Jump to content

User talk:GloryRoad66/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11→Archive 13

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Garagepunk66. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Refs

I can see you're stripping out a lot of refs at Montanabw's suggestion. I agree the clutter's unsightly, but if you want to keep the refs without the clutter, you could try WP:BUNDLING. If you're a fan of {{sfn}}s (I see they're used a lot, but not consistently, in the article), the you may want to consider {{sfnm}}s, which allow you to bundle easily. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:14, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I have a few refs bundled now (using my own crazy homemade method), but I'm not an expert on all of the other methods. Perhaps you could show me some examples of how some of the methods are used (in a sample of text). I might later go back and re-instate some of the refs into bundles (I'm keeping an archive of where the article was in its "unabridged" form from a few weeks ago--I put a message in the edit history as a mile-marker). Right now I'm admittedly putting the article on a "crash diet" to kill off "KBs" (the new form of calories). I've now eliminated almost 100, 000 KBs. But, I'm wondering... If I can't get the article to the magic number of kilobytes, would people still be OK with a larger-than-usual size article? The genre is just so large--there was just so much music made. It only goes to show I'm crazy to go after an article on this topic, because handling this thing has been steering the Queen Mary in a Typhoon. It is such a huge topic, trying to get it to a manageable size and proportion. Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:18, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Take a look at Katsudō Shashin (my shortest FA) for an example of {{sfnm}}. I actually use them quite a lot, but only once in this article (Ref #16). Unless you mean you don't really use the templates like {{sfn}} at all—in which case, I guess that article might also be a good example, since it's so short. No big deal if you're not into them, but I find they save a lot of headache sin the long run.
As for size—unusually long articles have certainly passed FAC—I think more than one were over 100kb of readable prose (which is the figure to watch). When a topic really is exceptionally large, though, it's usually best to split into separate articles and sum them up in subsections. For example, cut the subsections down to mentioning general trends, and mention actual bands or singles only when they truly stand out for some reason (I image the Kingsmen's version of "Louie Louie", the Thirteen Floor Elevators, that kind of thing—though son't take me for a subject expert). I might cut-and-paste the entire US regional section into its own article—that comes to 24kb of readable prose alone, without even a lead or anything. Then see how many paragraphs you can cut it down to in the main article. If you're worried about futzing up the main article, you can start by playing around in a sandbox—they're easy to make: User:Garagepunk66/Give this sandbox a name. When you have something you're satisfied with, copy-and-paste it into the actual article. I'd start with something minimal, though, and add things only when you feel you really can't get away with leaving them out, rather than starting with that 24kb and trying to cut it down—the summary should be a bird's-eye view, and point readers to the sub-article if they want the details.
Creating a separate regional US article also gives you more room to expand it with all the stuff you've had to cut already. If the subsections get long enough, you could even create new articles from them—I imagine California would be a likely choice. For now, though, I'd just cut-and-paste those sections over, add a lead and some context, and then leave it until you're done with the main Garage rock article. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:28, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Acid rock

An article that you have been involved in editing—Acid rock—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. --MASHAUNIX 12:11, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

BBC 12-hour Editathon - large influx of new pages & drafts expected

New Page Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC))

New Page Review - newsletter #2

Hello GloryRoad66,
Please help reduce the New Page backlog

This is our second request. The backlog is still growing. Your help is needed now - just a few minutes each day.

Getting the tools we need

ONLY TWO DAYS LEFT TO VOTE

Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC) .

Reply

Thanks for the invitation, however, I will decline at the moment. I'm busy with other wiki ideas, all the best for your project.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:49, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 December 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:03, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Garage punk

I appreciate the recent additions to the article. I was blown away by the previous version making it seem like that garage punk is a 60s genre when it is definitely not. It has its roots in 60s garage, as you wrote, but that is where the connection ends. I like Ilovetopaint's work, yet this baffled me. It was an honest mistake, I'm sure, but to call a band like Oscar and the Majestics a garage punk group is bordering on silliness. Hopefully the changes stay; I don't like when a whole genre's history is misrepresented as badly as it was.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:33, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I share your same admiration for Ilovetopaint's work, even if I have at times have disagreed. He may sometimes make life hard for GP66 (and vice versa), but, he keeps me on my toes, I've got to admit. He has taught me a lot. Keep in mind that he has not covered garage genres an as much as we have, so it takes nothing away from his skills as an editor in saying that he is new to garage. I hope that he is coming to love garage band music, just as we both share his love for more sophisticated 60s sounds, like on Pet Sounds. As garage rock fans, we know that all things "punk" go back to 60s garage (the world's best kept secret), but the rest of the world has re-appropriated those labels to later forms (unfortunately), and those later understandings have become established categories at Wikipedia. We have to go by that, but, working within that framework, we can still give the background and etymology and hopefully one day the world come to know the true story of how punk began! Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:01, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Ilovetopaint, I thought that we were evolving to a better understanding, but apparently there are still issues that are creating a gulf between our perspectives regarding the garage punk article. While your latest heading statements there are better than what you had before, they are still confusing and are not as accurate as what I put in there yesterday-- I made things more clear to the reader. Now, once again you have put in something confusing. I asked you to try to talk things over before any more major changes, but apparently you have a mind of your own. You could do more to solicit feedback from TheGracefulSlick and I, as well others who have written about this topic extensively. That is not intended to be a negative thing. We could be of benefit. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:51, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
I do not really know how to amend the situation. Ilovetopaint does point out in the article garage punk is sometimes used interchangeably with garage rock. I am not 100% happy with everything written though. But I am concerned if you attempt to edit the page there may be a case for edit-warring even though your concerns are legitimate. It is your call but I would decide with caution because it would be terrible to lose such a knowledgable voice on this topic with so few editors as it is already.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:52, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't know what to do. Although, I think the article should operate within the post-80s definition of the genre, it can give plenty of coverage to the 60s background, etymology, and alternate usage. I think that in heading I worded on few days ago, I struck a good balance and made the dynamics of the topic accurate and clear to the reader. Now, it is once again confusing, but in the opposite way that it was before my corrections. I left some comments on the talk page, and I hope that he will read them and perhaps take some of those concerns into consideration, but I don't it'll do much good. He needs to take our feedback into account. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:25, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm staying out of this, but have you considered trying WP:RFC? Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:24, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion, Ghmyrtle. I should give that a try. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Not sure how the RfC process works, but if they need several opinions I can offer one on your behalf as well.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
I just made a request for mediators at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. You are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:19, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Just recommending something: I see you are especially busy lately. You should not feel obligated to keep trimming the garage rock page; The heat is really off from the past discussion. I was just letting you know because you have not been writing your own articles as much anymore. Nothing wrong with that, but I know that is something you enjoyed doing.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:45, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I want to get back to regular article writing. I've been super-busy outside Wikipedia, so one way or another, my time was bound to be limited. But, what little Wiki time I've had got consumed with the GR issues--and then there has been the situation at the GP article, which was going on before that (and still continues). I want to try to get the GR trimmed down just a tad more--I took seriously other editors' concern that it was too long (and I thought it was too). And, hopefully there will be a resolution regarding the GP soon. I've had to put a lot of things on hold, but hopefully, the window will open back up soon. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:59, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Best of luck when you nominate Garage rock for FA. I am not entirely sure how the process works so it will be some uncharted waters. It will be a long review but I do not believe there will need to be any major changes unless there is still examples of name-dropping. If it needs multiple reviewers, I could lend a hand. It would probably be useful to have at least one editor who knows the genre, other than the nominator.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:19, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
I was aware when I was working on the expansion this summer that I would need to scale it back at some point. But, I felt that if I erred on the side of too much detail at least at the outset, then I could always go back trim down--which is better than to have too little. I want to make sure that readers get exposed to a lot of bands, but obviously not every band can get coverage. The particular topic of this article has a way of demanding the discussion of smaller bands (in a way that no other rock genre does). I don't know if it is a fair requisite, but is as if, with the exception of Paul Revere and the Raiders, that the qualification for being considered "60s garage" is that you either didn't make it or barely made it. If you were lucky enough to get hit, then maybe one or two, maybe three, but better none. That is the way people tend look at it in hindsight, but I'd imagine that any one of those bands would have loved to have had more success. A person can gain the world and lose their soul--so I guess that part of the appeal is that the groups never sold out--they remain perceived as forever in a pure state--as an emblem of a time that, while turbulent, was more innocent than today. With that in mind, I think that the article has a responsibility to bring a lot of lesser-known acts to people's attention--but to keep that in balance for sure. It shouldn't go overboard with coverage. Garagepunk66 (talk) 06:58, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Tell me if you think this is a good idea. You know about WikiProjects I presume. What if we proposed a wiki project for garage rock? I got the idea when I was updating my Userpage and added projects I was affiliated to. Do we even have the power to do that I wonder? I'll need to look through the guidelines before going through with anything. Let me know what you think.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:53, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
A "task force" is also an option. It is essentially the same thing, but with fewer administrative roles.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:58, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
I've thought about this idea many times--you've definitely been thinking the same thing. My only apprehension up to now has been that some editors might consider the topic to be too narrowly-defined (genre-wise) to warrant a whole project (they'd probably rather that it operate under the umbrella of the larger rock project), but on second thought, it might be worth a try. Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:39, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
P.S.: I see you're taking the Grace Slick thing to a whole new level.Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:42, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I think because it is easily one of the largest subgenres in rock that at least a task force could be created. A task force technically works under a parent page while having its own, albeit similar, agenda. It would start out with us obviously, and I think Shocking Blue, Frankzappatwin, and Binksternet would be interested as well. We only need five editors to start a task force then we can shop the concept around to other editors. I will need to ask more about how it is created, but when it's done I hope you could administrate the page with me.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:34, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

PS If you know people who may be interested, please send them a message. I sent one to Shocking Blue, Binksternet, Pitchie Blende, and Longnailsshorthair so far. We can make this into a really amazing project if we put the effort into it.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:31, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
And, oh yes, Ghmyrtle. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:03, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Such a project could incorporate all things garage, old and new, past and present, and, of course, deal with the whole proto-punk thing. Perhaps it could be named "Wiki Project: Garage rock and proto-punk". Some may feel that proto-punk issues lie under the purview of the Wiki: Punk Music project, but there can be overlapping boundaries. We could find a way to interact with the punk and rock music Wiki projects. In setting up a project, we should get a project coordinator involved, and I think that they want to see at least eleven editors interested in being involved. Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:31, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I thought it could incorporate 1960s garage and the subsequent revival. Proto-punk could be a stretch but Binksternet may think otherwise when he replies. Since it is under rock music, a task force may be preferred by him, but, again, let's see what he thinks. I recruited one user thus far, User:THX1136, and am awaiting others' responses. I'm sure Carptrash will join and I still need to ask Jennica. Those two (maybe Ghmyrtle pending his response) could make up our initial "veteran" presense, while the others I asked can be molded into what we think is desired. Task forces are much easier to run and we can always upgrade if it becomes popular. I also think it would be cool to look into how to design a Userbox for the group. You can look into that and pick our own banner if you want. It could include an image of a classic garage band, for instance.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:13, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
I like everything you're saying. A task force might be the way to go--and it is probably a lot easier to get started. I contacted a couple of editors, Hoboism, who has covered modern garage punk groups, Jmabel who has written about 80s retro-revival, and Shaidar cuebiyar, who has written about Australian music (and has done some articles on 60s bands. Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:24, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
I got Bearcat interested in the group as well, so that is a huge boost. We just need two or three more committed editors and this can be effective. Thank you for asking those editors mentioned, I would have never found them myself. I'll await Binksternet's response and you can work on the Userbox, while, of course, advising me as this goes along. I am not sure how userboxes are designed so perhaps ask someone knowledgable about the templates required. Thanks again, this is going to be really fun!TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:10, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
I could take a design from another task force page that looks good and use it as a foundation for our page--then I could change it up a bit to serve the needs/content of our page. Garagepunk66 (talk) 18:12, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Just an update: I have confirmations from THX1136, Bearcat, and now Shocking Blue, Carptrash, and LongLiveMusic. Considering we need five editors to get it off the ground, I think we are in excellent shape at the moment.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:56, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Add Frankzappatwin. The only issue is I still have not had an editor reply to help me form the page. I do not feel confident enough to arrange it myself and I want it to look well-designed.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:25, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
I'll start doing a design in one of my sandboxes as a prototype. I first want to scout what some good task force pages look like, then I can use some of their better ideas. Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:05, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry I am really clueless about this stuff. I'll continue scouting for potential contributors so I am still a little useful. If an editor finally does approach me I will send him/her to you for assistance.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:00, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
And one thing, I love what you have in the sandbox, but task forces are voluntary. Meaning, the users themselves will need to put their names in the participates section when the page is complete. I will message them again as I promised when the page is up. I think most pages have a template so users can put their name in. Other than that, great work so far.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:17, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
I'll take the names out. When the time comes everyone can put them in alphabetical order according to first letters of user names. Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Okay thank you. If you could, please tell me when you are prepared to create the page so I can start sending messages out and can assess it.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:46, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Give me some time to work on it while I do a graphic design. Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:47, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Question, when the page is created, do we need to add a template to garage rock-related article talk pages? I noticed projects and task forces have an "article alert" section for Afd and GA updates. I'm just wondering so I know if I need to help add templates to pre-existing talk pages.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC

I'm guessing that we should put one there. By the way, you'll notice that I just moved the task force prototype to my sandbox #3. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:54, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes and I like it so far; well-chosen image, I was thinking either the Standells or the Count Five. Perhaps add a caption like "The Standells, the band that recorded the garage rock-classic "Dirty Water" or something like that for those unaware of their claim to fame. I found this Wikipedia:Article alerts for information. We need our banner to be placed on article talk pages, but now we need to look into how to create banners. The steps just keep growing!TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:33, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
There are certain people who specialize in templates and we could ask them to set them up and, of course, we can work with the task force coordinators who would assist us through the process. Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:43, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Hopefully you can have better luck finding help. Anyone I asked has ignored me. I understood that Ritchie was busy because there was a situation with Mike V but I was surprised by the lack of response from others. At this point, all I can contribute is being a messenger when the page is up and to set-up those banners on talk pages.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:56, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
No problem. We'll find someone. While I'm at it, here is a thought, TheGracefulSlick (talk · contribs): I was thinking that we could broaden the scope of the task force to be less exclusive to one genre. Rather than just base the whole task force on garage rock, we could widen its purview to a cross-generic format, such as "Regional and underground rock" or something like that, which, of course, would include garage under its umbrella--and we could specify garage rock as one of its main concerns. While I know that many more articles can be written about garage, I am also aware that you and I have done so much to build the genre up to its present state (which is now healthy), that we could include other rock genres and subgenres in with the package. I think, that way, we could get a lot more editors involved and be able to turn the ear of the Wiki project/task force coordinators to consider our proposal. What do you think? Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:15, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
I would really need to see your updated scope on that idea before fully approving of it. I think we could include garage rock, proto-punk, garage punk, and lo-fi music. We need to be careful not to trend too far into other projects like Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative music, which deals with underground punk. I am not against adding more of an appeal to the task force, but there is still much to be done with garage rock. Like I said, I find it very agreeable to include the above genres, and I would need to see your updated scope.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:24, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm open to different things. We could do it as "garage rock". I just want to make sure we have something that would go over with others. Garagepunk66 (talk) 07:48, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I am not against your idea of expanding the scope of the task force. I just do not want to overstep our boundaries. Incorporating the other genres I mentioned is reasonable, but underground music can mean just about anything from 1960s psychedelic music to today's indie rock. Remember you and me will be the main administrators of this task force; we will be largely responsible for adding those templates to talk pages. We do not want to overextend ourselves. Besides, when we get the hang of this we can always expand this into a full-blown wikiproject. Garage rock articles still need help: the list of bands and comps need refs, GAs can be created, images uploaded, articles created, and a center for genre discussion is needed. I am more concerned at the moment to get the page up and running before we lose interest from the editors we recruited.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 09:04, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

We could start out with it as garage rock. I just want to make sure that we will be able to get them to approve the creation of the task force--just to get it off the ground. If they are fine with it as garage rock, then so am I. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:22, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
It is one of the largest genres in music; I'm sure a task force is the least they would accept. Do you need any information on what the page needs? The only things left that I know of is "Article alerts" and a seperate talk page. Hopefully this can be launched before the month is over, and templates can start to be included into article talk pages. During that time, you or me can design the task force Userbox.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:14, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
I started a basic design of our Userbox here User:TheGracefulSlick/Userbox. I am new to the concept, so I do not expect this to be the final piece. Feel free to edit it or offer ideas.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:36, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
The userbox looks really nice. I added a section for it in the task force page (in sandbox 12). I slightly narrowed the width on the userbox to make it universal size. Garagepunk66 (talk) 18:17, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Okay, but whatever changes you make, make sure it is directly added to the page with the template that I linked above. Then add this to the task force page {{User:TheGracefulSlick/Userbox}} so users can easily copy and paste it on their Userpage. Other than that, I recommend someone more experienced than me review your work this far, and maybe we can launch the page soon after.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:32, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
I could make whatever changes, but keep in mind that what we have designed is in its pre-stage right now. Before we officially launch the task page, we could get one of the Wiki project coordinators to re-write the codes--using the same designs, but re-writing them into (system-internal) administrative access codes. So, then, they will have a more sophisticated look and will not be able to be changed or modified by regular users--that way the page can stay the way we originally intended it to be. Garagepunk66 (talk) 19:45, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Well I hope you know someone because I do not, sorry to say. I was just saying about the Userbox because it is required that a Userbox is linked to a subpage under an editor's username. That way, any modifications to it is universal for any user who has it in their userpage. Right now, you directly copy and pasted the templates substance (image, size, font, etc.) on the draft, but simply needed to include the page's name within {{ }}. Then present the template by placing the "no wiki" symbols so other users can paste instead.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:16, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
I just linked it to your user page. Keep in mind that everything is in prototype stage right now. So, we can fine-hone it as we go. I'd like to to see if one of the Wikiproject coordinators can re-draft the page, using the same design, but onto a special code--the way I see on a lot of project pages. Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:24, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh okay I understand now. I think my part of this project is done at the moment. If anything new comes up, including obviously when this is put in mainspace, please let me know.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:31, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

The userbox looks really nice--much thanks. I'll let you know if anything comes up. And, of course once the page gets launched, we'll have a lot of template-tagging & other stuff to do. But, hopefully, once it has been around for awhile, it will get a lot easier. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:08, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
I just realized something cool about the GR article. If you achieve FA status with it, you can also receive a "full-circle" type of award for bringing it to GA, DYK, and FA. I know you don't care too much about that stuff, but it is a rare achievement that would deserve recognition.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:10, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
While that would indeed be wonderful, I'd still want to give a lot of credit to everybody. For instance, I regard so many of the band articles that you and others have written as necessary, downright fundamental, to the article. I might have gone a bit overboard with mentioning too many bands a while back (so I've scaled that back a bit). But, the GR still highlights a lot of bands--and a lot of those bands you did articles on. And, Ghmyrtle and Sabrebd have done a lot for the article too. So, we're all a part of it. Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:38, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Just so you know, the second editor you asked for help from has not been active for five months. He/she most likely will not help you in a timely manner.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:53, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm contacting a bunch of people--I'll get tin touch with some more. Maybe I could just submit the page into mainspace, but I don't want to run the risk of deletion. I want to try to pass it by a few people first. Garagepunk66 (talk) 21:57, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
I would wait until you contact someone who knows about the "Article alerts" template, unless you already feel confident with it. I don't think it will be deleted, but I'm in no hurry as of yet.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:28, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Though I could probably do it, I'd rather wait and get someone to assist. I want to make sure that everything comes out just right. Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:39, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year Garagepunk66!

Happy New Year!
Hello Garagepunk66:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, JustBerry (talk) 00:31, 1 January 2017 (UTC)



Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Garagepunk66}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.
Thank you so much, and Happy New Year to you as well! Thank you for offering your time so generously to help editors work things out. My utmost gratitude. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:38, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

On this party free New Year's Eve

Happy New Year's Eve


Carptrash (talk) 02:38, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Have a Happy New Year! Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:19, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Question

Is it okay if I transfer your work for the garage rock project page onto my sandbox? I am assuming since you removed the content you no longer wish to continue, but I am still very much interested. If it matters, I will not do anything until I have your approval or otherwise.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:23, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I remain very interested. I wasn't sure if you were still interested, but I'm glad to know that you still are. The prototype is still in my user boxes--I moved it to Sandbox #10--it's still there. I'll keep it in #10 until we launch it. I got really busy at work last week, so I did not have much time to do much of anything Wikipedia-related--I'll have more time available this week. I know we had agreed that we should try to get a Wikiproject coordinator to help us launch it before doing it on our own. If we can't find one that is interested, I could just enter it into main space myself (it shouldn't be hard to do--it would be entered as "Wikipedia:WikiProject Rock music/Garage rock taskforce"). I just want to make sure that we are operating within the norms and that it does not get deleted. It looks good and is ready to roll. I'll try to contact someone tonight. But, if you want me to go ahead and enter it, just let me know. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
As long as you are confident the "Article alerts" system will work with the appropriate template, I would agree to entering the page and subsequent talk page. That is the cornerstone of the whole project; without it, garage rock articles would be left stagnated. I am more than willing to start adding templates on article talk pages, and send out welcoming messages to editors. Just give me the word when ready.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
TheGracefulSlick, I just entered the page into main space. We now have the task force. You can go ahead and add the templates. We can notify the editors who wanted to sign up. If there are any troubles with the alert system, we could get that corrected in time. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:36, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Did you create the template? Is it somewhere on the page and I'm just missing it? A seperate talk page is also needed. I will hold off briefly on notifying everyone until these issues are resolved.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
I'll go in and do the talk page. We also need a template. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I hope me contacting Moxy was okay with you. I just noticed he edited the music project so his input would be invaluable. I am going to start contacting users to join the task force.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

P.S. for the "to-do" list, would you prefer a seperate page or should I add content there? I wanted to start including articles to create/improve and objectives.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:53, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Sorry one more thing: when I added the template to Talk:The Remains (album) it directs to the Wikiproject Rock music. Is it supposed to do that? The template also recommends a "class" parameter like the rock music template.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:10, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
I'll try to fix it.Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:31, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
I corrected the problem. Incidentally, if you see things that certain garage rock articles need, you can insert these categories at the bottom of the articles and they will register in the auto alert system:
On the edit page, when inserting the needed category at the bottom of an article, remove the colon you see there on the far left (it cannot be seen from the article page--it takes the category out of "live use"). Then, once you go back to the article page, click into the red/blue link to the category page and add the name of the article into the category page's repository. Thanks, Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Using the bot and Wikipedia:Article alerts/Subscribing--Moxy (talk) 05:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the correction. Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
need to add {{WikiProject Rock music/Garage rock taskforce}} on article talk pages.--Moxy (talk) 05:23, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

GP66 I have a draft of a to-do list in my second sandbox under my re-write for Goo. Could you choose the appropriate place to include it in the page? Of course, once it is in main space anyone can add to it.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:43, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

P.S. Would you want the page to look something like the Rock project design? I kinda like how it goes side by side and the "quick links" section. Let me know because I could design something similar.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I made some updates that I hope will surprise you and added a "to-do" page. If you do not like it, we can always revert.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:01, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I like the new boxes and layout. Perhaps we could find some "60s garage colors". Maybe a light shade of off-blue for the panels and a narrow red stripe around the edges to conjure up a '66 GTO [[1]] (the original factory tires had narrow red stripes). Silver or light grey panels with a hefty black stripe border would conjure up a blackface Fender Amp. [[2]]. Those are just some ideas. Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
I would love that. I only knew how to format a split, but am clueless with how to change colors. Feel free to do so at any time; this is just as much your page (if not more) as it is mine.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:36, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
I could try to find the color codes. But, I really like the new template--I think that is the format you have on your user page right now. Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:40, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Amazing update on the project page. I do not know how you did it, but I love it. Question, when you add the templates like you have been doing, you include something called "listas". What does that do exactly?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:30, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, I looked up the color codes and tried a few different things until it achieved that "'66 GTO" look we were trying to find, but keep in mind that you had put in the really nice panels--so you helped in getting the fantastic look that the page has now. As for the templates on the talk pages, I sometimes do the "listas=". I'm guessing that it sends the name of a band to a list somewhere, but where that list is, I'm not sure. It probably isn't really necessary, but I listed a few bands' names there, just in case. If you list a band's name there, I later noticed that other editors put the "the" last (i.e. "Gremlins, The")--I guess so that the first letter of the main part of the band's name will show under that letter on whatever lists it goes to. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:13, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

FAC: House of Music

Hello. Would you care to review or comment at my nomination of House of Music for featured status? The previous nomination did not gather enough commentary, so anything at all would be appreciated. Dan56 (talk) 03:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd be happy to help out with that review. Give me some time to comb through it, and if I see anything that needs fixing, I could give whatever recommendations. Also, you could contact the FAC coordinators, and I'm sure that they would be glad to help out too. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:29, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

French garage

Hi,

I'll have a look into that. I won't make any promises as to when or how, but the French article is indeed crap (as are most articles dealing with rock on that Wikipedia, actually) and it wouldn't hurt to add content from your work on its equivalent here. However, I don't think I'll translate the entire article; it's very long, a bit too much in my opinion (but that's just my opinion). – Swa cwæð Ælfgar (talk) 11:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Ælfgar, thanks for considering. The US version is indeed big. I guess that one of the challenges I had to deal with in expanding it was the sheer size of the movement and what the whole name "garage" implies--I felt a certain need to include a lot of lesser name artists to do the topic justice. However, I've been cutting it back, and I could trim some more things. I'm glad that you are considering translating whatever you can. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:56, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 January 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

How categories work

Re:

As I've told you before, the correct way to add an article to a category is to add "[[Category:X]]" to the article (or write a template to do that), not to enter the article name on the category page. The latter does not put the article in the category, it just creates cleanup work for other editors. The only things that should be on a category page are parent categories (which all categories must have), and a brief explanation of the contents if necessary. See Wikipedia:Categorization. —swpbT 18:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Timeline of protests during Donald Trump's presidency

An article that you have been involved in editing—Timeline of protests during Donald Trump's presidency—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:48, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Very proud

I am proud of our work at the garage rock project page. I have not been as effective at recruiting as I would like to be, but I still managed to find some solid editors (we stand at 9 at the moment). None of this would have been possible if it were not for your organization of the page and careful planning. In a few days, I plan to add more to the to-do list. Hopefully, we can seek out some eager content creators to spearhead efforts.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:29, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I wish I had more time to do recruiting. I've just been really busy with stuff outside Wikipedia, and I've just kind of been out of the loop. Hopefully, I'll get back in the groove at some point. But, I just started working on an expansion of the article for producer and engineer, Glyn Johns, who is one of my all-time favorites. I'm sure that your father is a big fan of his work, and I wonder if he ever crossed paths with Glyn Johns or his brother Andy Johns. Both have worked with so many great artists (the list of names is just too incredible to mention), and Glen Johns has always insisted on working with real players live-in-the studio, getting a "true-to-life" and natural recording sound (even when that approach has been hopelessly out of style--he has stuck to his guns, Amen). I'm reading his book right now, and when he explains his philosophy of recording, it makes me want to dance on the roof! I wish there were more people like him today. But, I glanced at the tiny article on him and realized that something should be done. So, I'll give it a go. It'll take a while though. I have a feeling that it will be almost as long as the Wrecking Crew article, with the big cast of characters, and all that, but I'll give it a spin, crazy me. Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:47, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Very possibly, I know he met Ed Cobb because it was part of the process to reissue the Chocolate Watchband albums as well as Jimmy Bowen. I too have been out of the loop recently, writing about baseball players and old-time folk musicians, but I have a few more bands to write about in the near future. I'm glad to see Johns was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame; I just skimmed over acts he recorded and thought he was more than deserving of the recognition. You will have a lot of stories to cover!TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:24, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, it's going to be a lot of stuff to cover. I don't think the Wikipedia article yet mentions the Small Faces, but Johns engineered (and de facto co-produced) all of their records. Incidentally Jimmy Bowen used the Wrecking Crew for the backing on a lot of his productions. Glyn Johns got to know Leon Russel (previously of course with the Wrecking Crew) when he was recording the Mad Dogs & Englishmen tour. I have always thought of Glyn Johns in terms of his work with the great British bands (the Stones, the Who, the Small Faces, the Beatles on Let it Be, etc.), and I know he worked with some American acts, but until reading his book I didn't realize how many American acts. For a time in the late 60s and early 70s, Johns was flying back and forth from the UK to the states to work with various artists, and the roster of names is just incredible. Circa '69 a typical schedule was something like: "I'll be doing a track with the Stones tomorrow at Olympic, then going over to Apple to work with the Beatles' on their "Get Back" project, then back over to Olympic with the Stones, then I'll be flying out to LA for a couple of weeks to work with the Steve Miller Band on their next album, then coming back to the UK to record Dylan and the Band at the Isle of White..." Who wouldn't kill to have an itinerary like that? Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:35, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Arlie Neaville.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Arlie Neaville.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:35, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Garagepunk66 Regarding this removal, I tried to explain to "Hullaballoo Wolfowitz" how the rationale works, but by taking a quick look at their talk page I think you'll be able to see what kind of editor they are, and what kind of issues I ran into. After politely explaining my rationale to them I was accused of edit warring (funny), so I dropped the matter. Perhaps we can bring it up at Wikipedia:Files for discussion if you think it's needed. Thanks! Garchy (talk) 21:32, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:58, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Arlie Neaville.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Arlie Neaville.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:08, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.2

Hello GloryRoad66,
A HUGE backlog

We now have 808 New Page Reviewers!
Most of us requested the user right at PERM, expressing a wish to be able to do something about the huge backlog, but the chart on the right does not demonstrate any changes to the pre-user-right levels of October.

Hitting 17,000 soon

The backlog is still steadily growing at a rate of 150 a day or 4,650 a month. Only 20 reviews a day by each reviewer over the next few days would bring the backlog down to a managable level and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
It didn't work in time to relax for the Xmas/New Year holidays. Let's see if we can achieve our goal before Easter, otherwise by Thanksgiving it will be closer to 70,000.

Second set of eyes

Remember that we are the only guardians of quality of new articles, we alone have to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged by non-Reviewer patrollers and that new authors are not being bitten.

Abuse

This is even more important and extra vigilance is required considering Orangemoody, and

  1. this very recent case of paid advertising by a Reviewer resulting in a community ban.
  2. this case in January of paid advertising by a Reviewer, also resulting in a community ban.
  3. This Reviewer is indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry.

Coordinator election

Kudpung is stepping down after 6 years as unofficial coordinator of New Page Patrolling/Reviewing. There is enough work for two people and two coords are now required. Details are at NPR Coordinators; nominate someone or nominate yourself. Date for the actual suffrage will be published later.

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 February 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:45, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Reference errors on 9 February

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:51, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Garage punk

I urge you to vote at the discussion since you were one of the main editors pushing for clarity in the "garage rock vs. garage punk" debate.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:06, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review-Patrolling: Coordinator elections

Your last chance to nominate yourself or any New Page Reviewer, See Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination. Elections begin Monday 20 February 23:59 UTC. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.3

Hello GloryRoad66,

Voting for coordinators has now begun HERE and will continue through/to 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. Please be sure to vote. Any registered, confirmed editor can vote. Nominations are now closed.

Still a MASSIVE backlog

We now have 808 New Page Reviewers but despite numerous appeals for help, the backlog has NOT been significantly reduced.
If you asked for the New Page Reviewer right, please consider investing a bit of time - every little helps preventing spam and trash entering the mainspace and Google when the 'NO_INDEX' tags expire.

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Taskforce archive

Could you make an archive for our task force's talk page, similar to the one you use for your own talk page? I don't know how to set that up because I've never used one (don't tell anyone, they may come after me!). It might be useful since editors, especially Frankzappatwin, enjoy communicating on the page.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:20, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

The archive I have at my talk page was put there by a bot, who regularly transfers stuff into the archive automatically every so often. However, I'm not sure that non-user talk pages are supposed to be managed the same way--I believe that public pages have to have an editorial consensus to transfer things into archives. I could try to copy my personal archive format to there, but it might be better to see what formats are used at other Wikiprojects and task forces. We could start a thread on the talk page to get a quick consensus to transfer the threads to a new archive. I agree that page needs a routine housecleaning--it's getting rather long--I'd personally be for transferring the info. into an archive. Garagepunk66 (talk) 17:14, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
I notice that the Rock project page is operated by a bot, so I contacted the talk page Misza13 to see if someone could set up a similar archive there. My guess is that the talk page would be regularly be cleaned and archived by the bot. Garagepunk66 (talk) 17:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Don't tell me that I am adding too much. LOL Just keeping everybody up to date. Frankzappatwin (talk) 15:41, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Frankzappatwin, I am most thankful for your messages and updates at the Task Force talk page, and though I can only speak for myself, I'm sure that TheGracefulSlick is too (I think what he meant is that he was embarrassed that he has never set one up an archive before and was afraid that he might screw it up--it was nothing meant against you--I had never set one up before either, so I was also afraid I might mess it up). It is wonderful that you've been so conscientious and helpful to everyone, and I view your involvement there as a godsend. Having an archive there is mainly to save information as a future reference. As every talk page grows larger (which is a healthy thing), this eventually becomes a necessity--to keep talk pages from getting so large that they become hard for readers to navigate. It is just normal maintenance at any growing page to help readers focus on the more current discussions at hand--yet also while being able to go back and look at older things. So, thank you for your helpful messages there (you'll notice that I responded to one of your threads yesterday). The archive will actually help direct people to your latest news and updates, so it will actually put greater emphasis on the things you are currently attempting to communicate. It is intended to be a positive, and wan not meant badly, but I apologize for any misunderstanding. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Frankzappatwin what I said was supposed to be taken positively. When you finish objectives on the to-do list, it is only practical to eventually archive the corresponding discussion when it's been inactive after so many days. I hope you still update us on the talk page because it is very useful to the project.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Not to worry everyone!!! Note what I actually posted. "Don't tell me that I am adding too much. LOL Just keeping everybody up to date. Frankzappatwin (talk) 17:05, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Impressed

Just want to say that I'm impressed to see your handle among the edits to the Magisterium entry. It's great to see another person interested in the Magisterium who also appreciates Los Shakers, Dearly Beloved, etc. Dawn Eden Goldstein --195.171.137.50 (talk) 18:10, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I just happen to be interested in a lot of topics, so I just do what I can.Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:47, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Something about baseball...

I don't know how interested you are about baseball but I started a re-write on Moses Fleetwood Walker in my sandbox. He was the first African-American to play in the MLB (not Jackie Robinson as many people think). What baffled me is, after reading his biography and starting research, he was not exactly the first. William Edward White actually played a game in 1879, passing as a white man. As I state in my draft though, Fleet was still the first to openly play as a black man which I think is still a tremendous accomplishment. Sorry if this isn't your thing, I just don't know anyone else at the moment to share this interesting piece of history. I should probably join a wiki-baseball project or something...TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Since we don't have a major league team where I live (we do have a minor league team), I've haven't been able to follow pro baseball as much as I'd like, but I should. I enjoy watching a good game every now and then on TV. I salute the pioneering African American players who paved the way for a more inclusive major league. While equality came too late for black players in all sports, major league baseball made some of the first strides for other sports to follow. I remember being a kid and seeing Hank Aaron on TV. He was always fun to watch. He was a fantastic player and quite a slugger. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:52, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
I remember at the Baseball Hall of Fame, viewing Hank's record-breaking home run on screen when the fans greeted him while he ran across the basepaths. Like with a lot of hall of fames, I am kinda disappointed with baseball's. Cap Anson, the man who was a driving force in building the color barrier, is honored there, but Pete Rose still isn't because of his gambling. Several players have done worse and are still on the ballot or are already in the hall. I watched some film of Rose; he genuinely enjoyed the game and is the all-time leader in hits. He will probably be honored after his death which is a shame because being able to see himself in the hall has always been his dream.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:09, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
I used to watch Pete Rose on TV as both a player and manager with the Reds. He made a bad mistake with the betting and all, but that was a long time ago. He's had to see the whole Hall of Fame thing get shelved or put off indefinitely. Maybe it is time for him to be rehabilitated. I'm imagining that the league will honor him at some point, but probably, as you said, after he dies. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:41, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
I finally finished the expansion for Walker's article. It looks like the GA review will be relatively brief so I think I will go back to content creation for awhile. But if you need help putting the finishing touches on the garage rock article for FA, like with technicalities involving reference formats or whatever, I can lend a hand. I'm not touching the current discussion at the talk page though, that looks like it's digging itself in a circle.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:48, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
During the review process, we'll have a chance to tidy up any issues with reference format, so we can all work together on that. As for that little issue being debated on the G.R. talk page, I'm trying to stand on the sidelines concerning it, but I have a feeling that it will soon be resolved--it's a relatively minor hot spot. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:05, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Hope so because I think they should be concerning themselves with more pressing matters. By the way, I'm sure you heard Chuck Berry passed away. All I have to say is if Elvis was the "king of rock and roll", Chuck Berry was the "God of rock and roll". No one nears his importance, except maybe Little Richard.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:37, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
I like the way you said that. I heard the news earlier tonight, I am sad to say. I consider Chuck Berry to be the most fundemental influence in rock & roll. Before Chuck Berry, the music was more piano and horn based. Of course I love that sound too (being from New Orleans, and I'm getting into a lot of the early R&B). But, Chuck Berry was the first to switch the emphasis to guitar. We're all familiar with that crazy rocking guitar sound he got that kids loved and drove parents crazy. It's the very quintessence of rock & roll. And, his guitar licks were really the blueprint for everything that was to come. The only thing is that nobody could ever quite match what he did. I've heard Keith Richards say that on a few occasions. Whether it was surf or British Invasion, or whatever else, Chuck Berry was always preset. There was a little bit of Chuck Berry in every garage band who wanted to wake up the whole neighborhood. He really was the God. Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:53, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
...Oh, and his lyrics. I've always considered Chuck Berry to be rock & roll's first poet. The way he was experimenting with all of that wordplay and imagery in the 1950s. I know that Dylan has acknowledged his influence. Garagepunk66 (talk) 15:08, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

It is a shame he was kinda forgotten by a lot of media outlets, especially in this decade. To keep touring and recording to the day you die is something special from one of the most influential artists of the last 100 years. Berry and Little Richard were also two of the earliest showmen on stage (Berry's duck walk). Unfortunately, there are not many of them left: Little Richard and Jerry Lee Lewis are the only two that come to mind.

PS - Was that archive setup for the garage rock project? If so, I want to move some old discussions to it soon.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:02, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the archive is set up. All you have to do is cut and paste the old threads and move them into the red "create", and it will save the material (as archive 1). Garagepunk66 (talk) 23:46, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Thought I would drop by and give you this interesting story to read on a rockabilly singer called Tommy Blake: [3] His life was full of missed chances as you'll find out and he contributed to some well-known artists without anyone knowing. Hope everything is going well in the real-life world. I'm guessing you have been busy.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:42, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
I've been busy with work. I've also needed to use whatever spare time re-connect with some of my other interests and areas of my life I've neglected. I'm sure I'll get back in the swing soon. But, sometimes a Wiki-break is a good idea. I'll check out the story on Tommy Blake. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:25, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Of course it is, and I'll keep an eye on things while you are away. I have a little more spare time because we have been having absolutely bitter recently up here which takes away most of what I enjoy doing. I've always dreamed of either moving south or west when I get older to avoid the cold weather and meet friendlier people. Have fun and take care; I'm sure I'll be around when you get back.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:39, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the cold weather where you live can make it uninviting to go outdoors--I've spent time there. There may be colder weather in other places, but there is something about the way the wind blows off the Atlantic that makes the cold air really slice through the bones. I'd imagine things are about to get warmer soon--with Easter approaching. Luckily, where I live, it was 79 degrees and sunny today--beautiful weather. But, then again, our summers can get really long. June can be nice, but July, August, and much of September can be a long stretch--we call it the "dog days" of summer. At that time, it goes up to about 95-100 degrees every day. Surprisingly I've never seen it go over 102. There are places that get hotter (I'd imagine that Philly can actually get hotter on certain days), but the way the humidity here festers during those months makes it feel like a steam bath outside--and it just goes on and on for almost three months. So everywhere has its weather downsides, I guess. Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:28, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Whatever the weather, I hope it is a good Opening Day for baseball. I'm in Cincinnati to watch the Phillies and Reds. Come to think of it, your city is very deserving of a major league team. I think, don't quote me on it, New Orleans has a Triple-A team called the Baby Cakes, an affiliate of the Marlins and had Negro league clubs in the past (obviously defunct). The city actually started the practice of Spring training as well as ladies' night to bring etiquette and civility to the stands which I think are both cool pieces of baseball history.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of that trivia. We once had a minor league team, the Pelicans (not the current basketball team), a long time ago. We now have a minor league team called the Zephyrs. I'd like to see a major league team someday, but we'd probably have to grow in size/economy to be able to support it. We'd have to build a stadium and all (the Superdome once could configure to baseball, but it has now been re-engineered to be more optimal for football and is less-multi-sport than it used to be). We do have two major professional sports franchises, the Saints and the Pelicans (basketball), which is pretty good for our size. For instance, Memphis, and San Antonio have only NBA basketball (the Grizzlies, and the Spurs), but no football. I don't think Austin even has a major sports team (but, then again, there is so much competition from surrounding cites in Texas, whereas New Orleans has the whole Gulf South region to draw from: Baton Rouge, Shreveport, Jackson, Mobile, Birmingham, the Florida panhandle, etc.--our teams have fan bases/broadcasting in all of the region). But, major league baseball would be a nice idea for someday. Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Maybe when the city's economy and infrastructure fully recovers it can sustain a baseball team. It's amazing after over a decade that the damage of Katrina still lingers (I visited N.O. in 2015 so I imagine it's improved since then). N.O. is without a doubt one of my favorite cities: the music, the food, the people, and buildings are all unique to the country, even, in some cases, to the world. Philly has its high points (sports, punk bands, an amazing art museum) but it's so disorganized. I wish when I first went to N.O. that I was into recording street performers like I am now. I met a talented blind harmonica player who played with a banjoist and sang like Robert Johnson. He even tap danced while playing! I was moved more by him than a lot of the concerts I've been to.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:11, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
I won't claim New Orleans is exactly known for being organized either, but that is one area where I think we've actually improved since Katrina. The storm forced us to get more organized and efficient. I think we have a really good mayor, Mitch Landrieu, who, while not a miracle worker, has done an effective job. We definitely have some terrific street musicians. I think that part of the lure for street musicians is that, in addition to having a lot of tourists, the weather is mild in the winter time, so street musicians flock here during the winter months where they can play comfortably outdoors. We have a lot of good music clubs. You'll be interested to know that years ago (right after I graduated from high school), I went with some friends to see Clifton Chenier at Tipitina's not long before he before he died. He was very physically weak by then and had to sit down while he played, but he put on a great show anyway. I consider him to be the grand master of Zydeco. I like the way he sang most of his songs in French. I'd like to do an expansion project on his article--I just need to gather some good sources. I think I'll have more time again soon, so I'll get back in the swing. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:04, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

That's good to know you'll be back at it soon. I have been doing a lot of different things: writing about new subjects, patrolling for vandalism, and discussing at ANI. I think I mentioned this before but I am serious about wanting to be an admin eventually to combat vandalism, use page protections, and settles disputes. The climate is right for me to test the waters after recent RfAs passed editors will less credentials than me or you. By the way, since you are an active voice in the Wiki community I recommend you vote at this current RfA: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dane. Base your vote on the editor's answers to questions and the reasonings by each side.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:40, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with that editor's track record, but I could check into it. Regarding your interest in becoming an administrator, please take what I say kindly--I mean this well. A year ago I may have said differently, but at the present time I would not recommend that you pursue such duties. What I just said is in no way a comment on your fine credentials as an editor--you are correct that there are people sailing through with less experience. But, sometimes newer boats have smoother hulls. You have to be aware that some of the tenured administrators are going to bring up past issues in those deliberations which are going to cause unwanted roadblocks. Why would you want to put yourself though that kind of scrutiny? Maybe in a few years the dust will settle, but I right now those administrators are going to have recent bones to pick that are fresh on their minds. That may not be fair, but it is reality. I think that you should stick to doing the things you do so well. A different day may come in time, but now is not the time. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
I think it is worth looking into; if you think about it, somewhere along the way that potential admin may affect you, hopefully positively, in some way. And I hear where you are coming from. I just figure I have a small window of opportunity because, like it or not, editors who dislike me have ways to come back to Wikipedia in the near future if a forgiving admin accepts them back. Anyone can vote at a RfA and can twist a situation anyway they like to oppose me. I am going to talk about it with Ritchie soon to get an admin's opinion as well but your opinion absolutely factors into my decision.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't think that Richie is where the problems will be. However, there will be other amins. who have a less favorable position than he. It is not an issue of whether or not they like you (or even whether or not they are forgiving)--it comes down to what they perceive as their role and responsibilities. They are not going to base their opinions on personal considerations, but what they view as prudent. Maybe in a few years they would be willing to change their minds, but right now some of them are going to be reluctant. Garagepunk66 (talk) 13:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
I feel you misinterpreted what ORCP is. It is merely an optional poll to test the waters for RfA and receive advice on the process. There is no "candidacy" until I actually make a bid for adminship. With that being said, I am happy to say I am a lot closer than I thought. The time should be right in about 6-12 months, granted if I work a little more at AIV. I hope to have your support when the time comes because I hold your opinion higher than many others here. However, with your recent comments, I doubt I will. Regardless, I am going to see this through so I can help out the encyclopedia in ways I feel I am prepared to commit to.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:37, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
I understand that it is just preliminary rounds, but I was just saying that I wouldn't recommend a supporting a future canidacy unless the results of the investigation can be disproven. The issue involving whether or not to become an administrator is a serious matter and goes way beyond what one is trying to accomplish in his or her projects as an editor--it involves having the power of punitive action over others. I just think that being a writer suits you best at this time. Maybe the passage of time can change my mind and that of others, but right now you would be best advised to stick to what you do so well. Garagepunk66 (talk) 06:02, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Apologies

I know I said I intended to stay away (and I mean that still) but I wanted to apologize for side-tracking your peer review process at the G.R. talk page. I don't know how I made that dumb mistake, adding an obvious hyperbole; I've already written enough and read enough policies to know better. I think I resolved it and tried to make that point so I wouldn't prolong the distraction I caused. I promised to still edit constructively at articles we may cross paths in and I failed here in that instance. My apologies, I excused myself from editing the article.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:08, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

You need not feel bad about your recent edits there--honest mistakes are OK, and the editing process involves edits and re-edits. It was just a phrase in wording, that's all. No big deal. You added some helpful information in there about the band's influence, so I regard it as a plus. One thing: I'd like see if we could get a citation for the first sentence dealing with the organ riff and probably also the influence. I know that organ thing is obvious, but we probably want to cover it anyway. And, even though the subsequent sentences mention specific examples of their influence, we could probably source the later part of the part of the first sentence. I tend to err on the side of caution about these things--I'm admittedly fanatical about having every sentence cited (except for perhaps lead sentences/topic sentences in a paragraph--I have a fault that I don't mind redundant citations). I'd like to add a citation(s) there. Should I use the same two sources you provided, or would there be another one I could attach to sentence one? Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:08, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Page semiprotected

Garagepunk, I've semi'd this page for a week, see the history. Please let me know if you'd like the protection longer, or shorter, or removed. Bishonen | talk 22:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC).

Thank you so much Bishonen. I appreciate your kindness. Garagepunk66 (talk) 23:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
If any further acts of harassment by IPs or sock puppets pop up, please let me know too so I can watchlist the page for a while. I have rollback which makes it easier to revert multiple edits at once. I'm not thrilled about how you choose to end our discussion but I will not tolerate harassment from this vandal (probably the same one who harasses me on my talk page). Even though you are semi'd, a persistent vandal can still slip through occasionally.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:14, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for helping out. Don't worry about any acerbic words the other day. Lt's just move onto better things. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello back at you

Doing well, thank you. Hadn't been doing much on the garage rock project lately, but have been keeping busy editing many other album pages. I'll be back into that groove soon.Frankzappatwin (talk) 09:14, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure the album pages will be looking real nice. Thanks. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:43, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Garagepunk66 ...I'm not sure how to use the talk page as I don't usually "talk". You commented on my article on Australian garage band The Headstones last year. Someone has deleted the article on the basis they aren't well known enough. Unfortunately I didn't see the proposed deletion message until after the article was deleted, otherwise I would have argued the band are quite well known over here. I will see if I can revamp the article and get some chart placings which may make them more substantial. The deleteor doesn't seem to be someone who is into music why you would bother deleting the same I have no idea. (Franko velebitan (talk) 23:20, 18 May 2017 (UTC))

Franko velebitan, thanks for brining this up. It may be too late to contest the deletion, but you can re-write/re-create a new version of the article any time. But, it cannot be a facsimile of the old one--it has to be freshly re-written (and something that could be perceived as an improvement over the old one). I'm guessing that the Headstones have recorded material available, which would help in establishing notability. If they've had any hits (even local or regional), that would help. If there is an album out, that would help too. If they are reasonably known, then they have probably received several write-ups. Go to Google and find several good articles about them from reliable publications--use that as the foundation of the new article. Make sure that the new article is comprehensive and fully cited/sourced. Always be ready to defend an article's merits if the occasion arises. I'll have to check out the Headstones--they have a really cool name. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:37, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
I just noticed that there is the Canadian band the Headstones, but I'm guessing that the article you wrote was on an Australian group? Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

The Monks

Tonsures will be back in style! Look here, [4] the Monks are not done quite yet! Apparently, in June five songs from a final 1967 recordings session will be released. Personally, I would have released it on a deluxe version of Black Monk Time but this is still interesting, nonetheless.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:25, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I'll definitely have to get the album when it comes out. Garagepunk66 (talk) 21:14, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - Newsletter No.4

Hello GloryRoad66,

Since rolling out the right in November, just 6 months ago, we now have 808 reviewers, but the backlog is still mysteriously growing fast. If every reviewer did just 55 reviews, the 22,000 backlog would be gone, in a flash, schwoop, just like that!

But do remember: Rather than speed, quality and depth of patrolling and the use of correct CSD criteria are essential to good reviewing. Do not over-tag. Make use of the message feature to let the creator know about your maintenance tags. See the tutorial again HERE. Get help HERE.

Stay up to date with recent new page developments and have your say, read THIS PAGE.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

New Article?

Dear Garagepunkt66, you are a very good user! It would be very good, if you could bring Eva Strautmann (please take a look on german wikipedia: http://de.wiki.x.io/wiki/Eva_Strautmann) into the en wikipedia! What do you think about this? Best Regards from Germany! U.B. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:8C:2D1E:1001:CD6A:7A2F:9CAD:5CCC (talk) 11:37, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I looked at her work and I like it a lot. I see that her pieces have been shown in exhibitions, and I'm guessing that her work is represented in several museum collections, such as in Frakfurt and Budapest--I think that the German article should say more about those things in the text--it should say more about her public presence and recognized accomplishments as an artist. In order to do an American article we would need to come up with some really good sources--extensive write-ups and criticism in major art publications, etc. It might also be helpful to have coverage in the American media. I could do some research on it and try to do an article. I want to first make sure that such an article would be deemed notable here. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:42, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, this is very good! Please take a look on this list: http://de.wiki.x.io/wiki/Egon_Schiele_Art_Centrum and on this: Hungarian National Gallery! Best Regards from Germany! U.B. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:8C:2D1E:1001:BC7C:724B:43C8:EB66 (talk) 10:21, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

An image of a golden era

A brief back story: many of my friends on FB post rare pictures of 1960s garage rock bands that I have never seen before. One in particular, a concert with the Myddle Class was taken in 1966 when the Velvet Underground opened for them.

Hopefully this link works properly; maybe you can decipher what is happening in all that carnage! [5] TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:32, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
In '66 the Myddle Class were one of the biggest bands in the Mid-Atlantic region--probably the biggest group in New Jersey. The Velvets had not yet released their first album yet, and they were largely unknown outside of the bohemian sections Village and Soho. One of the members of the Myddle Class married Carole King after she divorced Goffin. Garagepunk66 (talk) 07:42, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
And I think there is a book about the one of the band member's murder. I'll need to search for that though to be certain. The article you wrote on the Myddle Class could have been made into an excellent hook for WP:DYK. Remember that link for any new content or GAs you make in the future. Of course, not all garage rock bands can make it at DYK but if you find an interesting fact (like Larkey marrying Carole King) it would be difficult for any promoter to pass on it.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:33, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm aware that there's a book, and I'd like to get it and expand the article if possible. I haven't gotten into the DYK thing as much as I could have, though. I could try doing that a little more. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:55, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 9 June 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:17, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thank you for the Romancers article. I recently began using this site and I am not good at web things. I am sorry for my mistakes in posting. The info I posted is all true and I wanted to provide as much detail as I could. Some of this info has not been reported on and that gives you the scoop on this information. I was not trying to prove a point. Max Uballez is the main source and you may contact him at xelaco@aol.com to confirm the information. Again thank you for your understanding. LincolnTiger (talk) 16:02, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
¡Gracias, señor! Garagepunk66 (talk) 19:56, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GloryRoad66/Archive_9&oldid=1161191912"