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 Canadian drug charges and trial of Jimi Hendrix to FA status recently. If you would like to see this (or any other FA) appear as "Today's featured article" soon, please nominate it at the requests page; if you'd like to see an FA on a particular date in the next year or so, please add it to the "pending" list. In the absence of a request, the article may end up being picked at any time (although with 1,323 articles in Category:Featured articles that have not appeared on the main page at present, there's no telling how long – or short! – the wait might be). If you'd got any TFA-related questions or problems, please let me know. Bencherlite^Talk 22:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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