructive feedback it was likely to generate. I hope you will not be too disheartened by the unsuccessul outcome and will consider reapplying once you have addressed the issues raised by those who opposed. I know the RFA process can be rather demoralising and trust you will keep in mind the positive comments that were made. Thank you for volunteering your time to help out on Wikipedia. WJBscribe (talk) 21:59, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

My RFA

Hi, I just wanted to leave a note saying thank you for partcipating in my RFA, and your comments will be taken on board and acted upon. Hopfully, I will be of a level you can support in a future RFA. MrLittleIrish ^(talk) © 13:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

WQA

I'm curious why you chose to make this comment on a stale WQA thread. Do you believe that it was helpful? Danger ^{High voltage!} 02:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Stale? It was commented on yesterday, so I don't consider that stale. It was an honest question, as I was recently reemed for using the term "minor editor", to describe new/green users, so I wanted to know if "newbie" is an acceptable term on Wiki, IYE, or should it generally be avoided IYO? — GabeMc (talk) 02:41, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps "stale" was the wrong word. "Resolved" might be better. Regardless, I don't think that was an appropriate place to raise the question; that term was not the issue at hand and WQA is tense enough without additional, non-germane comments being thrown in. If you were curious, you should have asked Nobody Ent on their talk page.

Regarding your question, in my experience, "newbie" is an acceptable term on Wikipedia. It does not imply a value judgment; all editors start out as newbies. "Minor" carries the connotation of "less important" and is a value judgement, or can be reasonably read that way. Danger ^{High voltage!} 02:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes thanks, good points all. Thanks for taking the time to explain it, and I agree, I should have asked at the talk page. — GabeMc (talk) 03:05, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Paul McCartney FAC

Sure thing. I'm about done for the day, but I should have some time tomorrow and/or Wednesday. Happy to pitch in. DocKino (talk) 22:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, two things before I wade in--one general, one specific:

(1) Do you want to use the serial comma or not? I see both styles in the lead section: "an English musician, singer-songwriter and composer"/"an advocate for animal rights, vegetarianism, and music education".

I tend to say no, but you could pursuade me otherwise. What's your opinon? — GabeMc (talk) 03:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

(2) It seems to me that it's unnecessary and a bit redundant to name the Beatles and Wings twice each in the short first paragraph. Cutting them out of the second sentence also means we avoid the odd locution "Formerly of the Beatles..." The following makes a perfectly clear, strong second sentence: "He has been described by Guinness World Records as 'The Most Successful Composer and Recording Artist of All Time', with 60 gold discs and sales of over 100 million albums and 100 million singles." Alternately, that could be moved to the end of the paragraph, so the Beatles sentence comes second and the Wings sentence third. What are your thoughts? DocKino (talk) 16:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree, good eye, great suggestion. I made the change, please feel free to fix anything I missed. — GabeMc (talk) 03:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Changes to the US Beatles' albums articles

A solitary editor has made massive undiscussed changes to the US/North American Beatles' album articles, removing sourced content and introducing formatting errors. I reverted; he reverted. Please take a look and see what you think. Radiopathy •talk• 01:21, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

PJtP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Look at his contribs. Radiopathy •talk• 01:28, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Discussion with admin here. Radiopathy •talk• 01:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Needing Wiki contribution assistance!

Hello GabeMc,

I am looking for an experienced Wikipedian to contribute an article for our band Mr. Meeble. I have checked and we meet the Wikipedia "notability" guidelines for a band. We have a very basic Wikipedia article written already, but I know that someone like yourself may be able to point out our formatting errors and critical omissions. You can hear our music and see our videos here:

http://youtube.com/mrmeeble
http://soundcloud.com/meeble

Let me know if you would be willing to help!

Regards,
Devin
mm @ meeble.com

Devbot (talk) 04:06, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

"The" to "the" at Paul McCartney

Fine by me. I actually just found out about the wikilink exception so thought we should all be aware of it, but I'm pretty sure "optional" does mean "optional". Lower-case looks much better anyway. : ) Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Help Survey

Hi there, my name's Peter Coombe and I'm a Wikimedia Community Fellow working on a project to improve Wikipedia's help system. At the moment I'm trying to learn more about how people use and find the current help pages. If you could help by filling out this brief survey about your experiences, I'd be very grateful. It should take less than 10 minutes, and your responses will not be tied to your username in any way.

Thank you for your time,
the wub (talk) 18:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC) (Delivered using Global message delivery)

Lewisohn

I find this very disturbing. Please explain.—DCGeist (talk) 21:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad. I obviously originally introduced the error by mistake, then was also wrong to blame it on Doc. He has my full sincere apologies. — GabeMc (talk) 23:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Whoops

Sorry about those weird blankings at Paul McCartney. My browser is screwing me up in a bad way. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 06:00, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

No worries Evan. — GabeMc (talk) 06:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I hate to badger but...

What? Marcus Qwertyus 21:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

If you have a specific question, that you cannot refrain from asking, then it should be asked at your RfA page, not my talk page. — GabeMc (talk) 21:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

You just told me not to. Marcus Qwertyus 21:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

No, I did not tell you to not ask questions, I advised you that badgering opposes (whether at the appropriate place for discussion, e.g. your RfA or an inappropriate place, e.g. a user's talk page) will not help your case for adminship, not now and not in the future. It's just an opinion, shared by many others wiser than myself. At any rate, I've stricken the erroneous statement from my oppose rationale as I appear to have misread a comment. — GabeMc (talk) 21:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks very much for the barnstar, Gabe! I appreciate it, and am glad I could be of help. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome, it was very much deserved, so thank you! — GabeMc (talk) 01:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Your request for rollback

Hi GabeMC. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Calmer Waters 02:00, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

CVUA

Hello, GabeMc/Archive 1! The instructors at the Counter-Vandalism Unit Academy have seen your hard work reverting vandalism, and we would like to thank you. But do you want to go to the next level? Would you like to know how reverts, warnings, reports, blocks, and bans all come together to keep this Encyclopedia free from disruption? Then consider enrolling today! Electriccatfish2 (talk) 11:33, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Electriccatfish2 (talk) 11:33, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, GabeMc. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 03:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thank you

Thank you for supporting me at RfA. In this example, the footprints in the sand were yours. I'll not forget. My76Strat (talk) 03:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Just a note

Hi, Gabe. I just wanted to let you know that there is a discussion here to which you may be interested in contributing. Thanks! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:00, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Beatle Paul

Good evening GabeMc,

Thank you for the invitation. I shall be pleased to help in any way I can. Curious to know how you chose me ... have we bumped against each other somewhere?

Kind regards, -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 22:38, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for participating in my RFA! I appreciate your support. Zagalejo^^^ 06:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Barnstars and Paul

This is a belated attempt to beg off helping with Paul's FAC. As you can see I'm less active here than before, but this is primarily due to other computer related activities attracting all my attention (namely building some tools and writing a Wikimania talk). Though there was a bit of Basion in there. :)

You know...Alex Haley was born on August 11th. Might be as good a day as any to sign it up for TFA.

Thanks for the comments on the barnstar. As I said when the article got promoted, you did a considerable amount of the hard work. I mostly made sure that your and Malik's work wasn't bent toward antagonizing each other. Protonk (talk) 18:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Ssssh...but nice to see you quoting my rewrite of the MoS regarding the The Beatles controversy, must be about 3 years ago now. And also that most people are using lower case the Beatles even in links nowadays. When I wrote that, it was The Beatles all over the main article, and I'd given up trying to correct it. Cheers, Rothorpe (talk) 23:19, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Re: Paul McCartney FAC

I reviewed the relevant section of the MOS, at MOS:LQ, and you're right about punctuation placement in direct quotations. Looking over my last edit, I see that the periods were at the end of incomplete sentences, which may or may not have had periods originally. In almost all cases, I don't have access to the original sources, so I can't tell where the punctuation goes. Please feel free to reverse any of the quote-placement edits I've made per the original sources.

Anyway, I'm glad I could help with this article. I've always hated it when otherwise high-quality articles fail FAC over copyediting/prose issues. And thank you for the many hours and days of hard work you've put into this article, especially with its comprehensiveness and clear, impeccable sourcing. szyslak (t) 21:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Given all of this, I hope my quote-tinkering doesn't produce too much extra work for you! Also, I do plan to !vote "Support" after I'm finally finished going over each section. When I first encountered this FAC a few days ago, I felt it wasn't ready prose-wise. There's been tremendous progress since then, and I don't take all or most of the credit for this. szyslak (t) 22:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

No worries, easy fixes. Yeah, this article has come a long way, thanks again for all your help! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• Hey, sorry about that, I didn't notice your message yesterday--I think someone posted on my talk page a few minutes after you and I didn't check the history. I'll comment on the FAC now. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:06, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Also, from following FAC pretty closely lately, this has got to be one of the toughest nominations for a while. The page is at 200k and climbing. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:19, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree 100% ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, GabeMc. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 03:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The

I have not had Macca's page on my watchlist for some time, which is a pity. As you are undergoing the trials of an FAC, I will refrain from saying anything at the moment, but be advised that I will later.--andreasegde (talk) 11:06, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Ending abbreviations with a full stop

You do know that abbreviations are supposed to end with a full stop and that the habit of not doing so is a style thing and only recent, don't you? The full stops are a replacement for the missing letters and the last letter of an abbreviation has letters missing just as much as the others. Britmax (talk) 09:47, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)If Britmax is referring to articles related to the UK, the general rule is that a full stop is not required if the abbreviation begins and ends with the same letters as the word being abbreviated, e.g. Doctor, street, Saint, etc. 70.89.111.73 (talk) 16:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

harvnb and quotes

Hi. See here. Templates like {{harvnb}} should not have extra text in the |p= and |pp= parameters. The quotes should simply be part of the ref, as I fixed a bunch in that diff. It's just a matter of moving the closing "}}" to right after the page number/range. Looks like there are lot of them. ;/ Br'er Rabbit (talk) 05:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the catch. I'll start fixing them now. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Did you already catch and fix them all? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

How does this apply to the cites with multiple offences? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I did a second group, at the bottom, but there are a lot more. For ones with multiple pages refs in the same work, just re-harvnb as you would for a different work. There are a few quotes in {{sfn}} which should move back to ref/harvnb. I'll nip away at a few sections. There are at least a hundred still to do. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 05:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

See here, an example with multiples. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 06:04, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I already did ‎Musicianship and much of the rest. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 08:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

You should pick up at Recognition. I'll look back later. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 08:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, I appreciate it! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 08:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I think I got them all, but please let me know if I missed something. Thanks. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 08:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I got a few more and think that's it. I'm running a tool on the whole page so stay off it for a bit, ok? 2600 edits, here, have you... Br'er Rabbit (talk) 09:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

bot's done; no changes. Thanks for being open to fixing this issue. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 09:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for helping me improve my sourcing method! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} Thanks for the help and the bot too! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 09:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. I do lots of refs. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 09:24, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

RE: "Principal Line-up parameter for defunct bands"

Good day GabeMC,

My apologies for not responding to the discussions you linked me to a while back (the discussions in relation to members sections of artist infoboxes in general and specifically that on "The Beatles" page). I'd like to thank you for bringing those to my attention, and also explain that my absence from those discussions was not disdain for the opinions of fellow Wikipedians, but due to me noting, after a cursory glance, that my viewpoint was in contrast to the the majority opinion/s on those discussions, and felt it would have been without merit to vote on one of the recommended solutions to which I did not agree (as none of the suggested solutions were favourable to my point-of-view).

Kindest regards,

Burbridge92 (talk) 17:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Peace

It has to be admitted that calling somebody as a sufferer of OCD was very incorrect. However, as far as I can see, you have done your bit towards steering the discussion back to the topic and apologizing properly. In short, while you were wrong, I feel that you have made adequate amends. Which brings me to the extremely unreasonable behaviour of Andreas. I suggest that you ignore him for now, seeing as it is that multiple editors are expressing unhappiness with his demeanor (me being one of them). A discussion is going on here, and I would be happy to witness your participation. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 18:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Macca

Kudos on your success at moving Paul McCartney to FA. Great job. Lfstevens (talk) 22:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Anytime you wanna run through it again will be appreciated. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations from me as well! And thanks for the barnstar, but you really did the majority of the hard work! Once I can stand to look at that article again, I'll let you know if I see any outstanding issues. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Evan. You were a MASSIVE help. This could not have been accomplished without the extensive teamwork you and many helpful editors contributed to. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the barnstar, especially considering that I wouldn't cast a 'support'! Like Evan, I'm afraid to look at it right now, and after seeing the exchanges on the other talk page last night, I'm reminded that when people ask me how I can stand working on political articles, I say that's nothing compared to trying to work on articles about The/the Beatles ... Wasted Time R (talk) 00:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

You're very welcome Wasted. You spent many hours making suggestions which lead to vast improvements, and I wanted to thank you for making the effort. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the barnstar. I helped out as much as I could. Many, many people worked together to bring this article to where it is now, and many will continue to do so in the future. szyslak (t) 02:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I just wanted to add my congratulations as well. You worked extremely hard on the article, being pushed back and forth in all directions, and should feel very proud of yourself. Sorry for not returning to the FAC, I did intend to. I like how you moved lots of information into notes by the way, that was a good idea and the article is now down to a sensible 10,700 words (speaking of which, this is measured by using this tool: User:Dr pda/prosesize) --Lobo (talk) 06:41, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd also like to congratulate you, Gabe. Trust all is well with you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations

Chocolate chip cookies for you! Congratulations on promoting Paul McCartney to FA. Great work

I have been admiring your work, amazing work, Congratulations on promoting McCartney to FA, the page really looks good and pleasure to read. Keep up the good work pretty soon every Beatles article will be FA. Regards AdabowtheSecond (talk) 13:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words! I had much help however, and as such I do not claim all the credit for myself, far from it. You could say I "got by with a little help from my friends". ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Ssh, but I disagree with your latest changes at McC. Afterwards is correct British, against advice means in direct contradiction of and so is stronger than despite.

As for group and band, I recall that the vogue word changed from the 1st to the 2nd probably as a result of Pepper and Bob Dylan's originally lower-case band, if I recall the sleeve of Big Pink correctly. But I think they can be used interchangeably nowadays. Rothorpe (talk) 01:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I hear you on "afterwards" and "against". Thanks for the advice/tips. As far as group versus band. J,P, G and R were a group of people and they were also a band. So a band is a group but a group is not always a band. The Beatles and Mal Evans could go to a pub and I would say the group went. If just JPGR went, I would say the band went to a pub. Any thoughts, suggestions? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:46, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Quite right. I was just pointing out that before the late 60s, pop groups were never called bands. The word was associated with brass/military bands, jazz big bands and the like, so at first it seemed odd. Nowadays, in the pop/rock context, the two are very close synonyms. Rothorpe (talk) 21:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

What about Lennon: "We were four guys you know. Then I met Paul and said, you wanna join me band, then George joined, then Ringo joined. We were just a band who made it very, very big that's all." ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:18, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Talking to Jann Wenner, that would be in the late 60s at the earliest. Rothorpe (talk) 21:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, as a musician of over 25-years, I can honestly say I have never once referred to any of my band's as a group. Nor do any of the several dozen musician friends I have use that term. We say, that was a "great band", never "great group". ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Indeed Lennon is using the past tense, so that makes it in the 70s, by which time 'band' was used almost exclusively. Rothorpe (talk) 21:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

So if "band" has been the term of choice for 42+ years, then isn't it about time wikipedia updated its terminology? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:46, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think it has. But I see no harm in using 'group' for, in the words of Private Eye magazine's contemporary parody, a 'popular singing group'. Do you find 'group' confusing here, then? Rothorpe (talk) 22:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

To me, the Four Tops were a group, the Shirelles, the Miracles etcetera. The Beatles played instruments and are therefore a band, IMO. No its not confusing, but if wikipedia insisted on calling automobiles horseless carriages, people would say "hey, the current usage has changed and that language is out-of-date. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, vocal groups are still usually groups, good point, and one that illustrates how and why the usage diverged. Rothorpe (talk) 22:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

...And, it occurs to me, in those days there were also instrumental groups... Rothorpe (talk) 22:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Outrageous

"if you had been bullied by this user for several years you might not preach that to me". I demand an apology.--andreasegde (talk) 06:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Please do no ever post on my talk page again. This is the second time I am asking you to leave me alone, here is the diff from the first time, just four days ago. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 07:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

I see you named a name over at AN/I, said name being my suspicion as well. I don't know that we have a whole lot of hard evidence, but the fact that he's done it three times in the past makes me highly suspect. Do you want to open an SPI, or should I? Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you open it, I'll certainly weigh-in there though. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay. Give me a bit to get my thoughts together. I'll probably drop a note at the AN/I thread once it's open. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Gabe, please see my comments at the SPI. I'm not sure it's Radiopathy. What do you think? Joefromrandb (talk) 04:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I saw, and I agree Joe. It may not be Radio, but it is most certainly a sock IMO. So really, it matters little if we have the right master, the key is proving its a sock. Nobody files an ANI report within 70 edits, its obviously somebody's sock. I won't accuse anyone now, but I have two or three possibilities that may come up eventually. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:39, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Gabe, you know I like you a lot, but I have to disagree vehemently when you say, "it matters little if we have the right master". Acccusing someone of sockpupppetry is serious business. And if Radiopathy is not the sockmaster, this SPI is very, very bad. I think it's absolutely essential that we find the right master. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I hear you Joe, but Radio's been caught THREE times socking. Which makes me think they have socked 30+ times. So don't be too concerned for Radios rep. Yeah, I wanna find the right master also. But if its not Radio then they will find out its not. SPI shouldn't require us to name a suspect, they should just investigate the suspected sock. Its a policy failure not an issue of editor ethics IMO. We all think its a sock so we shouldn't have to even speculate who it is. Both Evan and I thought of Radio first, we are not idiots, so the accusation was in good-faith even if we were incorrect. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not Andreas. I don't know who it is, but it's not him; just looking through the comments at that talk page convinced me of it. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 08:39, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

They both showed up last night with 15 minutes of each other. I think the dialogue between them was contrived as a cover. As soon as I made a comment about the similarity of writing styles ip 99 switched rapidly to a less formal, more imperfect prose. 14 minutes after I named Andreas as a possible master they both showed up with the dialogue. Ip 999 has been switching between poor spelling and bad prose to perfect spelling and the saem flowery self-indulgent prose of which I associate Andreas. I could be wrong, but Radio and Andreas are the two editors left here who are most obsessed with "The". ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:56, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "The Beatles". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 19 July 2012.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 21:42, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Shall I add my name or is that just for you and Andreas? Rothorpe (talk) 23:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Beatles mediation

As the filing party, you need to take control of that. I'm not sure parties can simply add themselves. You should certainly get the 99 sock/troll thrown off that page, as no productive, collaborative discussion is going to take place with it participating. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:18, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Brownies

Thanks, let's hope things are better for all concerned in that topic area now. Best,-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

The request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning The Beatles, in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. The case will be assigned to an active mediator within two weeks, and mediation proceedings should begin shortly thereafter. Proceedings will begin at the case information page, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/The Beatles, so please add this to your watchlist. Formal mediation is governed by the Mediation Committee and its Policy. The Policy, and especially the first two sections of the "Mediation" section, should be read if you have never participated in formal mediation. For a short guide to accepted cases, see the "Accepted requests" section of the Guide to formal mediation. You may also want to familiarise yourself with the internal Procedures of the Committee.

As mediation proceedings begin, be aware that formal mediation can only be successful if every participant approaches discussion in a professional and civil way, and is completely prepared to compromise. Please contact the Committee if anything is unclear.

For the Mediation Committee, User:WGFinley (talk) 15:36, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Waters

The only time I've seen him say he was an atheist he jokingly said he was an atheist who prayed.

If you have a quote other than that please let me see it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agnostihuck (talk • contribs) 20:42, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Is there solid proof he's a critic of religion too?

--Agnostihuck (talk) 21:06, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I found my source!

http://blogs.rockymountainnews.com/rocky_mountain_music/2008/04/read_the_complete_roger_waters.html

--Agnostihuck (talk) 23:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

RFA !vote

Hi I've tweaked the numbering so you no longer count as an Oppose - I suspect the problem was that somebody else added a blank line before your vote, but just thought I'd drop you a line to avoid confusion. ϢereSpielChequers 10:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Need input

I was browsing pages using the images of Mitt Romney and I'm noticing that there's this page Yasin al-Qadi which there's been so many edits by 1 user which gives me the impression of heavy undue weight. ViriiK (talk) 22:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Looks dubious to me, not because of many edits by one editor, but is there really a Romney connection to 9/11? I don't know enough about the subject (9/11), but it did tend to raise some serious red-flags for me as well. Did you ask Wasted Time R what they thought of it? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I have. All of the big changes have been made in the last month. ViriiK (talk) 23:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

What did Wasted say? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Nothing yet, I just dropped a note. Running through the references list, there's a lot of links to blogs/personal sites such as www.jorlingrabbe.com, http://www.washingtonsblog.com & "news" site such as The American Monitor (which I've never heard of). The Mitt Romney "connection" to 9/11 just reeks of conspiracy theory and some kind of campaign slandering tactic. ViriiK (talk) 23:10, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I tend to agree with you, but I suggest waiting for Wasted to weigh-in before acting to drastically on this matter. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:19, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Diff file

here with Jusdafax, May 2011. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Yep. Thanks for your hard work in further exposing the pattern of abuse at ANI. At the time I debated taking Andreasegde to ANI, but the notion make me feel queasy and disgusted after the encounter. I now regret not doing it, as others have had to suffer further abuse. Hopefully this bully can be topic banned from any Beatles articles at the very least, but I think you have shown a pattern of abuse that calls for a more complete remedy. It is not yet clear to me if socking is in play. My best (no pun intended) wishes, Jusdafax 09:21, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. It feels worse than guilty by association to get abused like that then chastised for reporting it. I don't mind taking the heat as long as they do the right thing in the end. I want to help improve this project inside and out! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

At first you were getting piled on, but then various editors piped up. I feel Coren handled it well at the end. Thanks for sticking to your guns and doing the right thing, and I admire your work. One quick point... please make sure you follow both the letter and the spirit of the interaction ban. Just stay away, and if he breaks the ban (outside of the mediation of 'the/The') crisply notify Coren and let him handle it. Don't respond to bait! My very best wishes, Jusdafax 06:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanks much! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 06:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

AN/I thread

I note that you were not notified of my closing the thread there, and I hadn't thought of doing it myself. My apologies about that.

After evaluating the discussion, it seems clear that the best way forward is for you to lay off direct interaction with Andreasegde entirely. I've thus closed the discussion regarding you with an indefinite interaction ban with him. Note that formal dispute resolution (including the now-ongoing mediation) is specifically excluded from this; so that your participation there is not only permitted, but also encouraged. — Coren ^(talk) 16:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Opinion

Could you opine on this matter. Regards AdabowtheSecond (talk) 19:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Most certainly, thanks for asking. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 07:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi

I think you are a reasonable person, but I don't think your diffs and the comment about Bwilkins here [1] are really fair. Note that I have no particular connection to Bwilkins as seen here: [2]. I am just concerned about what could be seen as editors taking a rather clear cut stance when things don't seem as clear cut as is made out. IRWolfie- (talk) 02:32, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I hear you, really I do, and I understand that admins are under pressure, but guess what, so are active content editors and I wouldn't get away with that kind of obscene language I predict. The swearing is one thing, they also were insulting and they mishandled the 3rr report and the AN/I report IMO. I wasn't alone in that either as the report shows. I just ask that you take a good look at the AN/I report before you judge. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:35, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes I agree that the original diffs were very problematic, but I think a very public admonishment from Jimbo is really punishment enough to change behaviour: I can't imagine his behaviour continuing like that after the admonishment and so I think no further action is needed. This thread can always be referred to in future action if the problems persist. IRWolfie- (talk) 02:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

If I had treated him this way I would be asked to apologize and redact. They should at least apologize to me for being obscene and insulting. I do not believe in special treatment for admins, or anybody. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

In my treatment I'm applying the same rules I would apply to anyone in this situation. He has promised to change his behaviour and I assume good faith that he will. This essay WP:SORRY linked from WP:CIVIL might be of interest as well, particularly the paragraph beginning "On the other hand,". IRWolfie- (talk) 02:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Where did Bwilkins apologize to me for being obscene and insulting and dropping-the-ball when he was most certainly wrong? I must have missed that. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

But really, if he would just do something about Penyulap's disruption (maybe a warning) that would show me that he is a good admin. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Re: Sgt. Pepper disruption

I agree that Penyulap's attempts to "close" the RFC are disruptive; it's not up to him to declare it "closed". However, I wouldn't have made comments at the header of the RFC that would seem to advocate for any particular position. Though I don't think you had any intention of biasing the straw poll, I can see how some people might come to that conclusion. I think Penyulap has cut it out, but if he tries it again I'll fully support undoing his efforts. szyslak (t) 02:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, no worries. The disruption there has ended ... for now anyway. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 07:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hey, Gabe, thanks very much for the barnstar! I appreciate it a lot. By the way, this edit is probably the single most awesome thing I've seen today. Keep up the good work! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 08:04, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome, ditto and you know I will! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 08:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Some recent thoughts from Jimbo

My views on this are quite simple. An admin telling a user to "grow the fuck up" is absolutely unacceptable under any circumstances and is ground for immediate desysopping. If we care about having a serious, thoughtful, kind, adult and mature community (which I assume was the sentiment behind that unseemly outburst) then we have to model that behavior ourselves as admins. There's a bit of sad irony in behaving in a juvenile and bullying fashion in an attempt to get others to behave better. ********, I recommend that you turn in your bit and take a break from being an admin for 6 months and then return if you feel you can handle the job in a more responsible fashion.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

"We know that for two years now, the number of people being made admins is too low. And yet we have valid concerns that admins are overstressed, and that they don't always live up to what we hope in terms of thoughtful, kind, and welcoming conduct. I think that solutions lie precisely in these directions: make it easier to become an admin so that more people can share the burden, and easier to lose the bit when there are problems."--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Jimbo's page

While I agree with you 100% and would like nothing more than to see BWilkins stopped, you should probably back off a bit. You've presented ample evidence of his misconduct. Continuing to post diffs upon diffs may be looked upon as overkill and might turn against you. Just a suggestion. Getting someone's admin bit removed-no matter how justified-is no easy task. I really want to see you succeed. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

No worries, I'm done searching diffs. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I thought you were done searching diffs. You're playing right into the hands of your detractors. I guarantee you I want to see him desysoped even more than you do. Some of the diffs you posted are great, but others are marginal. Think quality rather than quantity. Odds are no action is going to be taken. While I'm fairly sure Jimbo still holds the right to personally desysop someone it's extremely unlikely that he will. Jimbo asked him to voluntarily step down. That's only going to happen if community consensus supports it, and posting every piece of evidence you can find of instances where his behavior was less-than-stellar will likely sway the community in the other direction. Again, this is just food for thought; I'm not trying to tell you what to do. I know your heart is in the right place and I want you to succeed. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the sentiment Joe. I'll be careful. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

FTR, I'm not concerned with my detractors, there will always be detractors when you do the right thing. Its Jimbo's talk page anyway right, he hasn't asked me to stop, yet. How do you know he isn't as aghast as we are at BWilkins' behaviour? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:13, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

To not be concerned with your detractors is one thing; to give them fodder is something else. I think Jimbo's response made it clear that he was aghast. My point is you've proven your case. Telling you to "grow the fuck up" was as unacceptable as it gets; you got Jimbo himself to publicly censure him for it. You have little to gain by digging up a plethora of lesser infractions. In such cases, sentiment can easily turn. The sad fact is-as I already noted-it's extremely unlikely he's actually going to be desysoped. It is, by design, very, very hard to get someone's adminship removed. Even if he isn't desysoped this time, should he continue the same behavior in the future, this incident along with Jimbo's reprimand would go a long way in a potential Arbcom case. But if you continue to dig up every misdeed no matter how small, this whole thing could go the other way. You risk making him look like the oppressed rather than the oppressor. If there's one thing Wikipedia is not, it's quick. I know you want action now-so do I. But it's unlikely to happen right now. As hard as it is, the best thing to do is be paitent. Others weighed in about his misconduct too. The best thing to do-for now-is to take a step back and see how it plays out. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I have to second that. Let's see how Bwilkins goes forward from here. It could very well be that he may take a less confrontational approach. In my past experiences, even when dealing wiht the worst of vandalizing trolls, nothing is gained by being a jerk back to them. I hope Bwilkins will understand this and improve.--MONGO 04:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I hear you guys, really, but I quote BWilkins: "'your behaviour comes under the microscope' - um, it says that when you file at ANI". Well, I think people who report at AN/I should have the same rights and be treated the same way as admins treat each other and expect to be treated, a simple golden rule, thats it, there should be no double-standard as there is now. Jimbo would agree with me on that point I predict. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:53, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

To be quite frank it appears your pride is getting in the way. Getting hung up over whether he said sorry to you specifically reflects badly on you. I pointed you to WP:SORRY: On the other hand, a sincere expression of regret, even if it stops short of a (probably insincere) admission that one has been totally to blame, can help defuse a situation, and may stand in place of an "ideal" apology. He gave an apology, it might not be what you want, but accept it; move on. Digging up diffs which don't show what you claim they show just makes it look like you have an axe to grind. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I get it, and I agree, I won't post anymore diffs okay? I do think its a bit of a sad irony that the community thinks it unfair to look at a couple of diffs and then judge BW, but isn't that exactly how BWs makes their judgements at AN/I? At any rate, the point is well made, and I will take the advice offered above. Its been a tough week for me, and BW made it much harder than it needed to be, but I'll let it go for the sake of the community. Thanks for taking the time to discuss this with me. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't hear back

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

This is your second formal request to refrain from posting to my talk page. Here is the diff of the first formal request. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Uhh, OK, I can play along with that one (wink, wink). 99.251.125.65 (talk) 02:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Please consider this is your third formal request to stop posting on my talk page. Here is the diff of the first formal request and here is the diff of the second formal request. Next time I will report you for wikistalking and harassment. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• Here is the diff of a formal warning posted to IP 99s talk page by another user. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:39, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Been running through my watchlist...

Hi Gabe. I've just been running through my watchlist from the weekend, as I often do on a Monday morning, and I see to have found your name littered across it, going for Bwilkins throat. Now, I'm not going to go into the dispute, because the more I've looked, the deeper it goes, but I am going to re-inforce the advice you've been given at a number of venues. Stop escalating this. Jimbo made a comment on the matter, a few days ago and as I understand it, Bwilkins is considering removal of his bit. Letting the dust settle, might actually come out with an outcome that's reasonable for all.

If you want to take this further, there are standard dispute resolution methods. For example, WP:RfC/U allows community input on a user, and can be an excellent intervention. It also requires 2 certifiers, which proves that it's not "all in your mind". Then there's the Arbitration Committee, which actually has the power to desysop the editor in question. Jimbo technically has the power to remove the bit in an emergency situation, but he's more of a figurehead than a seat of power, he's not likely to take action, though he may inspire others to do so. It's quite possible that it will backfire though, and the action will be taken against you, not Bwilkins.

I must re-iterate though, your attitude towards Bwilkins is tending towards Harassment, especially continuing to post on his talk page after he asked you to leave, and carrying on discussions on Jimbos page after they've been shut down. This type of behaviour is likely to lead to sanctions in the future, so please do consider walking away or following the dispute resolution processes found on wikipedia.

Oh and in case you are thinking that I'm one of "Bwilkins friends", I respect the chap, and I believe we both watch each other's talk pages, but the last two interactions we've had didn't exactly go well. I believe you'll find a lot about them in Demiurge1000's initial comment on Jimbo's page. Worm^TT(talk) 11:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the advice, I will heed your warnings. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, please don't come her and throw around the H-word. It makes me sound guilty when there has been no due process. I posted to his talk page in an attempt to work out our issues, he refused to talk about it. I posted there gain before noticing that Bwilkins had reverted my previous posts, once with the dishonest edit summary of "vandalism". I have not posted there since nor will I. For the record, Jimbo seems to generally agree with me:

"We know that for two years now, the number of people being made admins is too low. And yet we have valid concerns that admins are overstressed, and that they don't always live up to what we hope in terms of thoughtful, kind, and welcoming conduct. I think that solutions lie precisely in these directions: make it easier to become an admin so that more people can share the burden, and easier to lose the bit when there are problems."--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Jimbo does agree desysoping sysops for verbal abuse. The main point is, he will NEVER take action, not even telling people directly to support the desysopship, he simply cannot. Another thing I hope you can understand that, normally we deal with a trolling event we simply silence ourselves so the drama dies naturally. But we talk to you, implore you to stop the drama because we value your efforts spent on the project. It's these dramas which ultimately drive away our contributors, even though the very reason of the conflict stems from the sysops with verbal abuse, you just make yourself the core of the problem for hosting the drama. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 22:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I get it Sameboat, and I appreciate your efforts to discuss this with me. I've learned much this past week or two, and I will be a better user moving forward because of it. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the "H-word", I don't throw it around lightly. I've told off one user in the past week for using it without backing it up, the majority of my admin work is deletions for privacy reasons and I recently became an oversighter. It's a topic I feel strongly about and take seriously. So I hope you can see the gravity of your actions.

According to the history, Bwilkins posted at 23:03 on 22 July, suggesting further posts from you would be deleted. You went on to post 3 seperate times, once reverted by Bwilkins "As I said", Once by SarekOfVulcan [3] and then again by Bwilkins under vandalism. As it was the 3rd time you'd been reverted, I don't accept that you were unaware and therefore a vandalism summary is reasonable. Combine that with dozens of posts on Jimbo's page on the matter, yes, it does border on harassment.

I appreciate that your more recent posts have focussed on the general case, and I take on board your comments that you do not intend to post on Bwilkins page further. I will also mention that I've got a bit of spare time this weekend and I intend to set up a "Community De-adminship Proof of Concept" RfC, which I hope will be the start of a road to Community De-adminship. Worm^TT(talk) 08:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

To clarify, Bwilkins said he would blank my future posts "at his leisure", however he never once asked me to not post to his talk page. Also, I didn't know he had reverted the previous posts before I had added another. As soon as I was aware that he was reverting me there I stopped. That's the other side to it. Also, when you say I posted five times to his talk page, well, three of those were spelling corrections. Anyway, your RfC sounds interesting, I hope you will notify me as to where to comment. Thanks. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Since you asked, I've started a proof of concept RfC on community de-adminship. Please do join in. Wikipedia:Requests for Comment/Community de-adminship proof of concept Worm^TT(talk) 18:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about this Worm, nice work! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Hey Gabe.

I took the liberty of applying a week-long semiprotection to your talk page so that IPs cannot continue annoying you. This is an exceptional measure, but it should allow pressure to ease off a bit. — Coren ^(talk) 19:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks much! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

August 2012

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Pink Floyd. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Radiopathy •talk• 00:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• Okay, now I am going to formally ask you Radiopathy to never post to my talk page ever again. Your wikihounding/wikistalking is starting to concern me and I am feeling intimidated and bullied. Please, just allow the mediation to run its course and leave me alone! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:22, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Radio's recent request

This is a formal request for you to never post on my talk page again, never refer to me in an edit summary or mention me in any discussion. You're not collaborating with any one here any more, and I refuse to be part of your strategy, such as it is. Radiopathy •talk• 00:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Radio, I asked you to not post to my talk page ever again just 19 minutes before this post. Radiopathy, please consider this your second formal request to not post to my talk page ever again. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring

Gabe, you are edit warring. Please lay off the entire the/The matter entirely regardless of the group name, the MoS, or any other factor you feel justifies that behaviour, in all namespaces (including talk pages). Wait until the ongoing mediation finishes so a reasonable consensus is established at least on how that decision is made.

Some of the behaviour towards you has been atrocious, but that does not mean that they didn't have a point even if they were making it poorly. Your own editing right now is highly problematic. — Coren ^(talk) 00:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, no worries. I won't change any "t"s anywhere on wikipedia while the MedCom case is open. I really wasn't trying to make any point, I was just trying to avoid Beatles related articles until the drama dies down there, while still improving other articles. I won't be adding any fuel to this fire moving forward and I will allow MedCom to take its natural course while refraining from this issue entirely. Thanks again for the great advice. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Closing polls

Looks like about four days have passed without any new responses to the RfCs. I think you could go to WP:AN and call for a volunteer to close both of them. Binksternet (talk) 01:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Done. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

A follow up on Bwilkins

As you have expressed concern about his behavior, I think you might want to see User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#A_follow_up_on_Bwilkins. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:39, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, GabeMc. You have new messages at Charlie Inks's talk page.
Message added 01:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

hajatvrc @ 01:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Re. Teahouse

Hey, Gabe! I see that you would probably make an excellent WP:Teahouse host! That is how the rest of us first came in contact. We specialize in helping new users like Charlie. You don't have to be an "official" host to answer questions. We want everyone to be able to contribute in whatever capacity they can. Maybe you should check it out? hajatvrc @ 01:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks much Hajatvrc I will indeed take a look, it sounds quite important and worthwhile. I think the first two years for a new editor are very formative and some proper guidance during that time will pay off ten-fold to the project long-term. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:06, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Dennis Brown's talk page?

Hey, GabeMC, do you know what's going on with this diff, from DB's talk page? Somehow, I doubt that it's you, but do you know what's going on? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

That's obviously somebody trying to frame GabeMc. Check out this ugly talk page post in which the time stamp of the post does not agree with the copied-and-pasted time stamp of the signature. Foul play by a hater of Gabe. Binksternet (talk) 19:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Such was my assumption. I brought it up with Berean Hunter, who had blocked the IP, and an SPI has been opened. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:20, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about this impersonation attempt. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)So it's our old IP friend, obviously, who's managed to get himself a new address that's just a few digits off from the old one. What is standard procedure for an indeffed IP who evades blocks? I realize we can't go around blocking every IP in existence, but 48 hours seems like an odd measure for someone who's been indeffed once already. Range block, maybe? Or is that too extreme? Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:49, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe this is relevant. The sockmaster is User:KBlott, by the way. I don't know who that is, but that's who it's been all along. The confusion regarding Radiopathy, which I see has flared up again, was my fault entirely. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Waters

As our resident expert on G. Roger Waters, I was wondering if you've heard anything about these rumors that he and Gilmour are planning to tour together next year? Joefromrandb (talk) 19:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Joe, its all wishful speculation at this point, and I predict this will never happen (unfortunately). Then again, I predicted that Waters would retire after his Dark Side tours and I was certainly wrong about that one (gladly). Hope all is well wth you. Cheers! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for participating in my RfA. I appreciate your insight and am especially pleased with the advice you gave me. Although I'm not sure if you've seen me before (I've been here since 2008 and have had extensive involvement in the RfA process for years now), I do hope we'll continue to see each other around in the future. Take care, and good luck. =) Kurtis (talk) 16:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

December 8

Hi, Gabe. I have been helping out a bit at WP:TFAR and in the course of discussions there we noticed that there's nothing suitable that's already at FA level that we could put on the main page on December 8. I was hoping you would know of an article related to John Lennon or one of his songs or albums that might be close enough that it could be taken through the FA process in time for a main page appearance on that anniversary? Just a thought. -- Dianna (talk) 23:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Dianna, I'm sure I can find something suitable, thanks for asking! I'll look into it when I have the time and get back to you. Cheers! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for considering it. I know you're busy. -- Dianna (talk) 00:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Beatles note

Hate to nitpick, but I'm pretty sure you mean "...do not in any way affect Wikipedia's freedom..." Don't think this is a case of "our foreign policy effects the situation". Cheers, Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 06:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:GOCE August Copy Edit Contest

Thanks for submitting an entry for our inaugural Copy Edit of the Month contest! I've given everyone the same question to help spur discussion. Please answer it when you have a chance. Thanks. —Torchiest talkedits 02:02, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Beatles mediation

I'm afraid I fell behind on the discussion as it became drawn out and haven't caught up. What are the current issues holding up the poll? I thought the poll would have been conducted by now. Piriczki (talk) 14:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Is there something you'd like to say to me directly?

Hmmm? [4]. --Jayron32 04:01, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re:Image use RfC

I did not open the RfC, I opened a thread about the FAC. If you don't want the link in the same thread as the RfC, I'd advise that you try to get the RfC closed. I'd still like to see some more sensible input about the images; the fact that we seem to be relying on an "image review" by Noleander is horrible. J Milburn (talk) 22:11, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry if it seems like I'm derailing your nomination; I can understand that you may have a lot of hate for me if you see me as doing that. I have offered my own image review- I hope you'll agree that it's reasonable. If you are able to address what I have said there, you have my word that I will withdraw my opposition and leave the FAC well alone. J Milburn (talk) 22:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm willing to make some edits. I'll do that tomorrow. J Milburn (talk) 22:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks much Milburn! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:52, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry I didn't get to it today, I got called into work unexpectedly and I'm not up to it right now. I've got a busy few days ahead- I'll find the time, I promise. J Milburn (talk) 21:05, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I have improved the FURs for the album images used in the article and I believe they are now up to standard. Please correct me if I am mistaken. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:10, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Pink Floyd images again

I'm sorry I took so long to get back to you on this. Looking through the images again, I can see that you have made an effort to improve the rationales- that's appreciated. However, again, the stress has to be on what seeing the image adds to the article; merely explaining the importance of the album will not suffice for demonstrating what the cover adds to the article. Each image in turn-

• I'm willing to drop my objection to the lead image. I'm not utterly convinced, but there does seem to be a consensus against me.
• File:Hapshash-UFO.jpg really has to go. It's not adding all that much.
• File:Saucerful of secrets2.jpg- I've tweaked the rationale, but I do now feel that this is OK.
• File:Dark Side of the Moon.png- Again, I've given the rationale a moderate rewrite. This should be OK now.
• File:WishYouWereHere-300.jpg and File:Pink Floyd-Animals-Frontal.jpg I'm having a harder time justifying, as per Masem's comments. These covers don't seem all that hugely significant, and nor are they particularly difficult to imagine based on the description. (There's also a case to be made that they're described rather than discussed, but that's probably a whole other can of worms.) Are they really needed? Would the reader really suffer if they were unable to see the covers in the article? If you're convinced that the answer to both is "yes", I'll rewrite the rationales a little. If not, I implore you to remove them.
• File:Pink Floyd - Division Bell.jpg- Again, I have modified the rationale (I've also tagged the older version for deletion) and I'm happy with it at this time.

Hope this helps. Sorry- I'm sure you'll be getting sick of this by now. J Milburn (talk) 14:57, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry that this has been such a long and painful process- I hope you don't harbour any hatred for me, the NFC policies or the FAC process after this. Believe it or not, I've felt in the past that my articles have been damaged due to the NFCC, and I have certainly experienced the "outsider telling me how I should write my articles" thing. Hopefully the issue can be put to bed now (though, as I mentioned in the FAC, I think tying the captions to the text of the article will help clarify why the images are there, potentially avoiding issues like this in the future.) Best of luck with the FAC, and good on you for taking on such a significant article. J Milburn (talk) 08:41, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

No need to apologise, no hard feelings. I wanted it to be right and I appreciated your insights, advice and help. Cheers! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 08:43, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Beatles RfC notifications

GabeMc, I'm now slowly taking a look at some of the actions surrounding the Beatles RfC as an uninvolved admin. Could you please explain how you chose articles to notify of the RfC discussion? Specifically, I'm interested in the band articles you notified from around 00:00 September 24 to around 00:45 Wikipedia time (Pearl Jam, Pixies, etc.). I understand why you earlier put notifications on Beatles related articles, as well as your notifications of a variety of Wikipedia-space pages, but these ones I don't understand. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:30, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, in addition, could you please explain how you chose the individual editors to notify around the end of the day September 20, beginning of September 21 (Simpatico, Jwy, etc.)? Your message doesn't indicate a specific reason why those editors were chosen. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, sure Qwyrxian. Thanks for helping out. Why the band pages?

Feezo: "In reply to a********* and Binksternet, yes — we are seeking as wide a community involvement as possible, and anyone who wishes to further publicize the poll may do so." 21:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

As far as the individual notices, I only notified users who have in the past been part of this dispute either through discussion and/or !votes in polls.

Feezo: "As far as individual notifications, I don't have a quick way to do this — if someone has a bot or wants to do it manually, that's fine." 01:11, 15 September 2012 (UTC) ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Alright, the individuals I understand, but I still don't understand the bands. Why those specifically? There are hundreds of thousands of bands, so why did you choose a specific twenty or so?

Well, none of the bands I posted at include a definite article in their name, so I assumed that editors there would not be partisan toward one particular side of the dispute. Since Feezo said: "...the mediators have decided to ask editors to hold off publicizing the poll on other "The/the <band>" type pages until we have a consensus" 14:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC), I thought these were off-limits whereas bands without a "the" in their name were fine. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:12, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. I will consult with the mediators to see how they stand on the matter. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

The mediators ask that GabeMC remove the notifications. The quote to which GabeMC refers,

anyone who wishes to further publicize the poll may do so

includes a proposed notification text and is immediately followed by

Other notification texts are possible, but would definitely need to be discussed first

GabeMC's notification post is not the same as the one I proposed, as it omits the sentence

Although the poll directly affects only that band, the outcome could eventually influence the recommended style for other bands

Again, please consider this a request to remove the notifications. For the mediators, Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 16:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• I've now reverted the contentious posts. Please let me know if I missed any. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Mitt Romney FAC

In ref to your concern about article stability, I wanted to let you know that while it is under the scope of the 2012 Presidential Campaign, I haven't had a problem with this particular article and edit warring. That's not to say it can't happen or won't in the future, but that I haven't seen it since I started patrolling this topic area.--v/r - TP 15:28, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Great to hear. Thanks for the clarification. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:40, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Protests at BYU

I'm not sure if you're aware of all the talk page discussion about the protests against LDS discrimination, so I thought I'd say a few words about it here. This involves Wikipedia in reporting about things that Romney did not do; i.e. inaction instead of action. For example, Romney also did not protest against the Manson family murders, or against the assassination of Robert Kennedy, et cetera. While this distinction between action and inaction should not completely determine whether this inaction is mentioned in the Romney article, it seems to me like a significant factor. Another significant factor is that Romney's father, though he is generally acknowledged to have had a strong civil rights record, refused to publicly criticize his church on this issue.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:02, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I think we are in full agreement here. Nice work resolving the FAC comments BTW. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:06, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, last time I checked, there was a long note detailing similarities between father and son. Please consider moving the stuff about not publicly protesting into that note.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:16, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll certainly consider it. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:31, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:34, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Self-funding

Hi Gabe. I didn't want to step on your toes by changing this sentence: "His net worth of approximately $190–250 million has helped finance his political campaigns prior to 2012." However, it seems like the word "has" ought to be removed, given that the sentence is in the past tense ("prior to 2012"). Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:43, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not seeing an issue. Since "has" and "helped" are both past tense ("has" makes it perfect past), they are compatible. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:49, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The construction does raise the concern that it seems to be implying Romney had a net worth of $190-250M before any self-funded political efforts, which I am not sure is 100% accurate. The $190-250M estimate is recent, so I'm not sure it accurately reflects his worth in 1994 for example. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:06, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

To me, "has helped" gives the impression that the help may be ongoing. Removing "has" clarifies that it was in the past. The word "has" seems at best superfluous. Does it do anything useful here?Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:13, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

"Has" makes it perfect past tense, without it's just past tense. Since you object, and it may not be adding that much, I've removed the word per your concerns, and I've also tweaked the text string to avoid the false implication that Romney was worth $200M as early as 1994. Let me know what you think. Cheers! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:17, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks. I replied at the FAC page regarding your concern about repetition in the lead. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:19, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi again, Gabe.  :-) Regarding the words "during his business career", I think those words serve an important purpose: they clarify that his church positions were not full time. See what I mean?Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:00, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi AYW, I think the extent of Romney's Church involvement is all made quite clear in the article body, and isn't a specific we should be attempting to explain at that level of detail in the summary lead. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I've just now made an edit that will hopefully address your concern. Let me know what you think. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:09, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the attempt, but I think the removed four words ("during his business career") worked better. They clearly conveyed the time frame along with the fact that he was not a full-time official of his church. The new language may imply the same thing, but the reader has to think about it more, plus Romney was not really in the "church leadership". My understanding is that the church leadership is located in Utah, whereas Romney was merely a part-time local leader of his congregation.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:18, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I've now clarified the "local" aspect of his leadership. Give it a few reads, I think its better now than it was a few hours ago. Give it a chance and tell me what you think. Its more neutral. Why does his active leadership in the local Church need to be tied per se to his business career? Are the two inextricably linked for some reason other than the part-time aspect? 30 hours per week is full-time for many people. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:24, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

That's better, but this sentence was the subject of extensive discussion at the article talk page, and it might be best to revert and get consensus there first. Otherwise, "active local leader" should probably be expanded to "active, local, part-time leader". He was not really a local leader of his church until he became a stake president, and before that was only a leader of his congregation. "Bishop" in the Mormon Church is very different from that position in other churches, which is why the parenthetical was useful. In contrast, the term "stake president" is much less likely to be misleading because it does not have any contrary normal meaning, and because it is qualified in the lead by saying that it's his local area near Boston. His church role does not necessarily need to be tied to his business career, but that is a very simple way of letting the reader know the years and that it was part-time.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:41, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The lead of the Mitt Romney article's purpose is not to educate the reader on jargon-esque specifics of the subject's religion. Take another read, its getting better. I tell you what, if you really don't like it after I'm done with it tonight, feel free to restore your preferred version, no hard feelings and no worries, sound good? P.S. Please do keep the comments coming, they are a great help. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

For some reason, several editors thought it wise for the lead to include jargon. I disagreed, but if jargon is to be included then it ought to be briefly explained in the lead so that it will not mislead the readers. I can quote policy about how sentences are supposed to be understandable without forcing readers to click on links, but it's late and I'll be turning in now. See you tomorrow. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:56, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:GOCE September Copy Edit Contest

Thanks for submitting an entry for the September Copy Edit of the Month contest! Please take the opportunity to ask and answer questions there (I've given everyone the same starter question), and be sure to vote for a copy edit. Thanks.—Torchiest talkedits 02:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The truth

• If even in a situation such as this, where all known style guides recommend lower case and more than 80% of secondary sources use lower case, we are wasting huge amounts of time discussing this, then  our in-house style guide (the MoS) gives way too much power to amateur editors and fanboys in editing language and spelling, which it does not permit at all in editing content. We have to stop letting amateurs and fanboys (including editors who try to prevent even initial mention of spellings and pronunciations in other kinds of English than their own) terrorise serious and highly qualified editors and general usage on WP by wasting time that could be spent improving content. These amateurs not only make the entire encyclopedia look amateurish and unreliable; much worse, they disgust and scare off serious editors and professional copyeditors. If even in a situation such as this, where all known style guides recommend lower case and more than 80% of secondary sources use lower case, these amateurs can still waste huge amounts of time of large numbers of serious editors, the MoS has to be rephrased using much stronger language. In addition to talking about avoiding unnecessary use of capitalization, the MoS should say that capitalization is only allowed if a large majority of style guides and secondary sources use upper case. In addition, as said above, most of the few secondary sources that use uppercase are websites designed to promote and aggrandize the Beatles (professional fanboys). As for the names of literary works, like The Hobbit, "The Highwayman," etc., these are set aside from the body text with italics or quotation marks, whereas the name "the Beatles" is (usually) not. Even the Beatles themselves used the lowercase 'the' in writing about their own band. WP is full of many articles with capitalization that violates the MoS and standard English usage and often even WP:ENGVAR (for example, many electronics and IT articles, such as the trademark spelling Compact Disc despite the general usage clearly shown in the biggest UK and US dictionaries[5][6][7][8][9]), and this nonsense is aggressively defended by self-declared keepers of these holy grails against people who don't have the energy and time to fight about this for weeks and months on end, even though these people often include professional copyeditors or even large number of people armed with common sense and dictionaries and style guides. -- Espoo (talk) 09:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC).

Congratulations

Great work on the Pink Floyd article :) Plant's Strider (talk) 23:59, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

That's kind of you. Thanks much! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Props to you for wrestling my favorite band through FAC. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Ed! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:02, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

A belated congratulations from me as well! I've been mostly offline for the past few days so just now found out. Great work, Gabe! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:47, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Evan! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:53, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and thanks a lot for the barnstar! (Still getting caught up on all this stuff...) You really did the vast majority of the work, though. :) Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:53, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, every little bit helps, and I enjoy collaborating with you Evan, so thanks! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:13, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:GOCE September Copy Edit Contest

Hi, GabeMc, I've asked a question of each editor here, please feel free to ask and answer questions, and take the opportunity to vote for any candidate.Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 07:05, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I see you've already answered but I'll leave this for reference anyway :-) Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 07:05, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Imagine

I like it. The only thing I'd restore is its New Year's Eve use. Agreed there's no source (that I can find) that says it's been used since 2005 (altho it has), I believe it was sourced from 2009. And, altho the CeeLo Green performance is still in there, I think the more important point is that it is the song that ushers in the new year in the U.S. and indeed bascially, for the world. But it's very good. Hotcop2 (talk) 11:42, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, if we restore that reference, I think a mention could also go in the lead paragraph, perhaps after "recorded by many artists -- and has been used to usher in..." because with all the accolades that preceed that final sentence in the lead, it dangles like a small irrelevant point. Hotcop2 (talk) 11:49, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree and I would prefer to restore it if possible. I'll keep looking for a WP:RS for it, so please do the same and let me know if/when you find one. Thanks and cheers! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:35, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Here's a link to the 2005 New Years Eve celebration: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-8O1VkSORY There's an uploaded video for every year after. I don't think anybody's noticed that it's become a tradition yet. Hotcop2 (talk) 22:32, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Right, I guess we could source each individual year, though a YouTube vid won't pass FA. I'll keep looking for one source, since 8 would be a bit tedious, but better than nothing I guess. Thanks and cheers! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:59, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I've got it properly sourced now. Cheers! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:40, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Perfect. I made two tweaks, one in placement and one putting CeeLo's performance in context. If you don't love it, change it. But I kinda like it up there in that lead. Hotcop2 (talk) 00:03, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Nice! I restored the factoid to the article body, since we both agree it should remain in the lead. I also removed the cites from the lead since this is cited in the article body. Thanks again for your help and advice. Cheers! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:13, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

And in the spirit of the song. Hotcop2 (talk) 02:02, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:05, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe, just maybe, we don't need the second paragraph (of the lead) which exists almost word for word in the article where it fits better in the recording section. I think it kills the flow of the lead with excrutiating detail. Hotcop2 (talk) 22:58, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree in principle, and that's why I didn't include it at first, but as you can see here, it came up at FAC, and best practice is that the lead mirrors the article, summarising each section. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:10, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

You're right, it breaks the flow of the lead. I've moved the musical structure stuff to notes, maybe I'll get away with it, maybe I'll have to resurrect it, we shall see. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:56, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Abbreviations

You might not want to use the abbreviation "BS" for "barnstar" any more. :) When I first saw "removed BS from talkpage" on my watchlist, I came over here to make sure no one was harassing you! Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, good point. Thanks for the concern, sorry to cause it. I'll spell-out Barn Star next time! Cheers! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Jimi Hendrix

Looks good, thanks for clearing that up!Hoops gza (talk) 01:40, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

October 2012 Copy Edit of the Month

I added questions for everyone who made a submission at the October CEM contest. Please answer when you have a chance. Thanks! —Torchiest ^talk_edits 18:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Hendrix

Hello, GabeMc! I've seen your activity on the Hendrix article, but hadn't really looked at it until just now. On one of the few sections I expanded, the arrest for drugs in Toronto, it now finishes: "In his trial defense, Hendrix claimed that the drugs were slipped into his bag by a fan without his knowledge. He was acquitted. By all accounts he had casual sex with many women." Now, what is that last sentence doing there tacked on like that? It doesn't make sense. I know there was other stuff there before (probably unsourced), but leaving this on the end is a non sequitur. His sex life may need its own referenced paragraph. Just wanted to let you know. Cheers :> Doc talk 07:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Not my addition, I'll gladly remove it. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 07:44, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I see what it was, looking at the history. The section used to say "Drug use and women", where it now says "Drug use". Not sure when it was changed, but without more than one sentence on the women, it seems like you made a good call. Cheers :> Doc talk 07:48, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

BTW - if you're a Hendrix fan (and I assume that you are): check out this image, which I was lucky enough to take during an event with Citizen Cope. My iPhone4 doesn't take the best pictures (got out-of-focus badly to the left), didn't take a more panoramic view, the lighting was not suited for photographs, and I had limited time to take the pics (and, believe me, this was the best of the bunch ;) Jimi rocks! Doc talk 08:56, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Nice, that's beautiful, thanks for sharing. Yes, I'm a huge fan and I completely agree with you. Hendrix rocks! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 09:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

"Imagine"

How about trimming the Blaney paraphrase to simply "...Lennon attempted to raise people's awareness of their interaction with the institutions that affect their lives"? Rothorpe (talk) 14:40, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Definitely along the right lines now. Thanks for listening! Rothorpe (talk) 23:08, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Of course, thanks for your highly regarded input. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:10, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Pleasure. Can you link to where I can support it, please? (The initials confuse me.) Rothorpe (talk) 23:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement

The essay itself needs attention, of that I am certain. One of the things the exposure will achieve is getting the topic a little better known, and thus maybe it will be improved by others. We do need a policy, no ifs or buts on that one. The problem is that many editos do not understand that Wikipedia intersects with real life in may peculiar ways. "John Victim {does things] with DOGS!" is one such thing often done in class and shown to John Victim with silly sniggers. The pattern of this 'vandalism' makes that obvious. And we do nothing. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 01:12, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome! When I can make time I'll offer a few edits to the essay, if you don't mind. I think its a great idea that may be a bit ahead of its time here on Wikipedia (though way behind its time online), but that should not serve as a deterrent to your positive efforts to curb this most distasteful and damaging of negative wiki-behaviours. Cheers! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:21, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Harrison FAC

Hey, ‎Gabe. I’ll try to keep this message as to-the-point as possible. First off, thanks a bunch for taking care of so much of the tedious copyediting and source checking and such that I haven’t gotten around to yet. You really don’t know how much I appreciate that! Tomorrow I’ll be headed out of town for a week or so, and probably won’t have consistent internet access during that time. I’ll be working on one final edit of the article, though, by either editing when I get the time, or just taking notes that I can implement fully when I get back. So even when it doesn’t look like I’m working on it, I will be! If there are any more missing page numbers or any other sourcing problems that you notice in the meantime, just leave a note on the talk page and I'll get to it when I return.

And since you have done so much work on the article, I think you should feel free to go in as co-nom, if you feel like it. Not that you have to take on that responsibility if you don’t want to (I'm sure you’re still a little tired out by the McCartney thing!), but if you feel like it, I have absolutely no reservations about that whatsoever.

I shouldn’t be gone more than a week and a half at the most, so I guess we could shoot for the week of December 9. Does any of this sound good to you? Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I would love to co-nom, thanks for asking. I can't say for sure that the article will be ready to nom by 9 December though, as there are still some sourcing and copyediting issues pending, so I'll have to get back to you on what I would suggest as a nom date; I'm thinking closer to the end of the year. Cheers and safe travels! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good! By the way, since you seem to have more experience with referencing than I do, I thought I should ask -- do you know if the sfn system, or anything similar, is compatible with citing films? I was thinking of going through and adding some references to the recent Scorsese film, but I wasn’t sure whether or not putting it in as a simple Template:Cite movie would comport with FA standards. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:43, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Take a look at my sandbox for how we can cite to the Scorsese documentary. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 06:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Imagine

for TFA! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

American Pie (song)

Hello Gabe. I recently chanced upon your wonderful work on making "Imagine" a Featured Article, congrats for that :) I am eventually planning to develop the above article for FA statustoo since its a favorite song of mine. May I ask your opinion on something? If so, in the article there is a huge section about singer Madonna's cover of the song, which I guess was released as a single. Now it has its own tracklists, backgrounds, infobox image, music video images etc. Do the cover art images pass NFCC? Isn't it redundant since the cover doesn't add anything for the reader to understand as well as the music video image? —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 11:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Gabe. I will start working on the article and present you with a draft for your valuable inputs. By the way, do you think its rude for me to work on the article without checking its primary contributor? Because last I checked its highest contributor hasn't edited for a long-long time. I ask because an editor just made personal attacks at me to that user for starting work on this article, so just was wondering. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 19:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm in the process of collecting sources. I think the background info regarding the song is readily available, just searching stuff regarding its charts etc. Some of the charts are not listed at WP:GOODCHARTS lets see if Google can shed some light. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 03:43, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Imagine (song)

This is a note to let the main editors of Imagine (song) know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on December 8, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 8, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

"Imagine" is a song written and performed by English musician John Lennon. Its lyrical statement challenges the listener to imagine a world at peace, without the divisiveness and barriers of religious denominations and nationalities, and to consider that people should be living a life unattached to material possessions. Lennon and Yoko Ono co-produced the song and album of the same name with Phil Spector. One month after the September 1971 release of the LP, Lennon released "Imagine" as a single in the United States; the song peaked at number 3 on the Billboard Hot 100 and the album became the most commercially successful and critically acclaimed of his solo career. Lennon released "Imagine" as a single in the United Kingdom in 1975, and the song has since sold more than 1.6 million copies in the UK. It earned a Grammy Hall of Fame Award, an induction into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame's 500 Songs that Shaped Rock and Roll, and Rolling Stone ranked it number 3 in their list of "The 500 Greatest Songs of All Time". (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Congrats!

Hotcop2 (talk) 16:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Hotcop2! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:01, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

IP subpage

Hi Gabe. I've put your IP talk subpage on my watchlist, and I'll check it periodically for harrassment and revdel anything necessary. That should ensure that you can talk with good-faith IPs should you feel the need. I want to correct you about something as well - the threshold for editing your talk page is being autoconfirmed, not just registering an account. It takes 4 days and 10 edits to become autoconfirmed, so you might find the occasional registered user needs to edit the subpage too. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 07:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Strad! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations

Hi Gabe! I'd like to congratulate you on the Main Page feature yesterday/a few hours ago. Never forget that your very hard work is greatly appreciated! szyslak (t) 04:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks szyslak. Your kind words are very much appreciated! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:23, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

did you vote?

hi there, your vote in ArbCom elections triggered a spoof CSRF alarm. Would you be so kind as to please confirm that you actually voted? :) Apologies for the inconvenience. Pundit|utter 07:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I !voted. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 09:57, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:TFAR

Hello, if you get a chance, would you mind popping back to WP:Today's featured article/requests? There are now two suggested articles for 1st January and I'm inviting input as to which one people would prefer for the day itself and when the other one might be scheduled instead. Thanks, Bencherlite^Talk 09:42, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Now sorted: Vidya Balan on 14th Dec, her wedding day, and Action of 1 January 1800 to start the new year. Bencherlite^Talk 11:14, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Winter Wonderland

Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, peoples rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension.

Happy Holidays. ```Buster Seven Talk 15:16, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Buster7. Happy Holidays to you as well! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:09, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Your comment at my talk

Hi Gabe. This is to let you know that I removed your comment over at my talk. Things like "put your ego aside" are really unnecessary, and the whole thing came across as being a bit combative. If we sour the atmosphere at the thread it only makes things that much less likely to reach a satisfactory outcome, so I hope you can understand my reasoning here. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 02:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

No worries, I do understand and agree with you. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Re:

I thought we amicably settled this ages ago, and I have already indicated my regret at getting involved. I regret that you got into further trouble because of that, but I think to expect me to check all the sources whose quotes you changed is unfair (and you changed the entire article's), especially when you didn't indicate that you were actually correcting the text in a few cases. All the same, my apologies again.—indopug (talk) 14:10, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Monterey Purple

Hello, GabeMc! Glad to see you're continually improving the Hendrix article - keep up the good work! I was looking through the drug use section again and remembered that it's been claimed that Jimi took some "Monterey Purple" acid at the Pop festival before he performed. I believe I first read it in the John Phillips autobiography Papa John (a cool book), but can't verify that just yet as I can't find my copy. Doing some quick research I came across this interesting article, which doesn't confirm what I was looking for, but is fascinating and worth a'-sharing. I'll keep researching, but I think it would be interesting to mention that Jimi was tripping on acid at Monterey in the section if it were true (or at least verifiable). Cheers :> Doc talk 09:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Hey thanks for the tip. I agree, it would be great to include that datum if it were indeed verifiable. I'll look into the matter as well. Cheers! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 09:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

2013

File:Happy New Year 2013.jpg		Have an enjoyable New Year!
		Hello GabeMc: Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Northamerica1000(talk) 15:18, 1 January 2013 (UTC) Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2013}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

File mover

Hello, following a review of your contributions, I have enabled filemover on your account. Please take note of the following:

• Do not move any files to a new name with a different file extension—you can break them.
• Filemover is only for the eight conditions outlined in Wikipedia:File mover: (1) Uploader request, (2) Meaningless names, (3) Misleading names, (4) Generic biological names, (5) Incorrect file names, (6) Harmonization of file names in templates, (7) Disambiguation of files with similar names, and (8) Offensive names.
• Having Filemover rights does not give you any special status or authority.
• Misuse of Filemover can lead to its removal by any administrator.
• Please read Wikipedia:File mover and Help:Moving a page to understand this feature.
• You can display the {{User wikipedia/Filemover}} userbox or the {{File Mover}} top icon on your user page.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me. Good luck! Reaper Eternal (talk) 04:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Working out the details at Wikipedia:Today's article for improvement

The RFC for TAFI is nearing it's conclusion, and it's time to hammer out the details over at the project's talk page. There are several details of the project that would do well with wider input and participation, such as the article nomination and selection process, the amount and type of articles displayed, the implementation on the main page and other things. I would like to invite you to comment there if you continue to be interested in TAFI's development. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 02:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

re Harrison FAC

Thanks for both those messages, GabeMC, that's very generous of you. Still, as I've said to Evanh – don't be shy about reverting or telling me to stick my neck back in as and when! Cheers, JG66 (talk) 09:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

An invitation for you!

	Hello, GabeMc. You're invited to join WikiProject Today's article for improvement. If you're interested in participating, please add your name to the list of members. Happy editing! Northamerica1000(talk) 23:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Cher peer review

Hi. Since you give comments on music-related articles that are listed at WP:PR and User:Noleander recommended you as a FA-expert, I was wondering if you could give some helpful comments to Wikipedia:Peer review/Cher/archive1? Thanks, Lordelliott (talk) 21:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello Lordelliott. Sure, I'll make some time to help out, thanks for asking. Cheers! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:20, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for helping! I'd like you to begin a new PR. Lordelliott (talk) 22:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome! I should have some time later tonight to start a PR. Cheers! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Right! I've already replied to your comments on the PR. Lordelliott (talk) 17:55, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I've made some valuable adds to the article (particularly the 1960s and 1970s subsections). Now I think we can continue to work on the PR, if you have time. Lordelliott (talk) 19:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely. I'll have some time late tonight to continue the PR. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. I will work on that soon. Lordelliott (talk) 05:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I totally agree with you, great advice. Lordelliott (talk) 06:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar! I must assume that my work editing Cher would be in vain without your excellent advices. I'm very happy to work with you. Lordelliott (talk) 17:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

You're very welcome! Thanks much for your patience with my review. I'm quite excited to see how tight this article will be when we finish! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Me too! Right now I can't work on the cite bundling because I don't know how to cite the refs that doesn't have an author. I will work on the image alt text. Thanks for asking User:Rothorpe to do some copy edit, his edits were very valuable. Not that I care that much, but I'm a Portuguese native speaker (not Spanish). :) Can't wait to return back to work on the article. Hope all is well with you too! Lordelliott (talk) 06:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to know how to name the RIAA source, since it doesn't have a year and the publisher (Recording Industry Association of America) is linked on the source. Even when I remove the link, the naming doesn't work. Lordelliott (talk) 17:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, how do I name a source to the publisher when it is linked between [[ ]] on the ref? Lordelliott (talk) 17:41, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Ref 61. Lordelliott (talk) 01:15, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Hey man. Sorry for taking so long to reply to your suggestions. I'm pretty busy right now, but I will do my best to keep it in fast mode since the article is long and I don't want this peer review to last forever. Your suggestions are really helpful, thanks!! Lordelliott (talk) 19:17, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I will work on your new suggestions soon. Meanwhile, could you reply the questions I made on the PR? Lordelliott (talk) 01:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy new year for you too! Thanks for helping me with your superb advices. Lordelliott (talk) 06:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks much. I'll add some comments now. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The "high lifestyle" and the Garret vs Sonny ones. Lordelliott (talk) 00:24, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• I'm really no good with alt text. I could easily describe the pictures in my native language, but my English skills are limited to the basic. I will try to add alt text for every image, but surely I will need some help. Lordelliott (talk) 03:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• You'll improve, don't worry. Practice is the only way to learn. I'll follow-up and take a look at each one you add. I wasn't any good at alt text at first either, but it needs to be done to meet the FAC criteria. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• I think we can continue the PR while I try to add alt text to every image on the article. Lordelliott (talk) 19:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• I'll have a new batch of comments for you soon. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 07:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

George Harrison

Hey, would you be willing to ping me when you think you're done addressing JG66's comments? I'm eager to review the article but I feel like I should wait until those changes go through. --Laser brain (talk) 15:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Paul McCartney

There is a missing bracket in the article and I haven't a clue where it should go. The text, where the beginning bracket starts:

{{refn|group=nb|The ''Sgt. Pepper'' cover piqued a frenzy of analysis.<ref>{{harvnb|Gould|2007|pp=391–395}}: The ''Sgt. Pepper'' cover attracted curiosity and analysis; {{harvnb|Miles|1997|p=333}}: On McCartney's....

Bgwhite (talk) 07:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for the note! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Terminal punctuation at the Beatles article

When I was at school, I was taught, with grammar, that fullstops inside quotation marks should only occur when the complete sentence is a quotation - otherwise the fullstop should always be made outside the quotation mark. If you feel that I have done the wrong thing, then editing out what I have done should be easy - all that is needed to be done is to go to the edit prior to my first edit regarding this, to undo mine, and then it will be as though my edits never happened. Figaro (talk) 09:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

You may well be correct about this and I would hate to undue all your work if you are. Perhaps, this discussion should occur at MOS:LQ. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello GabeMc: I've edited some on the Beatles and now I've consulted one of the many sources of authority about grammar, etc. I've no problem reversing any edits now that I see that authorites on UK English grammar vs American English grammar got it so that if the page is an English page it goes with logic more and if it is American, it goes most always with putting commas and periods inside the quotes, "periods inside at the end of a sentence." I put the periods inside the quotes on some "song titles," like that comma, but I've only gone down about 8 paragraphs in "The Beatles." You seem to have done most of the work on the article, which is a good article. Would you rather keep to the English style since the Beatles were from England, or is there some authority that ought to be consulted other than your choice? Just let me know. For the time being, I'm going to change the song titles back to "She Loves You", that is instead of "She Loves You." Let me know should you have any objections or find out any "superior" authority on this. I don't know whether if would have anything to do with an organization called WorldCat, listed as a web site at toward the bottom of the page. Thank you.IraChesterfield (talk) 23:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello IraChesterfield. Per WP:ENGVAR, we should use a system that respects British English guidelines over American English guidelines at articles about British subjects. Per MOS:LQ: "On Wikipedia, place all punctuation marks inside the quotation marks if they are part of the quoted material and outside if they are not. This practice is sometimes referred to as logical quotation. It is used here because it is deemed by Wikipedia consensus to be more in keeping with the principle of minimal change. This punctuation system does not require placing final periods and commas outside the quotation marks all the time, but rather maintaining their original positions in (or absence from) the quoted material."

In terms of song titles, I think placing punctuation outside quotes makes more sense then does inside. Hope this helps. Cheers! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)