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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Add Momentum and Magnet. Remove Candle.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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