Loading AI tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hi GabeMc. How would you feel about posting a message about the straw poll at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Beatles? It probably would generate more comments from editors who have contributed to Beatles-related articles. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 00:25, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I reached you because you commented on the AfD discussion page of List of Best Selling Girl Groups http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_best-selling_girl_groups. First I want to say that I'm new in this, so I would like to seek your advice as to what step to take regarding this. You see, the male equivalent of the page, "List of Best Selling Boybands" has been deleted as per the consensus here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_best-selling_boy_bands. I strongly feel that this is inconsistency, just as this guide explained. The argument for deletion was the exactly the same and yet the consensus was different. I would like to know if there's a place somewhere where I can bring this issue up, so that consistency can be reached. I've tried contacting the admin here but he said there's nothing he could do because he was only following the consensus. Thank you. Krystaleen (talk) 04:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
What you're doing does no harm, but I can tell you it is one of the most hopeless tasks in all of WP. All it takes is one piece of text to be moved around, or one set of multiple cites to be simplified, or any of several other changes, and all your work is undone. It's especially true on an actively edited article like this one. There should really be a bot that does this ... Wasted Time R (talk) 01:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
A click to the document and a click to a page that has a bunch of stuff to sort through to get to a page are not the same thing. I still think its worth having the links. On the other hand, the download savings will be imperceptible. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 07:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi! Could you please explain on the Mitt Romney talkpage why he is not the nominee? Though not yet formal, all news agencies are now reporting he is the nominee. He has enough delegates, thus he is the nominee. Also, what is this Wasted you quoted in your undo? Thanks. AndrewrpTally-ho! 03:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
at my successful RFA |
Thank you, GabeMc, for !voting at my successful RFA; I am humbled that you put your trust in me. I grant you this flower, which, if tended to properly, will grow to be the fruit of Wikipedia's labours. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC) |
Hmmm? . --Jayron32 04:01, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Please consider this your third formal request to leave me, and my talk page alone. I do not want to discuss anything with you and your continued bulling of me is inappropriate and unbecoming an admin. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Just wanted to stop by and say that this is not actually in the passive voice. A lot of armchair grammarians tend to lead people to conclusions like that by giving them "words to watch" in their writing to identify passive prose, when that's actually a terribly ineffective way of doing it. What you want to look for is whether the subject of the sentence is performing an action or having an action performed upon it. In this case the only way to get that sentence into the passive voice would be to phrase it as "Thirty-two number-one singles on the Billboard Hot 100 were written by McCartney", or something similarly obtuse. Both versions in that diff are in the active voice; yours uses the simple past tense, while the other utilises the past perfect. Anyway, it's no big deal. I try not to be an obnoxious grammar cop, but I just thought you might want to know. :) Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 01:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. The discussion on its continued use concluded with consensus in favour of its removal, without prejudice against future reinstatement based on consensual discussion. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges.
For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.
If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. -- Dianna (talk) 02:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I was wondering if you could lend your expertise to a content dispute. I'm having a disagreement with an editor at Talk:The Weeknd#Music... over whether an addition is trivial or not to a musician BLP article. Should the editor's addition of a song accolade and description be distributed to the associated album article, House of Balloons, or to the recording artist's article, The Weeknd, where it doesnt seem to have any biographical relevance (in my opinion)? Feel free to comment here or at Talk:The Weeknd#Music.... Dan56 (talk) 17:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I missed that. Thanks for pointing it out. I'll bring it up for discussion on the main talk page to see what everyone has to say. Friginator (talk) 01:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Gabe: On January 28, 2013, you made an edit in line 215 of the Jimi Hendrix Wiki page dealing with what is now footnote #131. First let me say that I wholeheartedly support your edit, even though it deleted a footnote reference to an article I authored. I originally inserted that previous reference in order to establish the fact that Hendrix's performance at the Second Atlanta International Pop Festival (July 3-5, 1970) was to the largest American audience of his career. However, my article did not so much 'establish' the fact as merely reference it, while your edit provided a somewhat more substantial source for the fact. Unfortunately, the sentence now referenced in the Hendrix Wiki page includes an erroneous statement about the size of the festival audience, "nearly 500,000", that should be revised or deleted.
In association with research I did while preparing an application for an official historical marker for the Second Atlanta Pop Festival, by far the most time I spent on any single subject was while trying to corroborate crowd-size estimates for the festival. In fact, THERE ARE NO CREDIBLE ESTIMATES FOR THAT CROWD. The only published estimates are widely disparate statements from newspaper articles of the time that range from 200,000 to 600,000, and NONE OF THEM ESTIMATE THE SIZE OF THE AUDIENCE ACTUALLY SEATED IN FRONT OF THE STAGE FOR PERFORMANCES. Also, no photos or film footage exist (and I have seen a lot, including un-released film footage) which would enable any estimate at all for the night-time crowd during Hendrix's set. Finally, even though I was personally at the festival working on the stage crew, and was on stage during Hendrix's set, I cannot provide any credible estimate of my own for the crowd size. Having said all this, my research did give me sufficient grounds for arriving at a general estimate that I can personally believe in for the size of the crowd that actually witnessed Hendrix's performance, but even that covers a range: 200,000-300,000 (with the greatest credibility in the lowest part of that range). This was also, in my opinion, the largest the front-of-stage crowd ever got during the festival.
Despite all this uncertainty, this still means that the Atlanta festival was Hendrix's largest American audience, and other Hendrix scholars and authors I consulted during my research agree. It's just that any use of a figure like '500,000' is simply erroneous and embarrassing, and should be avoided. We need to come up with alternate wording that can be defended. Unfortunately, once we do that, a direct reference to the authors you currently cite (Schinder & Schwartz) might be considered slightly awkward unless we shift the order of the sentence, with the current footnote referencing the "largest American audience of his career," coming first, and with a re-worded crowd-size estimate following that (e.g.: "based on attendance estimates from officials and news reports ranging from 200,000 to 500,000."). If we do that, it would work AND it would be accurate, credible and defensible. Please let me know what you think. Bmankin1 (talk) 16:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Gabe, thanks for the encouragement at my talk page. Yah, this FAC(s) (Sesame Street research) has given me fits. I don't think I've had as much trouble as my first-ever FAC, way back in 2008--The Wiggles, which went through 5 FACs, mostly due to my inexperience as an editor. This time, I think it's because the topic is surprisingly complicated and off-putting to reviewers. When I resubmit, I think that I'm going to be a bit proactive about it and ping involved and interested editors to help support it, something I tend to avoid doing because I think it borders on gaming the system. I think I should make an exception with this article because I'm not sure it's going to pass otherwise. That bring me to my question. I was intending to resubmit the article to FAC in a couple of days, but you seem to suggest on my talk page that I should resubmit in two weeks. Would it be untoward if I resubmitted so quickly? I don't really want to wait two whole weeks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 07:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dobroslav Jevđević/archive1: thanks much, this is a very slow time for Milhist reviewers at FAC for some reason. But ... I'm not sure the delegates will count that as a review. Was there anything in particular you liked or didn't like about the article? - Dank (push to talk) 19:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello sir, we would like your suggestions on the fac. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Priyanka Chopra/archive1. Please , review it and represent your thoughts. Thsnk You.Prashant ✉ 18:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Gabe, thanks for your review. I'm still a bit confused over the inconsistencies comment. ceranthor 23:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Hey Gabe, I'm taking you up on your promise to go look at Sesame Street research, which I've just re-submitted for FAC. You'll see that I was a good girl and waited the obligatory two weeks, and that I'm obviously not above begging. I thank you for your assistance ahead of time. ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:09, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
![]() You are invited to join WikiProject Cleanup, a WikiProject and resource for Wikipedia cleanup listings, information and discussion. |
---|
Hi Gabe, Just to let you know I have left some more comments on the Jimi Hendrix death article. I will continue over the next few days :-) -- CassiantoTalk 08:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi! I'm so sorry for not being able to keep the Cher PR in the last days. I will reply to your suggestions right now. Hope you're not bothered with the delay. Cheers, Lordelliott (talk) 18:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
I noticed that you review many feature articles. Would you be able to review alcohol laws of New Jersey? It has been nominated as a feature article. DavidinNJ (talk) 01:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
I replied to you at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Alcohol laws of New Jersey/archive1. I found a much better liquor store picture and reduced the captions on a number of the images. DavidinNJ (talk) 19:27, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
You commented on the FAC nomination for Alcohol laws of New Jersey and we appreciate your considerable detail and keen attention in this matter. We believe that we have addressed your concerns (to date) and improved the article, can we now count on your support? --ColonelHenry (talk) 16:26, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Gabe, Thank you for very much for supporting our article, and for the extensive amount of time you spent reviewing our article. It is greatly appreciated. DavidinNJ (talk) 02:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Congratulations on the promotion Gabe. Thoroughly deserved! -- CassiantoTalk 22:43, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Karl Marx. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. Please delete if not interested! — RFC bot (talk) 12:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patriot1010 (talk • contribs)
Hey, Gabe. Just wanted to stop by and extend my congratulations on getting Death of Jimi Hendrix to Featured status. It's a great article and you did a fantastic job on it! Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 23:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
A belated congratulation from me as well.--Tomcat (7) 10:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I went ahead and protected it for a few days. Thanks for being vigilant on the page, lemme know if they come back to cause trouble. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:21, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi Gabe. Earlier today DirtLawyer1 asked for my continued participation in the dustup at the Vital Articles pages. One frustrating thing is that the breakup into 10 - 100 - 1,000 - and 10,000 means there are four talk pages regarding the four lists, with several very long talkpages being confusing. In my thinking, one central place is needed to regularize matters. That place, logically, should be the over-arching Wikipedia:WikiProject Vital Articles pages, of which you may already be aware but are not a member of. DirtLawyer1 and I have just joined it, and I see PBP is already a member. At the talk page there, we can all hopefully establish a centralized discussion regarding goals, methods, priorities and pacing of proposed changes.
Also, we need to ensure that the proposed changes do not conflict with WP:CORE which is highly similar and which, frankly, I find redundant in some ways. In any case, my hope is that you and others involved in the current effort at "Vital" can join PBP, DL1 and I in this WikiProject and that we can entice others formerly involved here to add their expertise to the mix. With best wishes, Jusdafax 03:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi Gabe, After posting on the talk page and not receiving any feedback I've gone ahead and made a bunch of copy edits and moved several sentences around for better organization. I've also added some new sourced content in several places. If you have any time to take a look at the article I'd appreciate any feedback or comments you may have about my work. Thanks so much. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:36, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi Gabe, its me again :-) As you know I did some significant editing and clean up a year or so ago on this article. However, I was chased away by Andresegde. In my absence he/she undid all of my edits and recreated issues I had tried to resolve. I have concerns that this article no longer meets GA standards. This concern has been echoed by editors at BLPN. (My concerns and links to the BLPN discussions can be seen on the talk page here). At this point there are two things that can be done 1) reassess and remove GA status or 2) fix it up so it can retain its GA status. I would prefer the latter but after my last experience I would prefer to work alongside one or two other editors. Would you be interested in this project? or do you know others that would like to work on it with me? Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:07, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I'm having trouble discussing genre changes with an IP at Are You Experienced. After reverting my cleanup of his OR-filled, poorly cited genre addition, he avoided commenting on the content and once again accused me of something and threatened to "report me" somewhere at this talk page. My attempts to his talk page before were deleted by him, and soliciting comments from other editors naturally led the IP to comment similarly (here and here). Could you comment at Talk:Are You Experienced#Researching genres? Dan56 (talk) 19:33, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
That's it I just reported you to the last admin that blocked You enough of this foolishness Quit trying to Edit war as you down here [] sock puppeting as you done with 82.39.108.194 and EDIT WAR BY PROXY(Having others revert edits for you) , and Violation of WP:Npov — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.65.123.86 (talk) 19:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
The Special Barnstar |
You're just such a bloody hard worker. Our readers are grateful for all you have done. You're also a pleasure to work with. John (talk) 20:50, 28 March 2013 (UTC) |
![]() |
The Mediation Award | |
Regardless of who did what to create the issues that led to the dispute, I find this apology and good faith effort to renew peace and harmony in Wiki-land to be a courageous act of kindness that is worthy of recognition. Peace!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:28, 29 March 2013 (UTC) |
It's all good. Others assisted, and the IP naturally went away. Appreciate the response. Dan56 (talk) 23:23, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi, GabeMc! Actually, I support including both politicians, that's why I voted double. --NaBUru38 (talk) 22:39, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
I am dropping by to say thank you for your input on some of my suggestions, although some of your views really baffle me, I don't want to put you off or annoy you. We are agreeing on a lot now which is good. We will have to agree to disagree on some topics and wait for others opinions too. I like that you suggested Gibran good call. I hope we can all push the project forward slowly but surely. And if you agree on half of a swap thread but not the other please say, we will get a clearer picture. Carlwev (talk) 23:17, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
GabeMc, alcohol laws of New Jersey was made a feature article. Thank you for your help. We are petitioning to have it placed on the main page for a day - Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. DavidinNJ (talk) 12:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
I think you've made a very wise decision, difficult though it must have been for you. It's all down to the delegates now, so don't give up hope just yet. Malleus Fatuorum 22:21, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Hey Gabe, thanks for your willingness to help out with the PB page. I know you are busy, so I don't expect you to do a lot of work but I would just like you to look at my edits from time to time and give feedback on the talk page on any issues that arise. For example, I have made a few bold edits today. If you could look at those and if you have any objections or input, please make a note on the talk page. Thanks! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:10, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Congratulations on passing FAC with the article. I can see how much work you put into it and it's very exciting to see it in this condition, baubles aside. Harrison is my all-time favorite musician and I've been grimacing at his article since at least 2007, wishing I had the time and energy to improve it. Kudos! --Spike Wilbury (talk) 18:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Very well deserved. A lesser editor might have been tempted to give up, but you stuck with it. Malleus Fatuorum 18:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Congratulations! I've been watching the progression of this FAC, and I'm very happy to see that it was successful. szyslak (t) 19:45, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
Congratulations on your FAC for Georgie one! — Keithbob • Talk • 13:55, 13 April 2013 (UTC) |
![]() |
Have one on me, too! A great accomplishment. -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:28, 17 April 2013 (UTC) |
Hi Gabe, the reference for Ringo playing on the stereo album versions of "Love Me Do" & "P.S. ILove You" is also Mark Lewisohn in the album liner notes for Anthology V.1 and in his book on Beatles recording sessions. So what's your problem?The Dart (talk) 22:42, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
This is a note to let the main editors of George Harrison know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on May 4, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or one of his delegates (Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), Gimmetoo (talk · contribs), and Bencherlite (talk · contribs)), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 4, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:
George Harrison (1943–2001) was an English musician, singer, and songwriter who achieved international fame as the lead guitarist of the Beatles. By 1965 Harrison had begun to lead the other Beatles into folk rock through his interest in the Byrds and Bob Dylan, and towards Indian classical music through his use of the sitar on "Norwegian Wood (This Bird Has Flown)". He developed an interest in the Hare Krishna movement and became an admirer of Indian culture and mysticism, introducing them to the other Beatles and their Western audience. Following the band's break-up in 1970, Harrison released several best-selling singles and albums as a solo performer, and in 1988 co-founded the platinum-selling supergroup the Traveling Wilburys. A prolific recording artist, he was featured as a guest guitarist on tracks by Badfinger, Ronnie Wood and Billy Preston, and collaborated on songs and music with Bob Dylan, Eric Clapton and Tom Petty, among others. He also organized the 1971 Concert for Bangladesh with Ravi Shankar, a precursor to later benefit concerts such as Live Aid. Harrison was also a music and film producer, founding Dark Horse Records in 1974 and co-founding HandMade Films in 1978. (Full article...)
Hi Gabe, since you helped out at my last FAC (Sesame Street research), I thought I'd ask if you could help out again with my latest one . Would you mind? It's been languishing for a while, so I'm drumming up folks to review it. I'd really appreciate it, thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Gabe, Lloyd is now starring FAC, so any comments would be most welcome. Hope your well! --CassiantoTalk 09:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Gabe. If you don't have immediate plans to nominate Ringo Starr for FAC within the next two weeks or so, I think I'll be moving forward with the Zeppelin article before too long (thanks for your help over there, BTW). Let me know if that works for you. Thanks! Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 19:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Could you comment at this POV dispute? It involves whether material from a source should be included in an article. Dan56 (talk) 23:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
I suggest that the mention of his Kt is germane to both sections (chronology, awards & decorations) and the two mentions are so far removed from each other that, unless we care to assume that every reader will read the whole article, it is a courtesy to the reader to mention this point both places (e.g., a reader who clicks immediately on the outline link to "Awards" will not find this important award). Patrickwooldridge (talk) 07:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi GabeMc. I've replied about MOS:LQ on my talk page. It's a very interesting question, and I'm hoping that stalkers may drop by and offer advice. May I gently suggest that it's time to drop the line of questioning of Torchiest on the election page? Obviously it's only my suggestion, but you're pushing him for justification of why he voted for someone else rather than you; it doesn't reflect very well and it might even boomerang. He has voted for you at least once, so I'm confident it's not personal. (I actually agree with the distinction he's making between copy editing and article expansion, by the way. It's not completely sharp, but it's there, I think). Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 21:56, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
FYI, I've left a message for JG66 asking him to stop leaving messages on your talk page. I've advised him to hash out any content disputes he has with you on the appropriate article talk pages and to use dispute resolution if necessary (WP:3O, etc.). --Spike Wilbury (talk) 16:33, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
—Odysseus1479 02:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello. You have a new message at Odysseus1479's talk page.—Odysseus1479 03:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello. You have a new message at Odysseus1479's talk page.—Odysseus1479 06:00, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
You might be interested in this discussion. Hot Stop talk-contribs 04:33, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Please would you take a look at WT:MOS#RfC on MOS:LQ? and maybe also this comment by User:Tony1? I don't know whether the current RFC is as out of process as Peter and Tony imply, but it does seem that a new one with a somewhat different question is what we really need. I would close the existing one, but can't, as I'm obviously involved. As the raiser, you can withdraw it, I think. Would you be willing to, please? It may then be that someone will wish to raise an RFC specifically proposing the adoption of option 4. Regards, --Stfg (talk) 10:59, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Gabe, I am glad to see that you are participating in the VA/E topic discussions again. Hopefully, you will find that the better organization and increased participation by others is contributing to better discussions and outcomes, and ultimately to an improved VA/E list. Cheers, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:19, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Given how suportive you were of globalizing the music section last time we worked on it I really would havr thought that you of anyoe whould be able to see why the folk and country list needs some people that are not Americans. What is your rationale for keeping all those American country musicians and opposing adding an Irish band?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
The first two lines of "I'll Get You" is "Imagine I'm in Love with you, it's easy if you try..." so how is this unsourced? That's the lyric, written one year before Grapefuit and three years before Lennon read it. Hotcop2 (talk) 22:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Gabe, is there a reason for de-alphabetizing topics within the VA/E categories? I have been doing my best to keep discussion topics in alpha order, notwithstanding the fact that some participants don't seem to get it, and just add topics willy-nilly. . . . Please advise. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi. If it's no bother, could you comment at this discussion at Aaliyah (album)? It concerns this removal/revision made by an editor. Dan56 (talk) 21:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello, sorry to bother you but I noticed you had been a huge contributor to The Beatles article (well done on that by the way, it looks fantastic) and I thought you might be able to help. Yesterday, the New Brighton Tower article was on the front page DYK and someone pointed out that it is likely the hook used was incorrect.
"Did you know... that the Beatles played at New Brighton Tower (pictured) a total of 27 times, more than any venue except the Cavern Club?"
From briefly looking at the Beatles article the New Brighton Tower doesn't seem to beat the Hamburg venue. Would you be able to confirm if this was the second most played UK venue?
Thanks very much, ツStacey (talk) 10:15, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi. An editor that I rubbed the wrong way in a previous dispute may be using my FAC here as a venue for continuing their incivility. They appear to be making claims that are unlikely and posed only for the sake of argument. If I'm wrong, the FAC could you an opinion from an experienced editor either way. If it's no bother, could you comment/vote yourself at my nomination? It's a relatively short article to review. If not, feel free to ignore this message. Dan56 (talk) 04:39, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I'll take a look at this FAC and provide a review after you're done with the long list provided by the other reviewer...hoping that user's comments will call to attention anything I might notice. No sense duplicating a moot point, eh? The article looks good and will definitely get my support. If you have the time in between addressing your FAC's reviewers, I'd love to have your review for an FAC for my work on the article Trees (poem), which can be found at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Trees (poem)/archive1, and for a featured list candidate, List of colonial governors of New Jersey which can be found at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of colonial governors of New Jersey/archive1. Thanks. All the best, --ColonelHenry (talk) 23:01, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
![]() | Did you know ... that since you expressed an opinion on the GA/DYK proposal last year, we invite you to contribute to a formal Request for Comment on the matter? Please see the proposal on its subpage here, or on the main DYK talk page. To add the discussion to your watchlist, click this link. Regards, Gilderien Chat|What I've done22:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC) |
Why did you close the "Add Flamenco, Remove Robert Joffrey" proposal? It has 75% support, it just need to go over the 6 vote limit. --V3n0M93 (talk) 19:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
The Guild of Copy Editors' Award | |
Thanks for your submission to the June 2013 Copy Edit of the Month contest, and congratulations! For your work on Sue Me, Sue You Blues, you've earned the Gold. Great job! —Torchiest talkedits 01:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC) |
Hi. I added some comments about the Ringo Starr article. Take a look when you have a chance. Jimknut (talk) 22:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Re his awards: they don't come bigger than a knighthood. If the article is going to have a section titled "Awards" then the major awards have to be listed, regardless of whether they are mentioned in the text or not. There is no rule against referring to something in two sections. On the other hand, if you omit the MBE and the Knighthood from the section, anyone who looks at it critically will know immediately that something is lacking. It is simply not encyclopedic to have a section headed "Awards" and then leave them out of it! If the doubling up really offends you, then remove it from the chronology and state it more fully in the "Awards" section.
Amandajm (talk) 10:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I'm close to losing my composure (probably have already) at a POV discussion here with two editors who regularly contribute to the article in question and have been contesting what I feel are my improvements to the article. If it's not too much of a bother, would you care to chime in? An impartial view would be much appreciated, particularly one that doesn't continuously make reference to their own personal "knowledge" of the topic. Dan56 (talk) 22:19, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Let's do it! You might also want to take a look at what's gone on on his talk page, where I ask him to stop personally attacking me (and you), and he says nothing but "Go troll somewhere else kid", even when I inform him that I'm neither a kid nor a troll pbp 18:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
I think there's two I sent, one yesterday and one today. Read today's first, it concerns certain things that happened yesterday evening and how to generally improve the RfC/U pbp 14:58, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi Gabe, since you reviewed the last Sesame Street article up at FAC, I wondered if you could review the most recent one up there now: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Format of Sesame Street/archive1. I need it done quickly, so that I can get into the finals of the Wikicup in ten days, something I'd really like to accomplish. I'd appreciate your assistance greatly. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 01:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Finally got a few minutes to address your initial comments on the FAC. Would you be able to give the FAC nomination for Trees (poem) a second pass. So far, I've resolved a lot of comments, there were few suggestions you proffered that I disagreed with. The article does need a little support.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
You reverted an edit I made and thereby removed this text. Why?
Charles R. Cross biography references army medical documents that show that Hendrix declared himself to have homosexual tendencies to aid discharge.[1]
I have read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jimi_Hendrix/Archive_6#Hendrix.2C_Army_discharge_and_homosexuality but I still don't understand why you insist that nothing about this difference of opinion by his biographers be mentioned in his Wikipedia article.--Lidos (talk) 08:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
The Music Barnstar | |
For all your hard work to get music articles to good and featured status (most recently Ringo Starr), I hereby award you the Music Barnstar! GoingBatty (talk) 13:13, 24 August 2013 (UTC) |
![]() |
The Beatles award of excellence |
Brilliant work on your latest FA! However happy he is about it though, Ringo wants to remind you of two possible future FA's of the men who made this group possible. CassiantoTalk 19:58, 24 August 2013 (UTC) |
On getting Ringo through! I wish I'd had more time to help out content-wise, but you handled it more than adequately. Fantastic work! (And a P.S. let's make that postscript: I should be through early in September to finish addressing your comments at ye olde Led Zeppelin FAC. I may or may not get around to re-nomming it anytime soon, but you brought up legitimate issues I want to address to improve the article. Thanks! Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 00:21, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
The Beatles Award |
Thanks for your great Beatles contributions! (taking a "sad" article and making it better!) :) Ensignricky (talk) 15:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC) |
This is a note to let the main editors of Roger Waters know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on September 6, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or one of his delegates (Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), Gimmetoo (talk · contribs), and Bencherlite (talk · contribs)), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 6, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:
Roger Waters (born 1943) is an English musician, singer, songwriter and composer. He was a founder member of the progressive rock band Pink Floyd, serving as bassist and co-lead vocalist. Following the departure of bandmate Syd Barrett in 1968, Waters became the band's lyricist, principal songwriter and conceptual leader. The band subsequently achieved international success with the concept albums such as The Dark Side of the Moon, Wish You Were Here, and The Wall. Although Waters' primary instrument in Pink Floyd was the bass guitar, he also experimented with synthesisers and tape loops and played rhythm guitar on recordings and in concerts. Amid creative differences within the group, Waters left Pink Floyd in 1985 and began a legal battle with the remaining members over their intended use of the band's name and material. They settled the dispute out of court in 1987, though the four members did not play together until Live 8, nearly 18 years later. Waters released Ça Ira (a three-act opera based on the French Revolution) in 2005, and in 2010 staged The Wall Live concert tour, an updated version of the original Pink Floyd album. (Full article...)
Hello - sure, I'm happy to explain my thought process there. Apologies that I can't take the time right now to find the diffs, because I'm on a deadline now, but I want to let you get any challenge or wider discussion rolling while I'm away working on this other project. This is also kind of off the top of my head so forgive me if I repeat myself - I'm in a bit of a hurry, and I may not be back on Wikipedia until late this weekend, so don't be surprised if I don't participate in an ANI discussion about it. It's not for lack of interest, but I have to pay the bills. :-)
I read and reread the RFC for about an hour - I read it several times, then I went to do some other Wiki-things while I thought about it, then I came back and repeated the process, which is what I usually do when I close something like this. 26 people isn't exactly a cross-section of Wikipedia, and the RFC had been without activity for weeks, so those 26 opinions were all we were going to get right now. I felt there were cogent arguments for both positions.
Less than a year ago there was an RFC in which more than 130 people participated about this issue in regard to the Beatles (in which I did not participate). That poll was widely linked and publicized, and because the discussions there are referenced in this RFC, they are relevant, as are the discussions and questions afterward. Again, good arguments for both positions.
In the aftermath discussion, when asked if the RFC applied to how other band names should be capitalized, Future Perfect at Sunrise said (emphasis added):
Since the MOS recommendations – based on the same empirical findings about usage and the same external style guide prescriptions as cited here – had already been saying lowercase for a long while, the default assumption is that that recommendation would go for other band names too, not because of this mediation, but because it's been the standard rule all along. If individual band articles have gone for a different solution, I would assume this should be justified by some individual, well discussed circumstances (e.g. in the case of the linguistically irregular "The Who" and the likes.) Where such special considerations obtain, they obviously continue to be valid. Where not, a case for standardizing towards MOS-conformant lowercase can obviously be made. This should be done on a case-by-case basis.
There was no challenge to that statement.
The 2012 RFC had much higher participation and passion, so I thought it interesting that a MOS discussion about changing the precedent project-wide drew so few editors. Since the arguments were sound on both sides, I found myself in Newyorkbrad's position about closing the 2012 RFC - I'm not a bot either. However, that RFC had 140 people participate; there were only 26 editors who participated here, and that's a factor in the closure. We routinely relist AFDs to get wider participation, and I really wish I could have done that here. 26 editors, split 17-9, 58%-42%. Given the low level of participation here, the passion of the 2012 RFC, and that RFC's aftermath statements by arbitrators, I could not in good conscience find consensus to amend the MOS.
That's my thinking here; if ANI decides to overturn it, that's okay. Well, it's not okay, because I believe I'm correct to go to the side of caution in this particular case. But I abide by the will of the community; at least it will get wider attention and I'll get some feedback on my thought process. Thanks. :-) KrakatoaKatie 22:41, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing that to my attention. Everything you did was fine and fair and by the rules, and I'm not complaining, but just noting that it's nicer, better for the culture, and more effective as a practical matter to be careful not to give off an adversarial vibes when it can be avoided. Herostratus (talk) 06:59, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi GabeMc. I'm hoping you can help, as anonymous IP 107.215.236.170 has been making tons of edits to music-related pages, including Beatles pages, and as I and several other editors continue to revert them, it isn't stopping.
I put a notice here, but after 24 hours there's been nothing done. I'm not even sure I put a note on the right page. I also left a note on the IP's talk page but that seems to have been ignored, just like the other notes from other editors have been ignored.
Can you help in any way? Thanks.
Rockypedia (talk) 06:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi, there is a necessity for a hatnote when there is a disambiguation page that it links to. There is a disambiguation page primarily because Hendrix is a surname, Hendrix is a crater, and Hendrix is a town. So when people type in "Hendrix" and get redirected to Jimi Hendrix, they might be looking for one of these other Hendrixes. In fact, having Hendrix redirect to Jimi Hendrix was a close decision in the first place, one which I implemented, due to the fact that there are so many other uses of the term Hendrix.Hoops gza (talk) 01:11, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
What if the person just enters Hendrix? There is also no guarantee that the person is using the search engine to see those other choices. This is how hatnotes are applied across Wikipedia.Hoops gza (talk) 01:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
You are missing my point. I believe it is a Wikipedia standard policy to have a hatnote for an ambiguous redirect. See Wikipedia:Hatnote#Ambiguous_term_that_redirects_to_an_unambiguously_named_article for the best example I can find of this.Hoops gza (talk) 01:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi GabeMc. There is a discussion on the Sex Pistols talk page about whether the band should be described as a British or an English band which might be of interest to you. Your input is appreciated! TheOnlyOne12 (talk) 03:07, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
You're the shit! Jimi Hendrix (and the rest of your work) is looking awesome. I have a keen interest in guitarist articles so if you ever need a hand, please let me know. I have access to a library so I'm happy to look for sources or even just do a proofreading before you take something to FAC. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 21:24, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi Gabe, I hope you're well. Ditto from me on the Hendrix article, btw – I'd been looking at it a couple of weeks back, it looked great even then.
Hey look, I've got a real odd one here … If you're not too busy, would you be able to look in at User talk:Quadell#mirror images? It's regarding a new Harrison biography, which – well, it basically rips off Wikipedia's Harrison album and song articles. Very strange, but no less true.
What I'm hoping is, you might want to follow the link from Quadell's page and hit "helpful" on my Amazon review for the book – which I've signed as "HariG". In the interests of drawing attention to this issue of an author quite obviously taking material from Wikipedia – which, the more I think about it, is really concerning and far-reaching – I'd simply like to ensure that the review is helpful/popular enough to register in the listing's main space. Quite understand if you'd rather not of course (but I sure hope you do!). I've rallied together a few others, you'll notice. Many thanks. Best, JG66 (talk) 20:13, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
The Million Award | |
For your contributions to bring
to Featured Article status, I hereby present you four Million Awards and two Half Million Awards. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment--most Wikipedians will never write one article of such prominence, much less five-- and thanks for all you do for readers worldwide. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:13, 14 November 2013 (UTC) |
The Million Award is a new initiative to recognize the editors of Wikipedia's most-read content; you can read more about the award and its possible tiers (Quarter Million Award, Half Million Award, and Million Award) at Wikipedia:Million Award. You're also welcome to display these userboxes:
![]() | This editor won the Million Award for bringing Paul McCartney to Featured Article status. |
![]() | This editor won the Million Award for bringing George Harrison to Featured Article status. |
![]() | This editor won the Million Award for bringing Ringo Starr to Featured Article status. |
![]() | This editor won the Million Award for bringing Pink Floyd to Featured Article status. |
![]() | This editor won the Half Million Award for bringing Imagine_(song) to Featured Article status. |
![]() | This editor won the Half Million Award for bringing Roger Waters to Featured Article status. |
If I've made any error in this listing, please don't hesitate to correct it; if for any reason you don't feel you deserve it, please don't hesitate to remove it; if you know of any other editor who merits one of these awards, please don't hesitate to give it; if you yourself deserve another award from any of the three tiers, please don't hesitate to take it! Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:13, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately I am not much help on either count. Although Plant's Strider is too old to do a fresh check on, at least according to the log it is unlikely Wallace and Strider are connected from a technical perspective. We don't publicly link IP addresses/ISPs to accounts, so I cannot grant your second request. NativeForeigner Talk 08:17, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Imagine
Thank you for quality articles, such as Imagine, a "world at peace, without the divisiveness and barriers of borders, religions and nationalities, to consider the possibility that the focus of humanity should be living a life unattached to material possessions, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:48, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
A year ago, you were the 328th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:06, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi Gabe. Did you mean Giuliano, Geoffrey Giuliano? "Gamba" was a UK-based American DJ in the 1970s and '80s; a very fair commentator, by all accounts, certainly not one for those gratuitous "Hey, let's hang a Beatle" critiques in the style of Carr & Tyler, Feng-Torres and others from the period. What you're describing, though – the public condemnation from Olivia – sounds like Giuliano and his book Dark Horse: The Secret Life of George Harrison? (I know Badman's Beatles Diary Vol. 2 details the various steps taken by Olivia and others to condemn the Giuliano book.)
If it's Gambaccini – yes, a good source, because (I imagine) he'd be writing about the music made by a musician named George Harrison. In other words, the author's well qualified to write on that subject.
Giuliano: I have to confess I've never read his book. Everything I've heard about it, eg from other Harrison biographers or from readers' reviews, has been far from positive. So I guess that might make Giuliano's book a source to avoid. On the other hand, there are plenty of reasons for giving, say, MacDonald, Clayson, Huntley, Inglis and others a pretty wide berth, imo. (Inglis because he'll get a simple fact wrong about a particular song and then his discussion of the song spirals off, becoming ever more wrong. Huntley because, quite honestly, he's a shameful plagiarist. [I keep meaning to suggest that Huntley's book be removed from the list of sources on the project page …]) But personally, I still use those sources, selectively, in articles I work on (perhaps too much so in Huntley's case), because I think it adds to an article's credibility when it can be seen that a wide range of sources have been used.
So – long way of saying! – my advice re Giuliano would be to cite him very selectively. I certainly wouldn't give him a substantial "presence" in the article or its sources list, if that helps. Best, JG66 (talk) 03:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
The Rough Guide to Jimi Hendrix book verifies the US release date as 23 August 1967 (by Reprise), but the googlebooks site doesn't show the page numbers. What do you think would be the best way to cite this? Dan56 (talk) 00:29, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
The Civility Barnstar |
Just a recognition for your effort in trying to improve Are You Experienced. Don't let a small dispute with Dan to back you off from editing that page. I had a similar argument with him a year ago, but that wasn't an obstacle for getting the Metallica album to GA status. Cheers and continue the great work. Hendrix's albums are important and should be high-quality Wiki articles. Вик Ретлхед (talk) 13:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC) |
![]() | Featured Article
A message through the Purple Haze man. Congratulations on gaining FA status on a giant of the guitar world Jimi Hendrix, a core article! A great job!! | ![]() |
A fine tribute to Hendrix. I'd loved to have seen Hendrix and Vaughan live together! Nobody played an E7 sharpened 9th better than Hendrix!!
It would be great to get some of Hendri'x songs/albums up to GA status. Turn! Turn! Turn! is also a favourite of mine and one I'd be interested in working on. [[♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
A Tesla Roadster for you! |
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia! Gg53000 (talk) 01:13, 7 January 2014 (UTC) |
I have not contributed much of anything to any of the music pages, but I know more than a little about the rock era. I think of the term "Acid Rock" as the stereotypical expression that a late-'60s era grandfather might use to describe the "horrible," loud screeching music emanating from a suburban basement or garage. I believe it's an outmoded, and, in retrospect, derogatory descriptor mostly used by detractors of the hard rock genre prior to the rise of metal, per se', and actually a semantic prescursor to the term "Heavy Metal," having far more to do with big amps than acid. "They're playing that acid rock again." But not worth the energy to argue, as you noted. :)Learner001 (talk) 15:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for formatting Homer at Vital Articles. RJFJR (talk) 19:09, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Are You Experienced, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Roger Mayer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
As you have shown interest in this image before, you are invited to comment on its deletion discussion. It can be found at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2014_January_8#File:Jimihendrix1969mug.jpg. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 18:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
The Writer's Barnstar |
GabeMc, for your skilled writing on a series of rock music FAs which have been further complimented with the promotion of Jimi Hendrix. Sorry I couldn't get there to vote, but for what it's worth, I would have supported nonetheless. Congratulations! CassiantoTalk 21:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC) |
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. BencherliteTalk 17:07, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"References" is a preferable section heading title for a list of footnotes; see WP:FNNR. "Citations" is not exactly wrong but, as that section explains, could be a source of confusion. Of course, Hendrix was the subject of legal citations! Why do you prefer that term? --BDD (talk) 18:42, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
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)
NFCC #4 does not apply, clearly, because the image was previously published with the permission of the copyright holder. #4 is for other sorts of images, maybe like those in one's scrapbook taken by someone else that one wants to publish here. Only #8 and #3a can be argued here. Cheers :) Doc talk 08:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
This is a note to let the main editors of The Autobiography of Malcolm X know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on February 21, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 21, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:
The Autobiography of Malcolm X (1965) was the result of a collaboration between the African-American Muslim minister and human rights activist Malcolm X and the journalist Alex Haley. Haley based it on a series of interviews between 1963 and Malcolm X's assassination on February 21, 1965. It is a spiritual conversion narrative outlining Malcolm X's philosophy of black pride, black nationalism, and pan-Africanism. While Malcolm X and scholars contemporary to the book's publication regarded Haley as the book's ghostwriter, modern scholars regard him as an essential collaborator who subsumed his authorial voice to allow readers to feel as though Malcolm X were speaking directly to them. Haley also influenced some of Malcolm X's literary choices and Haley's proactive censorship of antisemitic material significantly influenced the ideological tone of the Autobiography, increasing its popularity although distorting Malcolm X's public persona. A New York Times reviewer described it as a "brilliant, painful, important book" and Time named it in 1998 as one of ten "required reading" nonfiction books. A screenplay adaptation provided the source material for Spike Lee's 1992 film Malcolm X. (Full article...)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diligence |
GabeMc, I award you this barnstar for all your contributions to Jimi Hendrix, but especially for your recent addition of two iconic images. We haven't always agreed, but I have deep respect for your contributions to this article and this encyclopedia. Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC) |
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.