User talk:JG66/Talk archive/2014

Dan56

If I file an RFC/U on Dan, in an attempt to get him to loosen his reigns on genres and take his close-paraphrasing seriously, would you be willing to participate? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Aah … Look, I'd certainly consider it, but I'm reluctant to commit. I hope I can be honest here without you taking offence …?

I'm uncomfortable that the quality of Dan's past FAs is continually being pushed into the spotlight. As I said on his talk page, the two issues are not unrelated, but I still have an uneasy feeling about how the spectre of multiple FA-reviews looms – it seems suspiciously like there's a concerted "campaign" against the guy. I don't like that; it's bordering on intimidation, imo. To me, looking at how the differences between you and he began and then mushroomed out, this has got all the hallmarks of you being challenged, Gabe, and taking the matter very personally. (Sorry, but that's the way I read it from over here, okay?)

Don't get me wrong: when I see you and others using words like "tedious", "time-wasting", "disruptive" to describe his genre thing, I'm in full agreement. And I think he'd generate far more goodwill if he actually deigned to converse properly with other editors. (For example, why invite me to that discussion over on his talk page? I can guess why, as you can too, I'm sure: your and my shared combustible moments.)

So I'll look in, if you do go the RFC/U route, but maybe WQUlrich has the best perspective on this genre issue, with his recent comment on Talk:Experienced. Besides, if the genre field is to be removed from all music infoboxes, as you favour, then this whole issue could soon be meaningless, no? (Defeatist of me, I know – and it's also symptomatic of how darn depressing I've found the last month or so on Wikipedia, to be honest.)

I just think we need to see things in perspective, and I'm reluctant to be sucked into Dan56's inability to see things in perspective. If I ever do start getting so tunnel-visioned – well, bollocks, I'm out the door, baby …

Cheers, Gabe – JG66 (talk) 14:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I think that's an unfortunate position. This isn't about me so much as the other editors that he bullies that can't or won't stand-up for themselves. I'm not at all worried about Dan challenging me, as it turns out the sources he used to force acid rock on AYE were bunk. As far as your concern about his FAs being brought-up, I mentioned those in this context: that I think its wrong for him to be spending so much time genre warring on articles that he isn't even interested in when his FAs are riddled with plagarisms. Case in point, he re-nomed Of Human Feelings Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Of Human Feelings/archive4 for the fourth time, but did absolutely zero work to it in the meantime to correct the plagarisms identified at the last FAC, which was time he spent edit warring and genre bulling. There is also some mounting evidence that he might be intentionally sabotaging articles about music he doesn't like. AYE sat dormant until I started improving it, same with two other articles that editors feel he degraded the quality of before abandoning them, then when others return to improve them his interest is piqued. Anyway, good luck and cheers! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, he appears to be arbitrarily reverting people just for the fun of it. If you look at the edit history of Daydream Nation, you'll see that Dan reverted Thrashcanman16's addition of alternative rock with the edit summary: "rvv; not in source cited", but then when I added it back with a source he poked-fun at me for adding a source when it was already sourced in the article, leading me to believe that he reverted Thrashcanman16 for reasons other than article improvement. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I hear you on a number of those points. I don't want to kibosh the RFC/U if you think it's a necessary step. It's just what I observed: he crosses you about the Hendrix album genre, then you retaliate (it seems to me) with increasingly forceful assertions regarding plagiarism in his FAs. What leaves me uncomfortable is how hostility seemed to take over, and there's a lack of distinction between the two issues almost.

Maybe most others would say that this is all par for the course, that it's rarely a clear-cut situation because things escalate – which is why such conflicts call for mediation. I wouldn't know.

Hope it goes okay from here. Because (my defeatist attitude aside), I do feel strongly that Experienced and a ton of other album articles from this era (the Beatles' albums come instantly to mind) should all be GAs, but that's going to be a long, slow process at this rate ... Best, JG66 (talk) 21:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Did you see how bad the plagarisms are? I found all of these in about 70 minutes. I also found several in his latest GA, and I predict that if you randomly check any of the articles he's written, you'll find plenty. Anyway, you're right; I'm too involved for an RFCU, and I'm sure you wouldn't be the only one there turning it all around on me, so he'll continue writing Wikipedia articles via plagiarism and possible sabotaging articles about music he doesn't like while being a genre control freak across a broad swath of articles. As far as the retaliation bit, I think that's overused on Wikipedia. There is nothing on Wikipedia that says all editors must take all abuse forced on them without putting-up any resistance, and I never pledged to be a pacifist in the face of arbitrary domination and bullying. He totally controlled what genre you listed at ATMP based on one quote, and as far as I can tell he's not even interested in the article. Well, I really hope that he doesn't decide to "improve" all the genre listings at your other Harrison articles. Cheers! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Response re MetroLyrics

Please see User_talk:Dcoetzee#MetroLyrics.3F. Dcoetzee 08:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

POV-pushing?

Both Ravi Shankar and AAK's families have their ancestral roots in Bangladesh, Shankar's ancestral village being in Jessore and Khan's in Comilla. The were moved to organize the concert after their extended families in Bangladesh suffered during the war. So what's the problem in mentioning their ancestral roots? This is a common thing to say in South Asia, and there's nothing wrong or POV about it.--Bazaan (talk) 06:40, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps my terminology was too strong – I apologise. It was partly about the change from Indian/Hindustani classical music that got me thinking along those lines. Not only that, but it's no good adding such info in the lead paragraphs only, because the lead is meant to reflect what's found (and supported by references, pls note) in the main body of the article. I've just made those additions in the main text and included a briefer mention in the lead than what you'd added. Again, I didn't mean to offend, but if you're going to add to the lead without any additions in the main text (and without any supporting citations), then it is likely to provoke a reaction. Best, JG66 (talk) 06:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I was just adding this to the article talk page when I discovered you'd removed your message there. For your peace of mind, I hope:

You're quite right it's important to mention their Bengali roots, and it's a point I intend to explore much more in a related article I started – Joi Bangla. Anyway, I've reworded text in this concert article to include the points. JG66 (talk) 07:07, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I reverted the edit to the lead though, because of the point that they were directly affected by the war. Khan was born in Bangladesh to his great father, lived in Dhaka during the 1950s and he also took part in the Bengali Language Movement. Throughout history, the lands of Bangladesh have produced some of the best exponents of North Indian classical music. The Zamindars of Bengal were among the most ardent patrons of classical music for centuries. If you ever visit Bangladesh, you should attend this particular festival, it's quite the new sensation of the subcontinent. Cheers,--Bazaan (talk) 07:34, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

All good. And I hear you: "the lands of Bangladesh have produced some of the best exponents of North Indian classical music" – no arguments from me on that!

I've been experiencing terrible lags with the server, so I think our communications and edits got out of sync. Not only that but, after taking a look at your recent contribs, I imagine you might've thought I was trying to keep the concert article a Western rock event first and foremost, perhaps? Nothing could be further from the truth, I assure you (in the past, I've been criticised for bring anything Indian music-related too much to the fore in WP Beatles articles!). Anyway, glad we got everything sorted. Like I say, I'll be bringing a lot of the Shankar and AAK perspective on the events of 1970–71 into that article on the Joi Bangla EP. JG66 (talk) 07:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Just one last point, both Ravi Shankar and Ali Akbar Khan were also a supergroup of classical musicians. Is there any way to squeeze this in as well? --Bazaan (talk) 18:36, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, I don't really see the point, to be honest. I remember putting a couple of mentions in the article about the supergroup aspect of the Shankar–AAK–Rakha line-up, because commentators had/have remarked on it. But I can't see it's too important in the lead – there's so much other information that's not mentioned there. The important thing, surely, is that it's clear to readers now, from the start, about Ravi and AAK's direct link to Bangladesh as a homeland.

Having said that, this is an article I need to go back to, for a few reasons, and I keep meaning to get the film article up to GAN also. So I wouldn't rule out adding something extra about Shankar and AAK, necessarily; it's just that the higher priority, for me anyway, is to fix issues such as the amount of detail in the article. JG66 (talk) 23:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Don't Let Me Wait Too Long

The article Don't Let Me Wait Too Long you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Don't Let Me Wait Too Long for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Seabuckthorn -- Seabuckthorn (talk) 13:52, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Living in the Material World (song)

The article Living in the Material World (song) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Living in the Material World (song) for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Seabuckthorn -- Seabuckthorn (talk) 19:32, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Photograph (Ringo Starr song)

The article Photograph (Ringo Starr song) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Photograph (Ringo Starr song) for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Seabuckthorn -- Seabuckthorn (talk) 13:42, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Try Some, Buy Some

The article Try Some, Buy Some you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Try Some, Buy Some for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Seabuckthorn -- Seabuckthorn (talk) 07:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Untitled

Hello JG. I do apologise for the late reply and also for missing the message about review box. Several things keep popping up IRL, and I'm not able to edit wiki as much at the current point in time. I do plan on addressing your recent message and the one about the review box when I've got more time. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 15:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey yeepsi, don't even think about it – no probs at all. I hope those things RL are of the good variety. Best, JG66 (talk) 23:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

GAN vs. FAC

FTR, I think that many of your articles would quite easily make it through FAC as they are—most of mine were not nearly as prepared as yours. I can understand that GANs offer more payback with less hassle, but I always wondered why you don't have an article at FAC at all times. Anyway, if confidence is the issue then you should dispense with any defeatist sentiments and give it a try. Trust me, some of the most prolific writers of FAs wish they had your writing abilities. At the very least I think that ATMP should be FA and you are obviously the best person to do that. If you ever want some help or FA advice please don't hesitate to ask me. Cheers! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

GabeMc, that's so kind of you, thank you. You know, I suppose I'm not really too bothered about getting GAs either – it's difficult to explain ... I care that an article about a song or album is a Good Article, when I know the subject more than merits an in-depth piece that, if polished up, should pass the test. But to me, it's more important that a piece is just a good article (lower case), preferably a great one, and in some cases that might mean "only" a B. There are articles I've started (or expanded from a Stub or Start), posted up, and then Yeepsi's rated them a B – and that's given me a far greater buzz than some GAs, actually. And in plenty of cases, I'm happy to settle for a B and not take them to GAN, because I don't think the references are strong enough, or rather, the range of sources isn't wide enough. (The Ravi Shankar ones, particularly, because I think they need some perspective from a dedicated Shankar biographer – preferably three.) Or take "Be Here Now (song)", which I just don't think has enough notability as a song for a GA. But to me, they're all good articles (last time I checked), because they do the subject justice.

I love working with reviewers at GAR, though, and the more involved they get, the better. But as far as GA vs FA goes, or B vs FA for that matter, I don't see that the upgrade's that special. (Please don't get me wrong, I'm not belittling you or anyone else who consistently gets articles up there. All power to you.) Before I came to wikipedia two years ago, I didn't even notice a gold star or that green symbol on an article; but I noticed how, as a reader, one could follow a link from what seemed like a pretty good article and be instantly disappointed at the quality of the next one (or in some cases not). Now, in 2014, I'd like to think readers can go from The Beatles to George Harrison to All Things Must Pass, say, check out the album's title track, find a mention there of Is This What You Want?, travel on to Doris Troy ... all without feeling too disappointed, even though the quality rating goes from FA (x2), to GA, GA again, to B (I think), to C.

I guess it boils down to the fact that I've never followed a link from the main page to a Featured Article. I can't remember the last time I saw the main page! So I'm wondering what the gain is, you know?

But again, thanks Gabe for your encouragement, and I will most certainly come to you for advice if the bright lights of FAC do beckon. As far as Sgt. Pepper or those other Beatles albums go, I see them as articles that just aren't good enough – regardless of what letters of the alphabet one uses to define "good enough" (GA or FA). So seeing as your definition (and that of all editors bar me, I'd imagine!) is Featured Article, and assuming that Ritchie's willing, that's obviously the target. Best, JG66 (talk) 20:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, figured it was more the FAC process then a lack of confidence on your part, but I wanted to be sure. In the end, you have to edit in such a way that you'll be satisfied; that's what will keep you editing. I agree that many FAs are not much better than well-developed GAs. Unfortunately, FAC is sometimes more a popularity contest than an article proving grounds. FWIW, most of my FAs have been built on the backs of well-developed GAs, so even if you stop at GAN your efforts will help the next editor get it through FAC. FTR, I don't really care so much about the gold star as I do the feedback. I like to know that I've done all that I can to improve an article, and FAC is just one way that I confirm this. I also enjoy the fact that several random editors will pick my work apart, as opposed to just one GAN reviewer. Having said that, I've participated in a few GANs that were as high or higher quality then some FAC reviews. Still, I hope that you and Ritchie at least agree to bring Pepper to FAC, as I would really enjoy the teamwork. Being a solitary editor is usually my preference, but I miss the comradery. Have you ever thought of writing a Shankar bio in RL? Or how about George and Ravi: east meets west? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:43, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Funny you should ask, GabeMc – not a Ravi or Ravi & George bio, no, but back in late 2011/early 2012, I'd intended to launch a site to cover GH's music and the many artists and projects that are associated with him. I liked the idea of doing wikipedia instead, though, because the story's so much more potent, I think, with the neutrality demanded here. (As it is, I ended up providing the foundation for sections of a book by one Graeme Thomson! Hmm.)

I hear you on the feedback issue as a benefit of FAC, for sure. I've got to watch what I say (I really don't want to hurt anyone's feelings) ... but I've felt a little let down with a couple of GARs of late, because if they're not suitably critical and challenging, I'm left with an asterisk of sorts in my mind: I know I need to go back and address some concerns I had regarding content and focus. The sort of concerns that a really experienced reviewer will identify, or else I'll offer up myself during the review process.

I like the idea of collaboration also, although I have to admit I'm another loner-editor. I apply a lot of Pink Floyd-type(?) architecture to these articles – I tend to work offline building up the picture so that the article works, conceptually, from start to finish (I hope), well outside of committing to an edit on-screen. If anyone ever looks at my contribs history, I'm sure they'd see silence for hours, followed by ka-voom – 5000 characters in one hit. Perhaps my only contribution for the day. So I'm not sure how that'll work with you and Ritchie, because I do my thinking at a distance (those recent comments on Pepper Background being an example), with the entire section or more in mind, before getting in the trenches and wrestling with the text. Let's see – I'm excited to give it a try. At the same time, it really brings me down seeing the conflict today at talk:Pepper. I hope we can resolve that, because I've no interest in working in that sort of an atmosphere. I'm afraid I have very little patience with "contributors" who just set out to sabotage any progress on an important article.

Again, I'm thinking, per our GA vs FA discussion: the wonders of being able to work on B-grade articles and one-to-one interaction at GAR, almost invisibly, free of wikipedia politics – you know?! JG66 (talk) 13:59, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I do know what you mean and the recent dispute at Pepper really drives this home. Well, after taking a closer look at the article I remember why I abandoned my quest two years ago; it needs an almost top-to-bottom re-write and the thought of doing that as Dan nit-picks my every move is quite discouraging. I have to say that at this point I think I'll be semi-retiring from the Beatles project except to watch my FAs. I've done enough already and I don't really care if any more Beatles articles get past GAN. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't know, GabeMc ... Ironically, it's filling in at the GAR for the little-loved Back to the Egg that's got my interest right now. Who'd have thought it: Back to the Egg being a more stimulating subject to work on than Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band?! I just can't work in a disharmonious atmosphere – I can't think straight.

Sit it out a day or two, Gabe. Grab another Hendrix album article maybe? Like I say, personally, it's starting something completely from scratch, or picking up a turkey of a Stub/Start, and working on it away from the front line – that's often when I realise what keeps me here. Best, JG66 (talk) 10:20, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm pretty sure that my Beatle article editing days are over (too much drama and not enough payback), but I'll stick around for a while longer at a few other topics—I've been wanting to write a book in RL and I'll never do that if I spend my free time here. What bugs me the most about all this is that I really think that Dan is doing this purposefully, with the intent to sabotage articles about music he disdains; I.e., I can't find any examples of him doing this at hip-hop, R&B, or jazz articles. He only makes this problem at articles about classic rock and metal. You might be right though, that in a couple of days Dan will probably grow bored of obstructing Pepper and move on to another victim, so maybe we can take Pepper higher at that point. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

FTR, when I began cleaning up the reception section in January 2013, I trimmed the paragraph dealing with Goldstein's negative review (which had been given an overlong quotefarm before I had written anything) and added a paragraph of retrospective raves (1 January 2013) The next month, I quoted more acclamatory critics and trimmed another negative bit from Goldstein (3 February 2013), ditto later (25 February 2013), all the while defending biased, inappropriate edits like the addition of Piero Scaruffi to the article (1 January 2014). Please get your facts straight Gabe before dismissing my edits as "POV pushing". What I wrote was dead on after you forced the issue. You're just making this personal and resorting to ridiculous accusations because you cant concede that you ever made a bad edit. Well you did, so deal with it instead of griping about me to other editors. Dan56 (talk) 01:05, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Merge discussion

There is a discussion here in which you might like to participate. Radiopathy •talk• 16:19, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

RS guide additions

Hey!, good work adding those scores :) But don't feel like you need to justify it when there is a review from Rolling Stone magazine in the same template. The magazine and the book are just publications the critics reviewing represent--the critics should be different rather than the publications should be "different". Also, because each has its own sizable-enough article, it's perfectly reasonable to consider Rolling Stone (the magazine) and The Rolling Stone Album Guide as two different works. Dan56 (talk) 01:00, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. Dan56, when you say "good work", I'm tempted to wonder whether it's because almost all the ratings I added to the Mac and Hari album articles were in the negative-to-average range … (Sorry, difficult to read otherwise!)

Actually, I think RS and its Album Guide both appearing in a rev ratings box is something we should avoid where possible – but obviously, only once there are enough reviews to otherwise fill the box. (Beggars can't be choosers.) I think it's important to ensure there's a variety of voices and/or organisations/publishing houses represented (i.e. Rolling Stone = Rolling Stone Press to most people, no?). What also bothers me about the '04 RS Guide is that, by reputation at least, it pales beside the 1979 and 1982 eds, when Greil Marcus & co. were involved.

While we're on the subject, though, I think it's really regrettable that we end up giving such weight to any of these encyclopaedias – RS Albums, Encyclopedia of Popular Music, Virgin Guide, and yes, MusicHound – because in most cases their so-called review extends to just a few sentences. (I don't know what you mean by "its own sizable-enough article"; "sizable-enough" about the artist in the RS Guide(s), but hardly on each album.) Just compare those few sentences – okay in some cases a couple of paras – to the full page afforded by RS itself, Melody Maker, NME, Creem etc, to high-profile albums during the 1970s, thereby offering far more in the way of a full critique. (And I won't even go there on St Robert of Christgau's "reviews" … ;) Aside from engaging with their subject to such a greater degree, many of those old-school reviews have become notable in their own right, in that commentators and biographers so often refer to them. Yet what happens in wikipedia articles is that, while these contemporary reviews do have a sizeable presence, those album-guide quickies and the assessments from lesser-known organisations (A.V. Club??) end up having too large a presence, imo – because they're added to the ratings box, and a comment + quote invariably then appears in the main text. It's that bloating thing I was talking about at Talk:Pepper, where any hopes of a streamlined discussion under Reception tends to fly out the window. (Then, throw in the issue of critical acclaim vs a few naysayers (as at Pepper), and there's inevitably a degree of tit-for-tat – okay, I'll raise you a 5/5 from Q magazine …) JG66 (talk) 06:51, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

RfC/U

Do you have any interest in pursuing an RfC/U for Dan? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, do you mind sending me a link to explain what an RfC/U is? (I'm blissfully ignorant of so many of these processes.) I'm off to bed now, so I won't be able to get back to you for a while.

But Gabe, even from the distance that I've put between myself and Pepper, and from which I might view anything at Talk:Are You Experienced – i.e. if I've read anything in all the exchanges, I've been skimming through at best – I'm confused about your objections to the Christgau quote in AYE. Yes, it's more "Bobby Christ-god" pushing – sure. But that's a short Reception section there, and it seems that none of the reviews included in the ratings box are referred to in the main text. On that front, I'd say the section's been severely under-Dan-ed compared to the additions at ATMP. (And at least, unlike at Dark Horse, St Bob's comments offer something.)

Am I right in thinking you're concerned about the message-overlap, with Shaar-Murray comments, Noe Goldwasser's and Bob's? I'd understand that – and I'd completely understand if you were thinking that CSM's voice trumps Bob's, and you were keen to ensure that the point was made not by Bob, but by CSM (an authority of Hendrix, it seems). That is what a fan brings to these articles: the knowledge of which sources truly cut the mustard and which are just ring-ins. But it seems you're always going to have to include some comment from what, half of those reviews in the ratings box? (It's a pain, I know, that was my point about potential bloating at Pepper, just like at ATMP.) What I try to do in a Reception section is pick up something informative from each review, positive or negative, so that readers actually get something descriptive about the album or song, rather than just a critic's opinion. Is it not possible to find other items within those reviews by CSM, Goldwasser and Bob Christ-no, so that the overlap is avoided and you let your choice of commentator deliver the powerful message "he changed listeners' perception of guitar playing [etc]"?

I've been trying to come up with some other AYE reviews today, in case they might help. I don't suppose you've got a Mojo from Oct or Nov 2006 – Jimi on the cover, full feature mostly covering arrival in London up to Monterrey? I'd imagine it might reproduce some original reviews, I don't know. (I get the impression Dan56 has a major stash of Q mags, maybe Mojo too …) I've looked in Rock's Backpages also – now, that is a seriously impressive RBP artist list, believe me. Aside from the quantity of entries, it proves what I've long believed with these rock album articles: it's Richard Williams, Shaar Murray, Chris Welch, Dave Marsh, Michael Gray et al. that lived and breathed rock 'n roll in the late 1960s/early '70s – which is what bugs me about Christie's voice popping up in every single article.

But just to be clear, I don't like ChristBob's reviews, personally, but I'm not against using them per se. Firstly, we can't be, and secondly I'm usually scraping around to find just four or five reviews for an album, so AllMusic and the Consumer Guides come in very handy. What I don't like is garbage added to the text, and/or the deliberate addition of a negative viewpoint when an unfavourable critical reception has already been established. That is not a balanced discussion.

Just to repeat: if I've read anything in all the exchanges, I've been skimming through at best – so I might've misunderstood what (else) is going on.

Anyway, I should've crashed out an hour ago or more … Cheers, JG66 (talk) 17:23, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I've expanded the AYE reception section and you are correct to assume that I want that particular point made by a Hendrix expert, not BC. I don't agree per se that every review score needs to be mentioned in the prose and as far as I can tell there is nothing in the guidelines that supports that as required. After all, if that's the case then Pepper needs ten quotes from AV Club, Paste, etcetera. Anyway, here is the link: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

You know what? Forget about it; its not worth the trouble and I don't want to get you involved with anything that could boomerang on us and make us both look bad. I'll just find some articles that Dan doesn't edit. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:35, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Back to the Egg

The article Back to the Egg you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Back to the Egg for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hurricanehink -- Hurricanehink (talk) 16:01, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

No way – it passed, it passed!! JG66 (talk) 02:57, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

There is a discussion here which may be of interest to you. Radiopathy •talk• 02:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Sgt. Pepper suggestions

Maybe you could wait until I've finished my copyedit before making such sweeping generalisations and suggestions. I intend to rework much of the material that you've critisised, but at this phase I am still working out the various sections. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:55, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, to be clear we asked you to write a paragraph about "WYWY", which you declined to do. I never asked for a full-on peer review of all the work I've done there nor do I want one from you. We have never worked well together in that regard and I have no desire to go around in circles with you yet again. I think the "look at what I did in my sandbox" approach unhelpful, as I told you during one on the Macca FACs. Its too hard to follow and frankly I find it a bit rude. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Gabe, I'm confused. You did say you hoped I'd be more involved than simply a WIWY para – you know you did. You said we should work together, that the collaboration would be good – you know that too. (And I'm not even going to bother supplying diffs to support that.)

But no problem, and please don't take offence at what I wrote on Talk:Pepper. I think there's an unfathomable quality to the article now, and definite overlap between sections. As I said on the talk, I'm not criticising (I angst over the same issue on articles I'm committed to); I'm approaching Pepper with the attitude: okay, how do we solve the problems and make the article as special as it deserves to be. I know this subject, Beatles or ex-Beatles, very well. But if you don't want me involved, that's fine – just say the word, there's plenty to do on this encyclopaedia. But really, I thought you and I had got to a good place, without any perceived challenges to individual authority. JG66 (talk) 17:10, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

All I expected from you was a few suggestions and a paragraph on "WYWY", which as I said you declined to write. I have absolutely no interest in an in-depth collaboration whereby you second-guess every quote, section, and editorial choice. In all these years not once have you supported anything that I wrote and I don't see that changing anytime soon. I think that, at best, we have vastly different opinions on how these article should be presented, but I don't go around to your work and insist that you appease me. You clearly do not appreciate my style, which is fine by me as long as you don't intend to bludgeon me with unending complaints about your "feelings". I'm not finished with my copyedit yet, which will take another couple of weeks, so once again its bad timing and rather like getting a mark on a paper that isn't yet completed. I don't see any point in chasing my tail trying to please you at this point, or at any point to be honest. I'll heed your suggestions in as much as I see some common ground, but like all the FACs where you weighed-in you're approach at the Pepper talk page is to invalidate and criticize in a generalized way so as to cast doubt on the article itself. Anyway, I'm not here to please or impress you, but if I was I would fail every time. Please don't obstruct my work even if you don't agree with my approach. Here is the diff from when I started my copyedit to today, so we can see exactly what I've done to introduce an "unfathomable quality to the article". The overlap will be corrected by the time I finish. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

"pre-empt"

This is an odd bit of prose, or at least it looks like it to me. I made you change it during the GA review, didn't I? Anyway, I agree it's worth mentioning, but I'm not sure it fits in with any of the definitions of "preempt". It's not as if I have a better idea, though! "Prefigure" would be slightly better, if it didn't have quite as many religious connotations. I will think on it... Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:36, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

"Prefigures" perhaps – or maybe "presages" …? It's a point I'd like to keep in the article, I think it works well with the AllMusic reviewer's comment "a glimpse of the true George Harrison – at once mystical, humorous, solitary, playful, and serious". As far as the chronology goes (song written in 1970 vs Python album released in 1973), I've always taken it that the Pythons might have used the phrase in one of their series-one episodes or an early album sketch, and then returned to and explored the concept further a few years later. (Similar to a lot of comedic works, of course: aside from themes, sketches and characters in the Python movies, there's Idle and Innes' development of The Rutles, and Sacha Baron Cohen with "Ali G".) JG66 (talk) 04:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. "Presage" might be okay. What about "anticipating?" Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:01, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Maybe co-opt is the term that you're looking for. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:07, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

"Anticipates" could well be the one, yes. But at the same time (having only just followed that link for "preempt"), I'm actually thinking that def 1 might be correct, you know …?

I've been searching through a couple of Python sources. Nothing so far, but I've got an idea about how to steer the discussion around any potentially thorny issue regarding wording – eg, by simply mentioning that the troupe's first series ended in Jan 1970, Harrison was a big fan, and this lyric is what Leng terms "Harrison's first clear reference" to the Pythons. JG66 (talk) 11:34, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Preempt means to "to appropriate something (before someone else does)", so that's not the right choice here since the title was already in use. Perhaps appropriate is the better term here. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:27, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I had this one backwards! I was somehow under the impression that Harrison's song predated the Python album, so we were talking past each other. The text as it now stands is fine, I think. "Co-opt" was pretty spot on, Gabe; I just didn't realize it at the time! Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Awaiting on You All

The article Awaiting on You All you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Awaiting on You All for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ritchie333 -- Ritchie333 (talk) 14:41, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

A-class Rock Music reviews

Hi. I'm seeing if there's an interest in doing A-class reviews for rock related articles to help bridge the gap between Good and Featured status. The discussion is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rock music#A class reviews and I'd be grateful if you had any comments. Thankyou. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:30, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

A Pan-Galactic Gargle Blaster for you! How did that photo of a Beer get there?

Have a Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster; the strongest drink in the fictional universe for your helpful hint "Rock's Backpages". Have a Beer as well. Be sure to drink them lying down. Better drink the Beer first. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 20:20, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Hey, thanks so much, Caesars – that went perfectly with my breakfast. Hang on, I think I need to go lie down now … JG66 (talk) 04:59, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it would be cool if you put that quote on your User Page. And, by the way, the first line on your User Page is more than a year old. That's pretty laid back, even for a George Harrison fan.

On a more serious note; if you need any help on subjects related to progressive rock, just give me a call. For example, if an article is being reviewed for A-class status, and a second opinion is required in my area of expertise (if the A-class project gets up). Have a great day.CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 04:37, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh boy, that user page of mine is so lame (high time I did something about it) – being out of date is just one of the problems! Big thanks for your offer. And please take me up on mine, if you're not an RBP subscriber and any of those articles are what you're after. JG66 (talk) 09:28, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Dead link on "This Guitar" - help please!

Hi, First - what a great job you did on the "[This Guitar (Can't Keep from Crying)]" article, really informative and thoroughly supported, thank you so much! I just heard the song today and was delighted to find the article. I am not a regular wiki contributor at all at this stage but I felt I should report a dead link, in footnote 52: the website davehermanmusicproject.com, appears to be defunct, possibly because Herman passed away a month ago (just guessing), which is a shame on both counts, as his interview with George Harrison that you referenced looked interesting). I read the Wiki instructions about repairing/removing dead links, and duly checked for archived material online but just found "snapshots", not the actual interview or whatever was posted originally under "Dave's Friend George" on the website. I also could not figure out where to insert because the full footnotes do not appear in an edit window as you know. SO... I am just going to try to leave this here and hopefully you will come across it and know what to do! Thanks! :) (By the way, I read the Talk section and I disagree with the comments concerned about the presumed need for neutrality - facts are facts, and the article is very factual. Presenting the historic record of the Rolling Stone's criticism of Harrison is unquestionably neutral, whereas taking extra steps to search for or even solicit comment from them that might presumedly soften that criticism from forty years ago seems decidedly not neutral. And I think you were right in saying the impact of that criticism should not be underestimated. Rolling Stone's opinion was incredibly influential back then. Among those not fortunate enough to have seen the concert, at least, its pan of the album(s) and tour was adopted as truth and simply stuck. In the mid to late 70s, if Harrison's records were not in the clearance bins, as were Ringo Starr's, they were close to it.) Cesca1910 (talk) 21:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Cesca1910, that's really kind of you – thank you. And, because of your comments, I've just re-read the article for the first time in maybe a year, and I enjoyed the read – so thanks for that, too!

It's a shame about the link to the Herman website (and RIP, Dave). I'll investigate soon, but it sounds as though we'll have to ditch the text, which is a pity.

I'm interested in what you say about the GAN reviewer's concerns regarding neutrality (or a possible lack of it). I think Dr. Blofeld was quite right to question it, and obviously I must've done enough to solve the problem. But yes, it was difficult because, as I think I explained to Doc B, Rolling Stone seem to have remained very quiet on the issue since then – meaning, there's so little that can be added to the article to artificially achieve a balance … (So it was a case of having to tone down some of the message coming from the other direction.)

Yeah, the whole critical scorn-thing towards George Harrison from 1974 onwards is a mighty weird thing, from this distance anyway. It wasn't just Rolling Stone, it has to be said (that song article happens to concentrate on RS because Harrison certainly held them most responsible and targeted them in his lyrics) – but now when I read anti-Harrison opinions from NME, RS, Christgau etc from that period, it just strikes me that those authors are so narrow-minded. (Personally, if I was one of them, by the generally more enlightened 1990s I'd have been cringing in shame at what I wrote!) Oh well ... There were plenty of commentators still very supportive of Harrison through the second half of the '70s (Melody Maker, Circus, etc), but as we know, Rolling Stone was the "bible". Also, it seems to me that George's 1970s music is generally held in pretty high regard nowadays, whereas, say, all bar two of Paul McCartney's (many) albums from that decade are viewed as inferior, even though they were received far more politely by critics at the time. I'm thinking of comments that Robert Rodriguez makes in his book covering the Beatles as solo artists during 1970–1980 … something about the high strike rate Harrison achieved (everything in the "great" category except Dark Horse and Extra Texture), but how with McCartney's work, fans from that period are more likely to think now, What on earth were we thinking – believing that this music was ever any good? So perhaps there's some moral justice in that, I don't know!

George's albums still sold pretty well in the US, by the way – were you thinking of the situation in the UK maybe? (In which case, you'd be quite right.)

Anyway, as you can tell, I could go on forever … Thanks again! JG66 (talk) 02:27, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I am glad you were able to enjoy the piece again! Yes, George's albums did sell well in the US for the most part, I guess. It's a shame he never did another tour there, though I don't blame him after the bad press in 1974. I understand your opinion. I am not one to pit ex-Beatle against ex-Beatle, I don't think it's worth putting one down in order to praise another (and McCartney is truly amazing, in my opinion), and I'm sure you'd agree it's unfair (and pointless) to judge any of their solo work against Beatle work. If I have to judge at all, I judge them on their own merits. I don't know how old you are, but there sure was a lot of tripe put out in the 70s by all kinds of performers that nobody ever thinks of these days. Quite a lot of it sounds a bit dated, really, and perhaps some of Paul's work does fall into that category. But his 1976 tour with Wings was still awesome!

Thinking about the music critics back then, by the way, I think psychologically everybody who ever liked them was still hurting so much from the Beatles' breakup hoping against hope for a reunion for years and years, all the way up to John's tragic death at the end of 1980. Music critics griping that George or Paul hadn't played any Beatles songs in concert is a sign of that attachment (like children of divorced parents, angry at them for happily dating new partners). The resentment was mostly directed at Yoko, then John, then Paul, I think. What a time it was, really!

On the neutrality issue - I agree, artificial neutrality is folly. Wikipedia entries are like news articles, and in news reporting, the goal is objectivity. A reporter presents the facts as objectively as possible. Once they start worrying about the reputation of one of the parties, and deliberately try to soften it in the piece, they lose objectivity and stray into what is really non-neutral territory. If the facts happen to stack up in a way that puts some parties in a less than favourable light, it's not the reporter's job to compensate for it, regardless of who they are writing about. For example, if there is evidence that the Vatican mishandled sexual abuse cases, adding lines about how much the church does for the poor in order to achieve some superimposed notion of "balance" would be simply inappropriate. That may not be the best analogy but hopefully you get the idea! Blofeld's presuppositions about the concept of "neutrality" seemed misplaced on their face, and the idea of "toning down" the text merely because Rolling Stone didn't happen to issue any comments about the subject since the 70s worries me - not having read the pre-Blofeld version, I can't really compare, however. I only know that the piece is clearly well-researched and very interesting and informative - what more can one wish for? ;) Cesca1910 (talk) 02:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi again, Cesca1910. I didn't mean to play off one ex-Beatle against another ... actually, I thought I was following up on your theme, after you brought Ringo into the equation! What I was talking about was the way critics and (Beatles) biographers in general seem to view Harrison's 1970s output now: while he was in the sin bin with the majority of reviewers from 1974 onwards, and sales suffered, decades later his work over that whole decade appears to be looked on in a much more favourable light. In other words, it's the opposite of the situation with Paul or others who might've hit the sweet spot commercially and/or with critics back then, but their work perhaps doesn't stand up artistically in hindsight. Again, I'm speaking very generally, of course.

No, it was all before my time (well, I've got memories of hearing "Blow Away" on the radio when I was a kid). Not that I would know first-hand, but I'm sure you're right about the psychological loss that a lot of those critics were feeling in the 1970s. And perhaps the more outspoken they were, the more they were hurting. Ben Fong-Torres, for instance – the Rolling Stone journalist who's mentioned quite a bit in the "This Guitar" article – he admits in his 1974 tour feature to being Beatles-crazy and hugely nostalgic (or words to that effect). Which wouldn't necessarily be requirements for writing a feature on the Harrison–Ravi Shankar tour maybe! ... JG66 (talk) 15:40, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

FA comment

Hello JG66. If you have some spare time these days, can you take a look at Megadeth, an FA candidate of mine? The review is here, so I'll be grateful if you can leave your comment/vote whether the article deserves to attain FA status. Have a nice day.--Retrohead (talk) 22:52, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Retrohead. I will try to take a look if I can (I sympathise: my GANs sit around for months, ignored and gathering dust!). I've just got so much going on in RL right now, and even though I might steal some time to edit an article or two over the next few days, it's never going to be enough to commit to a review. Should be better for me in a week, maybe more … Best of luck anyway, if I don't make it! JG66 (talk) 08:54, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

George Harrison vandalised by the beetles

I saw this news report and thought of you.... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:30, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Ah tragic. But yes, "For a forest to be green, each tree must be green." Thanks for the thought! JG66 (talk) 12:57, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

While you're there, I thought 5x expanding Not Guilty for a DYK would be easy, but I'm still about 1,000 characters short having mined all the sources I have. Can you expand the Harrison solo side of it? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:16, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Ritchie333 – yeah sure. For me, that's long been on the radar for GAN actually.

Btw, did you add the Graeme Thomson cite? Shudder … Not only is he completely wrong about Los Angeles (he must've got that from AllMusic's review), but as far as I could tell after skimming through his book, he's shamelessly ripped off Wikipedia's articles on George Harrison for his book. I kid ye not. I kicked up a fuss on various talk pages back in November and wrote something suitably indignant on Amazon (I'm HariG). It's only in the last week, I've even been able to bring myself to read the book properly, in fact – I was too shocked before, seeing the blatant overlaps between sections of this encyclopaedia's Harrison articles and Thomson's text. So what I've always intended to do is write to him and his publisher …

Anyway, the answer's yes of course, but … that Thomson git's an utter shunt! JG66 (talk) 14:44, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Well fortunately Thomson's source is only used for a few basic facts. However, I'm sure you've got some better Harrison sources. I think if we just expand the solo section from the best of those, to find out who exactly played what, when and if anyone commented on the song during recording, and add a small section if anyone has played it live, then we should be able to go for a GA and a DYK. Simples. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:49, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Not Guilty (song)

The DYK project (nominate) 10:57, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

What is your fucking problem?

Radiopathy •talk• 17:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Ditto. It's a box set – that is the most widely used term. It might be a set that is boxed, literally, but it's a box set. You're reverting my additions to those articles without any good reason. JG66 (talk) 17:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

You revert mine without good reason - remember "orientated"...in an article that uses England English?

Instead of using the most common term, why not use the most correct term and not edit war over it? Radiopathy •talk• 23:20, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I fully believe that "oriented" is the correct term, in whatever form of English.

Also, you're being a bit disingenuous. I've just noticed that you requested a move at Box set to "Boxed set", without success. So it's obviously not just me that feels this way. JG66 (talk) 23:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/british/orientated_1

PS Fuck yer attitude. Radiopathy •talk• 09:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

You're one mighty weird person. Your attitude is the problem. You tried to have Box set changed to Boxed set at the article – no joy – but here you are trying to "correct" mentions of the term in other articles. Worse, you're now getting even more aggro when it's pointed out to you. I'm the one that came to your page and apologised, remember. JG66 (talk) 09:16, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Right. I agree it's time to stop this. Radiopathy •talk• 23:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

DYK for The Beatles (album)

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

DYK for The Radha Krsna Temple (album)

JG66, I've noticed that you separated a section of Radha Krishna Temple on the into a stand-alone article – something I've been contemplating to do for a long time. Thank you. Would you consider nominating the new article for WP:DYK as well? I'll be happy to assist, if need be. I also have an idea for the Fools' day hook. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 07:46, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Cinosaur – thanks for that. I really have no idea/experience with DYK, to be honest. (I seemed to have got tagged for some nominations recently, which is nice, but my contribution to those articles was pretty minor, and my involvement in the noms absolutely zilch!) I can't say it's a priority with The Radha Krsna Temple (album); but maybe I'd best get an education and check out what DYK's about.

More importantly for me, though, I'm thinking that the Temple's two singles really should have separate song articles (a complete u-turn on my original plan), and quite a bit of the more general and background info needs to be pulled into the piece on Radha Krishna Temple. So content-wise, there's a lot about to change in the album article ... Please join in at the discussion, by the way. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 08:34, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I went ahead and nominated the article for the Fool's Day DYK. Please see if you have any comments on the hooks. Also, you may find these images useful for their related articles. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 04:10, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Good work, Cinosaur, I'll certainly take a look. I'm just about to start a separate article for Hare Krishna Mantra (song), so I'll definitely be adding the UK pic sleeve there (what's also good about this image is it clearly shows "Krishna" in both song and artist titles, not Krsna – and I think the main article Radha Krsna Temple should really be retitled to match).

And that's a great picture of the devotees playing; all the original six devotees are there except for Gurudas. But do you know anything about this image, where it came from? Unless it's free content, I can't see how we can justify its inclusion, because it's not as if we've got any "critical commentary" relating to this particular picture. I recently added an artist infobox to the main article, so it would be perfect to have the picture there, of course … Hey, thanks again! JG66 (talk) 05:07, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad you liked the image. Let me see if I can get it released into the public domain by its copyright holder. Actually, Gurudas is also there on the left, hiding behind the sitar. )) Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 07:11, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I suddenly thought that, right after replying above – had to be Gurudas on the far left of the image! JG66 (talk) 07:52, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• Hi Cinosaur. Any joy with the copyright issue on that image of the Temple founders? Again: I'd love to see it included in an article or two if possible … Regards, JG66 (talk) 22:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

• JG66, I wrote to the copyright holder and am awaiting their response. Sorry for the delay. Lets keep our fingers crossed. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 09:40, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

• Hey Cinosaur. No worries – I'm just the enthusiastic sort, that's all! JG66 (talk) 00:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

JG66, sorry for taking so long with the copyright permission – there have been a few unexpected turns in the process, but I'm not losing hope. In the meantime, do you need any other photos released for the The Radha Krsna Temple (album) or other related articles from this page (under Ch.5 – London)? I reckon there is no harm adding them to the wish list. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 05:29, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Good to hear from you, Cinosaur. Well, the photos that grab my attention for immediate use are (using the numbers across the bottom):

• 144/538 (my only concern would be the text there describing it as an Apple PR item, although I appreciate the actual photo could well have been supplied to Apple)
• 146/ (perfect content, with devotees around Harrison at the harmonium, but unfortunately the image is very blurred)
• 148/ (only included this one because of the quality issue with 146/538)
• 241/ (Yamuna at the microphone)
• 245/ (devotees on Top of the Pops, I think)

So many others there appeal, of course … If I had to really narrow it down, I'd go for that colour shot of the six devotees we've been discussing all along (a vital inclusion!); Yamuna at the mic; and the TOTP photo. They would each make a fantastic addition to the music-related articles I happen to work on (and to ones I'm planning to write), but also in a far wider context on the encyclopaedia. Thanks so much for sending these. Best, JG66 (talk) 13:55, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Track list numbering

Hi. I noticed your comment at Talk:Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band about the numbering of songs in track listings. The matter was amply discussed at Talk:Shades of Deep Purple and Template talk:Track listing. Now a Rfc is open to finally settle the dispute and it would be greatly appreciated if you could give your opinion. Lewismaster (talk) 19:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Lewismaster. Yeah, I'd noticed the issue snowballing at a couple of album articles, and then the discussion underway at the template's talk page. I'll see you there. JG66 (talk) 04:20, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Garbage RfC

@JG66: Hi, I would appreciate your input on this disputed matter. --Lpdte77 (talk) 04:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Wonderwall Music

The article Wonderwall Music you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Wonderwall Music for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ritchie333 -- Ritchie333 (talk) 16:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

'Hours...'

Pitchfork says "adult contemporary sound", which is a style, not a genre. But Discospinster keep an eye on it. Can you figure it out with better genre(s) with another source(s)? 183.171.182.133 (talk) 08:31, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Far East Man

The article Far East Man you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Far East Man for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of TheQ Editor -- TheQ Editor (talk) 21:42, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

A Good Article Barnstar for you!

		TheQ Editor's Good Article Barnstar of Merit
		Congratulations on bringing Far East Man to GA status. I hereby award you with TheQ Editor's GA barnstar.  ΤheQ Editor  Talk? 12:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Ah TheQ Editor, you're too kind. I'm hereby honoured – thank you! JG66 (talk) 00:06, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar

After finding myself trapped in an endless series of George Harrison music videos on YouTube, my thoughts turned to Wikipedia. Naturally, I thought to myself, "I wonder if JG is still..." And you are still! Thanks for all your hard work in improving coverage of all the Beatles, but especially of my favorite. I'm glad to see you haven't slowed down. Evan (talk|contribs) 21:46, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah Evanh2008! It's mighty good to hear from you, and thanks so much for the above – you're too kind.

Yeah, I don't know … back in Jan 2012, I could so easily have picked Ry Cooder, the Band, the Stones or another artist/act to focus on here – but George it was, and George it remains! I often find I gain a whole new appreciation of his work, whether as a solo artist or a producer/collaborator, through pulling together an article and reading authors' insight, commentary, etc on the subject. The thing just snowballs, in other words! Great to see you back here on the farm, Evan. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 08:09, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Left you message on Collaborations.

Left GA review comments at Talk:Collaborations (Ravi Shankar and George Harrison album)/GA1. Thank you. --AmritasyaPutra^T 18:22, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

AmritasyaPutra I'm delighted you were able to finish the review after all – thank you! I'll be right there with some replies. Best, JG66 (talk) 05:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

A good article indeed! --AmritasyaPutra^T 08:56, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

AmritasyaPutra: you've really made my day. It was such a pleasant article to write – I guess because the two artists were always out to make adventurous music, never going for "hits" – and thanks to your perseverance, the GA review process was just as enjoyable. I'm very grateful; this is such a special GA. Thank you! JG66 (talk) 10:24, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Mat Snow in touch

Hi there, JG66. I don't know who you are but I must thank you for having the interest and taking the time to write such a well-researched entry about me. I found only one tiny factual error to correct, though could add numerous details, if anyone is interested. Please feel free to get in touch: mat.snow@virgin.net

Thanks again, Mat Snow — Preceding unsigned comment added by MatSnow (talk • contribs) 00:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks for your message, JG. I am extremely flattered you think my career and critical approach merits an entry; now knowing I have such an attentive reader, I will redouble my efforts as a writer.

You mentioned industry awards: http://www.bsme.com/category/award/past-winners/page/2/ will verify I was gonged twice, in 1996 and 2002, by the British Society of Magazine Editors for different mags. Under my editorship in 1996 Mojo also won a major Professional Publishers Association award, but I cannot provide an authoritative source — the PPA website does not list past winners.

You may be interested to know that I am the nephew of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Snow and a descendant, via one of his brothers, of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Snow_(physician).

Thanks again and best wishes, Mat — Preceding unsigned comment added by MatSnow (talk • contribs) 09:24, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Mat Snow: Thanks, Mat. The BSME link is perfect – I'll go ahead and add those awards. Not sure what we can do about the familial ties to David and John Snow, though, without a source of some sort. Has there been an "about the author" blurb where you've given those or other bio details, perhaps? A BSME directory or a similar, publishers association-type entry? JG66 (talk) 12:42, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Collaborations (Ravi Shankar and George Harrison album)

The article Collaborations (Ravi Shankar and George Harrison album) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Collaborations (Ravi Shankar and George Harrison album) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AmritasyaPutra -- AmritasyaPutra (talk) 09:02, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Lord Loves the One (That Loves the Lord)

The article The Lord Loves the One (That Loves the Lord) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Lord Loves the One (That Loves the Lord) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:06, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Deep Blue (song)

The article Deep Blue (song) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Deep Blue (song) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Bilorv -- Bilorv (talk) 16:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)