Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:23, 21 July 2012

This is GabeMc's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 7 days

Long distance gets expensive!

Better delete this one immediately! LOL. Thanks for the email address. It will work much better. She won't know what hit her. 99.251.125.65 (talk) 04:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Any clue what this is supposed to be, Gabe? My initial suspicion is no, but I just want to give you an opportunity to clarify. Evanh2008 17:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Creepy! I have no idea what this means. More contrived distractions, intimidation, divide and conquer attempts and harrassment from the "Big T" faction I assume. ~ GabeMc 20:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Diff file

here with Jusdafax, May 2011. ~ GabeMc 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 05:57, 20 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, Misplaced Pages: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.)

Edit warring again

Your edits here, here and here indicate that you are continuing to edit war over the capitalisation of "The" in "The Beatles". Please stop until mediation is over. Radiopathy •talk• 16:24, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, sure I'll stop until this is settled. But I was being bold, and you reverted, now we discuss, that's how it is suppposed to work here. One edit to a couple of pages is not edit-warring unless your attempts to switch "t" back to "T" at McCartney during an FAC was also edit-warring. To clarify, are you suggesting that every page you watch must remain "T" until a consensus is deveploped at each individual page? ~ GabeMc 19:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

In light of the firestorm you've unleashed, yes, any change from 'T' to 't' would be edit warringdisruptive, provocative editing. Just please step back and let the process run its course. Radiopathy •talk• 23:19, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you also agree to not change any "t"s to "T"s until the process runs its course? Also, you know full-well that IP 99 started this up again, fueled by Andreasedge, not by me. I merely took the initiative once the issue was dragged out again by them. Please look into the timestamps if you do not believe me. Started the polls after they forced the issue with threats of edit-warring. Also, please don't forget that you changed all the "t"s to "T"s during the Macca FAC, in fact four days before it was promoted. ~ GabeMc 23:28, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

• I agree not to change any of the 'Ts at any Beatles-related article.
• You are the one who dragged this issue all over Misplaced Pages and made it the monster it now is.
• The capitalisation issue was not at the fever pitch that it is now when I made those changes.

Cheers. Radiopathy •talk• 23:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

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)

A barnstar for you!

	The Resilient Barnstar
	For outstanding patience and perseverance with the Paul McCartney FAC. Thanks for not giving up! Noleander (talk) 19:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Noleander, your review was extremely valuable. FTR, it was well worth the time and effort, and I am very proud to have worked collaboratively with so many knowledgeable and helpful editors, it was a pleasure and an honour. ~ GabeMc 23:03, 17 July 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 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 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 23:19, 17 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  16:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Opinion

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

Hi

I think you are a reasonable person, but I don't think your diffs and the comment about Bwilkins here are really fair. Note that I have no particular connection to Bwilkins as seen here: . 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 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 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 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 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)

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 03:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)