User talk:GloryRoad66/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Music and whatever, etc.

Here is a new thread to discuss music, articles, philosophy/meaning of existence, history of the world, ...or the weather (or whatever). Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:41, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I actually knew little to nothing about the controversy the Montells got tied up in. I always enjoy your articles, but I especially am fond of this one because of how unique of a story it is. I also didn't realize you reached number 100 on articles created a little while ago, so I want to congratulate you on the milestone. Not many users can say they made 100 quality articles with no deletions, which shows you know what you are doing, and how to do it well.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:25, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the gratitude you've expressed. It is an extra complement coming from such a wonderful editor as you. Garagepunk66 (talk) 21:43, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I needed your opinion on the direction of the Bosstown Sound article I talked about earlier. I still have quite a bit of work (I keep getting distracted on smaller projects for some reason) and I was wondering if you think I should explain other groups outside the "Big 3" (Ultimate Spinach, Beacon Street Union, Orpheus). As I read into the subject, I've found at least 20 bands that can be associated with the scene. Should I maybe talk about some of those groups, picking out which ones are important, and write a list for the whole assortment of bands? Or do you have another option? I'm somewhat lost because I never had to explain a subject like this and there seems like so much information that it gets overwhelming, so any idea is a good one.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:06, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Man, do I understand how you feel! What you are describing sounds just like what I went through when working on the G.R. article--that (excuse my French) friggin' article has little porcupine spikes that stick up and say "editors (i.e. dead-itors) beware--this article may cost you your health and sanity--this article is like a maze...enter at your own peril...you'll never get out of here alive...ha ha ha...!" But, that is actually not a negative thing at all--you can it as a positive challenge. Ultimately, you get to choose who you think needs to be emphasized and how--you can include as many bands as you see fit--it is up to you. You can make brief mentions of some bands, but give longer explanations for others. It is if you are an artist creating a collage--you get to pick and choose what goes in and what gets left out and where to put it--you will have to create and impose an architecture or structure that is not provided by the sources--there is no prior roadmap for the organization, only spare parts. It may give you headaches, but it also provides a lot of creative freedom. Keep in mind that you don't have to rush, and you can always come back and add more bands later, if you wish. I may have tried to rush things too much when doing the G.R., when I should have taken more time. Here you can take your time. Maybe make some lists. I started with a brainstorm. Then, I made note cards for the names of the bands (like a couple hundred bands!) to go into the American regions section. I gathered and did initial research on the bands, then organized them according to macro-region, state/local region, etc. I laid the cards out like solitaire. Then I did an outline. While I was drafting the text, I would do more research on each band (and added some extra bands here and there) and inserted the citations/refs. When you have a lot of different bands, you want to have a few refs to cover each one. The mention of each band will seem like its own little mini-article. It may be frustrating, but you will also enjoy it. I'm about to go back and finish the psychedelic garage section sitting in my sandbox, so I'm about to step back on the "crazy train" too. It'll be a wild ride, but you will enjoy it just the same. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:05, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, this actually was just the kind of advice I needed. I know that the article will be nowhere near the perils of the G.R., but it just seems like a project that has multiple ways to write it. Hopefully I find the way that makes the most sense. Once I just sit down and take it all in, after I resist the urge to write other articles that pop into my head, I think it would be more manageable. If you need references on the psychedelic section of the G.R. article, let me know because I have some books that describe what you may be looking for.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:04, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

That would be awesome! I'd love for you to recommend any good books. In fact I could place an order to purchase them this week. Maybe you could emphasize the two or three books that you feel would be particularly helpful in providing info. about bands. There might also be a book that goes into some of the sociological dimensions you see me venture into there. And, I wish you good luck on the Bosstown article. I know it will turn out really well. Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I found Sixties Rock: Garage, Psychedelic, and Other Satisfactions, Garage Rock and Its Roots, Lovers, Buggers, and Theives, and San Francisco East Bay Scene: Garage Bands from the 60s Then and Now to be very informative works and worth a look. I found the East Bay book to be interesting as I was unaware of so many garage bands prior to the psychedelic scene. It was where I found Peter Wheat and the Breadmen, which have one of the most comical (but definitely original) outfits I've seen in a 60s band.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:11, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for those recommendations. Hey, I am working on an article for the song "Time Won't Let Me" by the Outsiders. I just noticed that there is no article for the song (I can't believe that there is no article!). This will be my first time doing an piece on a big hit song, so I probably shouldn't rush it--but take time to find a bunch of good sources and make the article as deluxe as it can be. If I run into any jams, I'll let you know and you can give me any pointers I need, because you have more experience with hit songs. I really like the stuff you're doing with the Monkees songs. I have to confess to really love the Monkees' music. In my mind, I classify them as garage rock and 60s punk--even if they did a lot of pop stuff. I know that people will say "ohhh, they were a created band" and "ohhh, they had session men on their early recordings" and all that sh&*$, but I really respect they way they stood up to the "big wigs" and insisted on being allowed to play their own instruments. And, even on their early records, Mike Nesmith did a lot of the producing, and they were friggn' great then. I think that they should be in in the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame, but sadly Jann Wenner has perpetually blackballed them. Don't get me wrong he has done great things being the founder and publisher of Rolling Stone, but I just with he'd give the Monkees a fair shake. By the way, I like the one you're doing on Yesterday's Children--that'll tie right in with NAIF. Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:57, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Wow, I'm surprised too, that was one of the biggest garage band hits of the 60s. That's a shame it hasn't been represented until now. If you also notice, the Five Americans' hits, especially "Western Union" and "I See the Light", is sadly unnoticed. I would write those but no sources really exist for a respectable page which is downright disgraceful. I agree with what you say about the Monkees, they don't get the respect that they deserve because of their early history. No one really notices that their best work was actually their work, as in they recorded just about everything themselves. Sadly they will most likely be one of those groups inducted into the Hall when all the members have passed on and can't cherish it.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 13:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

And, I even love their early work, but they just got better and better, particularly when they were allowed to play their own instruments. How can anyone go wrong when we have Micky Dolenz on vocals? It can only be a garage punk classic. In L.A. it was not uncommon to have session people, because the studios were so booked. I have to hand it to those session folks in L.A., though--they really knew how to get a garage sound. They could play with Sinatra on one session and then go do some garagey stuff on another gig. I love those L.A. session cats--the Wrecking Crew. I was thinking about doing a GA project on their article. I just bought a book about them, so in the next few weeks, I'd like to do a buildup on their piece. I'd like to do buildups on the Seeds' and Standells' articles too, and try to get 'em up to GA (if there are enough high level sources). Garagepunk66 (talk) 15:54, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

The Seeds should have enough sources, I wrote the remainder of their discography and found it easy with the plentiful sources. Not too sure about the Standells, unless you depend more on book sources, which wouldn't surprise me that you have what is needed. By the way, I found something I think you may like. I'm going to write about a 1872 song called "If I Ever Cease My Love". According to what I read so far, it is one of the earliest staples of the Mardi Gras festival. It has a silly tale between Lydia Thompson and the Grand Duke of Russia about their apparent romance to tie in with it.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:00, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

It is the signature song of the Rex Carnival Organization, which holds a famous parade on Mardi Gras day--they are a very prestigious group--you often hear the song being played, usually during their events (i.e. bands will play it during the parade or it will be played at their Carnival ball, etc.), usually as a tune. The king of Rex each year is proclaimed the "King of Carnival," citywide. Carnival, of course is the Mardi Gras season. In Latin "carne" means "meat" and "valla" signifies "farewell." Mardi Gras (French for "Fat Tuesday" i.e. the medieval Shrove Tuesday), is culmination of Carnival and the last day before the Christian season of Lent (at least in western Catholic rites and older Protestant groups), which begins on Ash Wednesday. It has been the custom for people to give up eating meat during Lent as a solemn observance. But, in many European and Latin countries, it is also the custom to have a celebration beforehand. In medieval times the custom was to slaughter and eat the fatted calf for Shrove Tuesday. The French settlers bought the Mardi Gras celebration to New Olreans when they founded the city. Remember, that New Olreans never experienced the whole Puritan thing. So, in the Rex parade, every year you will see the "Boef Gras" float [[1]] not far behind the king float [[2]]--it (bloddlessly) re-enacts the ritual. Rex was founded in 1872. Apparently when the Duke of Alexis was visiting New Olreans in 1872, I believe it was during the Carival season, he saw Lydia Thompson perform the song at her performance of a traveling show, and I think that he made an appearance at the Rex ball (but I may be wrong). And, the whole legend of the Duke's enjoyment of seeing her sing the song (and whatever else transpired...?) just took off from there. I just checked and saw that the song was written by George Leybourne. I really get into Mardi Gras history (I'm no expert though, just a casual fan). But, just out of curiosity, how did you find out about the song? Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:28, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I actually came across it by accident. I was reading the Lydia Thompson article and it made a brief reference to her and the song. I read the story and thought it was more than worthy for an article. Your explaination actual made this two times easier because I didn't quite understand who the "Rex" was in this instance. The references kinda assume the reader has a full understanding, which I'll admit I don't. I want to apologize in advance if I make mistakes in the article, I'm trying to learn about all the aspects. It's still something I really want to write about though, so I'm going to give it 100% as I always try to do.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:40, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

As you always do, and I know how wonderful it will be when you get finished. Hey, I like the article you did on Yesterday's Children. Just as we worked together on the Connecticut bands, we could work together on the Tampa bands too. I just did one on the the Outsiders from Tampa. Would you like to do one on the Rovin' Flames (since you let me do the Montells)? They don't have an AllMusic article though, but there is some other info. Garagepunk66 (talk) 16:08, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do, but first I want to finish the song I mentioned. It's slow progress because I'm still trying to piece together some of what the sources thus far have not mentioned. I wish there was a little more info on what Leybourne did with the song and how Thompson managed to discover it. By the way, Thompson was really stunning, and I'm impressed with all that she had accomplished in her life, especially when you consider the era Thompson lived in.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:13, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

P.S. You know what I think you should do some time, and this is completely just a recommendation, I think you should consider expanding the Mardi Gras article, especially the U.S. section. It is surprisingly a lot smaller than I expected for a day that is associated, almost by instinct, to be in New Orleans.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:47, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I should definitely do that, and I'm glad you mentioned it--I could try to work on it and have the expansions ready for Carnival time this year (although I think the season may come early this year--it is a movable feast which starts on Twelfth Night--last night of Christmas and ends before Ash Wednesday). I also want to do an expansion on the Meters article and the one on their Rejuvenation album--both are woefully underwritten for what was one of the seminal funk bands. I'm also writing a piece about Allen Toussaint's Sea Saint recording studios. I guess you noticed the little "thing" down below. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:16, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, no, thanks for directing me to that. Looks like someone who doesn't understand our cause. I'll send a message to him/her and see if I can convince them to lay off. It's ironic the user is doing this when their user page says they wrote the Deep article, which in itself is an obscure band. Maybe I can use that as a bit of a defense.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:36, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I've sent a message, hopefully they are the type of person to respond. Maybe it will convince him/her to alter his plans of being here.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:46, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

P.S. that comment by GSS-1987 is standard procedure for every nomination. I suggest removing that part of the message you sent and apologizing. Otherwise, it kinda undermines your suggestion to investigate the other user.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:43, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I sent that user a message. I'm going to try to ignore this nuisance and just do my editing, granted I'm going to be busy with a lot of other stuff this week. However, if he persists, I may have to report and have the matter of another editors' authenticity investigated. It seems, by his use of language, that he is targeting me in a mean-spirited way. He has admitted to having had "anger," which means that his intensions are not impartial. If he would just stop this, I would not pursue an inquiry, but if he persists, I will have no choice. Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:29, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm trying to talk with ALongStay to hopefully come to terms. Anyways, I guess all we can do is improve the articles. We can't ask for a block for something that anyone here is allowed to do within reason, and can't open a sockpuppet investigation when there is no proof. By the way, this is a small thing, but when you write associated acts it needs to have a direct relation. Which means the act had a member of the group that is deemed to be associated. Originating from the same region does not count, otherwise there could be dozens of associated acts for bands like let's say the Byrds.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:59, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

OK--glad to know, regarding associated acts. I just hope that ABriefPassing gets over his thing--and fast. I mean him no harm, but I am deeply committed to what I do here. I understand that we all have to deal with deletionists now and then--it is part of life, but the way he has an agenda and seems to be singling me out and watching to go after a plethora of articles--it is not right. I can have him investigated--checkbusters can forensically analyze accounts and they can often find patterns that are not normally apparent. I do not want to have to proceed down that route, but I can if he persists on his deletionsit rampage. Garagepunk66 (talk) 06:13, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

By the way, what is this about "long stays" and "anyways?" Garagepunk66 (talk) 06:25, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

That is his new name, at least that is who has most recently messaged you in the notice section. The account even says he changed because he is prolonging his stay. Typically you are suppose to go through a process to change names, unless you don't care about edit count and just make a new account like he did. And the anyways is just anyways, I don't think I meant anything by it except for transitioning out of the first sentence, sorry.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:37, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

He sure likes to mimic your expressions. Garagepunk66 (talk) 06:47, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I sure hope you are not insinuating anything. I've worked hard here to make garage and psychedelic rock a relevant presense on Wikipedia, and I'm willing to do anything to protect that. I don't need the only person I consider a friend to turn on me here, so I'm just going to assume you were pointing out a coincidence.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:54, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I was pointing out a coincidence. But, you need to understand that what I have worked for is under attack. It may very well be that he is trying to mimic your expressions in order to stir up trouble between us. I look to your words for reassurance in a time like this. I am confused as hell right now. Please do not take that as an attack. I mean you no wrong. Garagepunk66 (talk) 07:09, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad you took the issue to the notice board, that is not always an easy thing to do. I'm not positive it will stop the user from what he set out to do, but I hope he can treat you with a lot more respect because he was way out of line.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:37, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

His very existence is out of line. That user has no creditability. It is clear that his sole purpose is to harass me, and he has created a second user account under another name (which is against the rules) boasting of those very intentions--and that should be enough for administrators to put an end to all of his activities, period. He is not capable of being respectful, so he will never be respectful. All I have ever wanted to do here is to do my work in happiness and peace. In realize that sometimes editors disagree, but when I have disagreed with others over topics pertaining to articles, it has always been in a spirit of sincerity and respect, even if I have been persistent at times. This is a different thing altogether--it is something foreign to the way I operate. Nonetheless, he will not get away with much, because I try to write the best quality articles humanly possible for the artists I cover. So, I am confident that 99% of them will stay--but I could be spared the unnecessary drama. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:42, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Well for now we can breath a sigh of relief. I'm confused to his intentions because I cannot recall you ever making enemies here. You always display respect to other users, you even tried to be civil with this one. Don't let this get to you as bad as it got to me when "someone" did the exact same thing. It hurts, but you gotta stay true to your work, and know it is vital to the overall project. In an effort to move on, and hopefully not need to address this disturbing event again, I thought I'd mention something that kinda blew me away. The song "Farmer John" does not have an article! It was a huge hit for the Premiers and was covered by several garage bands, one that comes to mind is the Tidal Waves. I'm going to get on writing an article as soon as possible.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think this user will cause any more problems. He is indefinitely blocked. He cannot go on creating new accounts--it will not be allowed. I'll try to get back to my writing, but I have a ton of work for my job this week, so I'll try to squeeze in what I can. But I'm sure the "Farmer John" article will be good. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Well not exactly. I read what Swarm wrote on ALongStay's talk page regarding the block. Apparently if he says he will accept WP:Behavior policies, the block will be lifted. Perhaps if you speak to Swarm about the issue, he can be convinced to block the user permanently.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:30, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I brought that up on the noticeboard and spoke to Liz. Luckily, it appears that BriefVisit/LongStay will be kept under a lid. Both she and Swarm have reassured me that things will be OK. On another note: the G.R. article was included for DYK (Dec. 14), so a little good news. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Swarm did kinda mention a second chance would be in order, but for now everything should be ok. It also looks like the damage LongStay attempted to cause will be held at a minimum, at least from what I see at the AFD pages. Congrats on the DYK, I wish you could have enjoyed it more when it was first announced. Personally, I enjoyed the GA more than the DYK when it happened to me since it feels more gratifying of one's work, but this should absolutely spread the word of garage rock, which was our ultimate goal.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:19, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

P.S. I'm sorry I didn't vote a definite keep on the AFD by adding a possibility of a merger. I was over concerned that you, me, or both of us could actually be blocked for canvassing as LongStay said. The policy toward canvassing is sometimes a little confusing (that was how I was blocked for like 10 minutes) so I didn't want to jeopardize your stay here with an underserved block.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:56, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

That's OK--and I appreciate your vote. A merger is better than a delete. I admit these three acts are very obscure, and that sources were more scarce than I would have wished--admittedly that is the chance I took. But, I did it out of a sense of duty to the artists, because I love and respect their music. It was my belief that eventually more sources would emerge in time and that we could go back and add more material--that we might have a year or two to buy time, before deletionst barnacles attach to the piers. You never know when a band might get a write-up, etc. I had no idea that deletionists would show up soon. But, see, I had never had to worry about a deletionist before, so maybe I was overconfident and felt that everything would pan out and that the articles could grow in time. Invariably any editor, if he or she creates enough articles, in time is going to have an occasional deletion or at least a scrape with one. It's just part of life. So, I'll just move on and do the best I can. Storms come and go. The sun will rise tomorrow. Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Glad to see you working on song articles, personally, while I will always love pages about bands, I think I enjoy writing about songs more than anything else. Though it's a hard decision, my favorite Dylan song is "She Belongs to Me", but in my opinion some of the Byrds' covers almost outdue his originals (especially "My Back Pages"). Unfortunately, unless it's a Dylan or Beatles song -- yes I am overexaggerating, but still -- it is impossible to find sources. One composition I wish there were sources for is "Mister, Your a Better Man Than I" by the Yardbirds. I recommend Terry Knight and the Pack's version if your interested, which I think was one of their best recordings and actually did bubble under the charts when it was released.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Dylan can be a difficult kettle of fish, and I realize you may not be as into his stuff as I am. Though I love both versions, I really dig the Byrd's ""My Back Pages." Of course I also love their version of "Mr. Tambourine Man," too, but on that one, I hear the inner meaning more when I hear Dylan sing it. Garagepunk66 (talk) 07:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

It's not that I'm not into Dylan, I think I have all of his albums on vinyl and CD and the "Basement tapes", but I think I'm more of a vocal harmony kind of guy, which the Byrds perfected by their album Younger Than Yesterday. Dylan's version of "Mr. Tambourine Man" will always be the superior rendition in comparison to any other, the Byrds' attempt is a little too pop for my tastes. That's why I believe the Byrds' peak as musical artists was 1966-1968, between Fifth Dimension and The Notorious Byrd Brothers, when they had a complimentary blend of psychedelia, folk, and (just a little) country.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:11, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm the biggest Dylan freak, but I'll the first to admit that he can put even his most ardent fans through periods of frustration. But, I dig the Byrds. It's all wonderful stuff. Garagepunk66 (talk) 15:26, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I finished the "Farmer John" article and I think it turned out well (I need to upload a cover image though). When I searched for other versions I found two groups that deserve an article, the Tidal Waves and the Invictas. I was wondering if you would want one since you offered me a band a few days ago, which I'll get to very shortly.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:12, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

That is really kind. I love the song by the Tidal Waves on Garage Beat '66, Volume 5. And, I think their version of Farmer John is absolutely the BEST (!!!) ever (even better than the Premiers). But, since you've done the "Farmer John" song article, you could do the Tidal Waves as a tie-in. Whereas I could do the Invictas, because I am fascinated with their reunion, now as grey-haired folks in their 60s. I just think that it is so cool to see them there all of these years later (they made it through!) standing next to their hearse with the band logo on it--it is just as cool to be doing that in your 60s--I hope when all the boomers retire, they'll go back to playing in bands!!! I hope that they will finally again, being retired form the corporate world, be able to re-connect on some level with the idealism of their youth. The concept of aging fascinates me. I want to do an article on Bob Dylan's song, "Standing in the Doorway," from his Time Out of Mind album. To me it is the song where for the first time he confronts his audience and confesses "I'm going to grow old, I'm not going to be with you forever." It is such a beautiful and moving song. Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:04, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I noticed you are on the reliable sources notice board. Word of advice, don't take anything they say to heart. Sure sources like last.fm, discogs, and blogs aren't reliable, but you don't need their "guidance" to determine that. I'll admit they are correct in their judgements sometimes, but in this instance (Allmusic and Bruce Eder) they are just wrong. They seem especially critical of music sources, so you are not going to make headway with them. Just do what most wikipedians do: ignore them, use you're better judgement, and if you happen to be wrong (this case you are not) editors that come by will address the sources accordingly.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:36, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. One of the editors on one of the deletion nomination discussions asked me to check Eder's credentials there. But, of course, you and I know that he is a good and respected writer, just as does every music-oriented editor at Wikipedia--everyone who covers music here knows and respects his work. My way of looking at it is this: there is no absolute rule for what is reliable or unreliable, notable or un-notable. It all boils down to the consensus of discerning and knowledgeable editors who cover a particular discipline. The Wiki guidelines are put in place to help set a bar for editors to use as a roadmap for their decisions. They are there for a reason and serve a good purpose, but are not always set in stone--they are guidelines not rules. Sometimes when you are on a trip, you have to take a detour (from the map), or if you are traveling in an unpopulated part of the world, a roadmap, now matter how well-thought out, may be errant. I would say that when dealing with any current musical act, or one of the last thirty years, the Wiki guidelines should be stringently adhered to. Whereas, when dealing with musicians and acts from past eras in musical genres that could be considered of ethnographic/folk nature, there have to be some accommodations made, because we are dealing with archival/anthological/archeological research in domains that are of a different nature. An encyclopedia can document rare and obscure musical acts if a consensus of knowledgeable editors who cover their genres consider these acts, based on the opinions of good writers we have read, to be valuable specimens. Garagepunk66 (talk) 21:02, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Looks like we will not need to worry about ALongStay, see my talk page if you want to know what I mean. I'll be a little distracted for the time being as CA once again is trying to iban me. I'm sure any decent admin will know I only "follow him around" as he says because I am fixing the mistakes he continuously makes. It is not a fun chore, but someone needs to do it I suppose.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:40, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

CA is up to his games, and even now with me but we should try to ignore him--no one listens to a word he says. As for that other fellow LongStay--it is funny how he considers me cocky--that fella is way more cocky than I could ever be in twenty lifetimes! I forgive him. I wish him the best. Of course, you know that I am actually a very humble and altruistic person--but that I had to act cocky to counter his actions and words. Even though I am proud of my writing--that does not make me better than anyone else--it just happens to be my primary ace in the hole, that's all. There are editors who are better in a thousand other ways in different parameters, and who concentrate on things I tend to ignore. And, you are a wonderful writer too. So, never think that I think any less of anyone. I am not an arrogant person, but I'll assert myself when I need to, and in that case it was warranted. Garagepunk66 (talk) 20:47, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I see what he is up to, CA will do anything to bite anyone in contact with me so I apologize for his actions. I hope you realize I only interact with him because of the constant errors he continuous makes, almost as if it is purposefully done to spite others. I just cannot stand by and allow articles to be muddied by an editor who refuses to make quite easy changes in his editing. As for LongStay I understand what his message was, but I do not consider you cocky. I think he was more concerned about you realizing there are going to be some rough patches up ahead, but you shouldn't let it change you. To be honest, I did kinda see a change in your messaging style recently, if that makes sense, but you are still the same person I'm happy to work with. By the way, I was wondering if you were going to return to the Music Machine review at some point? I understand if you want to clear up the current issues that are happening as of now, so don't take this as me telling you to do anything. I'm just asking because I schedule my GA projects so I only have one at a time. In my opinion, I think reviewers would be happier if I focused on one GA project, that way I am prepared for adjustments at any moment.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:51, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Well yes, I would like to get to the review which I was planning to work on during the next two weeks--but haven't the unforeseen circumstances of the last week been a distraction to my regular work schedule and put me behind on articles I would have otherwise done? And, I think I've now been through enough of my share of rough patches, and I should rightfully expect to have absolutely no problems for the long foreseeable future. I will try to tend to the review--assuming that the coast is clear and provided that there will be no more drama from our little friend ALongStay or anyone else--as for CA, we can ask that he get blocked again if he stirs up more trouble. Let me assure you that I am the same person I have always been. I just want peace. Now what did you mean when you said "...he was more concerned about you realizing there are going to be some rough patches up ahead..."? I need clarification. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:57, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok great, good to know we have a plan and I pray for no more problems. As for the clarification, I was basing it off of my experiences and LongStay's comment. Any involved editor will have a "rough patch" at some point because, to be frank, some people are jerks. I never anticipated vandalism, that troll that was so bad my talk page is forever semi-blocked to only verified editors, and deletion nominations. It's a part of the job, unfortunately. That's all I meant by it, though I surely don't wish any of that upon you or any decent person.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:17, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Harassment is not supposed to be part of the job, and Wikipedia has rules to deal with it--and there is no excuse for it ever, and one cannot ever excuse it. I recognize that you have been through a lot. But, you have to realize that the last week has been really stressful for me too--if (his) thing was a temporary joke, I'll try to laugh along with it, even if it was a joke in bad taste. In some ways, I'll probably be stronger for the antics, but I cannot have this game continue. I have to focus on positives. But, I feel so much for what you have had to endure. I thought it was disgusting the way that unsigned sockpuppet perpetually harassed you months ago. I know it was hell--and I can now see more clearly what it felt like for you. But, I will not again be victimized either. We have fought so many battles together for the good cause of championing the music we love. My advice: don't get all caught up in that Wiki- fundamentalist (obsessed with notability) stuff regardless of who its with. Just focus on writing about the music you love and try to make the articles as good and well-sourced as they can be. You don't need to worry about CA and all that stuff either. Look, he argued for a deletion on me today, but I am not worried about him--he's been more harmless to me than you know who. As content generators, we don't have to be Wiki Police or judges. We get to create. We both do wonderful work. Now, time for some good writing. Isn't that what it is supposed to be all about? There will be no more problems. Garagepunk66 (talk) 06:58, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I will be more than willing to return to writing without interference when CA is no on get a problem that ruins articles. Although he doesn't think so, I don't have a vendetta against him, and I don't take any joy in this, it is very annoying to be honest. I do it for the sake of the people he terribly represents, though I don't know them all, I believe they deserve better whether they are notable or not. I hope you can understand that. Speaking of music, that book I mentioned a little while ago, Sixties Rock: Garage Psychedelic & Other Satisfactions, I received today and is two times better than I expected. It had a whole chapter devoted to "Hey Joe", and really gets into the essense of almost every 60s version (and a few later versions). I already used the book on the Music Machine article, and without a doubt I'm going to get around to the "Hey Joe" page itself. As for the rest of the book, it isn't particularly large (160 pages), but the detail makes up for it and would really be an amazing source for the G.R. article.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 11:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll definitely get a copy. Thanks for recommending it! Garagepunk66 (talk) 18:40, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

This thread has gotten pretty long, so I started a continuation of it below. Garagepunk66 (talk) 18:42, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

A notice

I have recommended the articles The Soul Survivors (Denver Band) and The Stumblin' Blox by deleted. Apologies for not notifying you sooner. You can write on both articles Article for Deletion pages at your will. Ta-ta.ABriefPassing (talk) 00:26, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but I also nominated Henry Flynt & The Insurrections for deletion. Just wondering, why waste time on subjects you know aren't notable? You have such great potential, I read your expansion on the G.R. article, and was impressed by its organization and accuracy. Anyways, you may be hearing from me again. Ta-ta.ABriefPassing (talk) 17:51, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

You have to understand that, at least so far, I have been an editor who concentrates on obscure garage and psychedelic acts which, by their very nature are that way--yet there are many people who love this music and follow these acts and want to learn about them, so I am here to document these people with a great sense of love and dedication. And I do so knowing that, sometimes, I may run the risk of deletion, though I try to make the articles as good as a can. Henry Flynt is a noted philosopher, so I felt that the story of his band would be of interest, by virtue of that fact alone. Rather than have that article rescinded, why don't you try to have it merged in with his bio? I could have put the info in his bio, but I wanted his band to be highlighted because they were avant-garage pioneers, somewhat in the vein of the Fugs and the Velvets, but have not gotten much credit. So I hope that your passing will be brief, while I have you investigated for sockpuppettry. Garagepunk66 (talk) 19:07, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

It is cute how TheGracefulSlick came over to me in your defense. I guess a lackey will do anything to please their master. It is a shame the user did so because I have seen he has similar interests as you. Looks like you both have made several unnotable articles. Once I read through your pages, I'll turn to his as well. Sorry, as much as this seems impossible to believe, it isn't personal. However, after seeing page after page of irrelevant bands being added to the list of garage rock bands, I couldn't stand it anymore. Oh, by the way, if you slander me by calling me a sockpuppet again, I will report you, and you will be blocked, so choose words carefully if you want to at least comment at deletion pages. Also, if that Slick guy responds at those pages again, I can have you blocked for canvasing. Make sure he gets the memo, you really have a lot to learn about how Wikipedia works. How do you like my new username, I think it is most appropriate. Ta-ta.ALongStay (talk) 23:27, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

No one is anyone's master, and I have every right to state that I am having someone investigated--if I think there may possibly be a problem--that is not the same ting as an actual allegation. The way you word things right now has me quite concerned. Garagepunk66 (talk) 23:50, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I can tell this is affecting you. How about this, I'm a reasonable man, I'll give you a week to improve your articles before I read them. That way you will have a better chance to save them. I'll spread the word to the Slick because he will also be on the list. You two comprise much of the list of garage rock bands so, again, you two shouldn't take it personal if the page I delete happens to be yours. It's all about odds. The three I've chosen thus far just seemed the most obvious to be rid of. I decided about ten pages should be deleted, unless there is a bulk of what I've seen so far. Once that is complete, you won't hear from me anymore. Of course, articles that are not the Slick's or yours are fair game, so I won't be totally inactive during the week, if you accept my offer.ALongStay (talk) 00:02, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Pinging User:TheGracefulSlick, this relates to you.ALongStay (talk) 00:03, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you show little consideration for the dedication and hard work I've done in researching these musicians--I do good quality work. I would say that 99% of them are fantastic articles, provided that I cover obscure acts. There were two or three that (the ones you chose), admittedly I did not get a high yield of info on, but which I felt could be started up as articles--and that more information would emerge in time, but where there might be sufficient interest for the person interested in garage rock--due to having some fantastic songs and/or connections to famous bands which have been featured on compilations. Rather than trying to eliminate articles I've worked on, you could contribute in positive fashion--I perceive that you may targeting me and that could be could be could be construed by some as a vendetta. I've never done anything against you, so why should you be so obsessed with going after me in this kind of way? Is it possible to function in a spirit of good will? It is usually not the norm to take kindly when someone is trying to delete one article, much less intent on going after more. I'll try to see what improvements I can make. But please be patient--this week I'm going to be extremely busy, but after that I'll have more time to comb through the articles. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:45, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Ah, good, a little negotiation. How about this, I give you and Slick two weeks to improve articles, that seems more reasonable. Also, if you want my cooperation, I want you to stop framing me as a sockpuppet, I expect that courtesy. I do not need your reasoning and pleas though, I follow Wikipedia policies. If I find it unnotable, I will nominate it in two weeks, simple as that. It may not be positive for you, but for Wikipedia it is part of existence. This, as I have said already, has nothing to do with you personally, you just happen to write many of the articles of the same scope. I have restrained my anger over the lack of notability in those articles for long enough, so this has to be done. Ta-ta.ALongStay (talk) 01:00, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Any unrestrained anger was unwarranted and unnecessary--I'm doing what I see as my job as an editor. I'm not into framing people. There is nowhere else that this conversation can lead, so I am asking you not to contact me here again. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:35, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Any editor can nominate any article for deletion but that doesn't mean they can "get it deleted". I know it is a shock when an article you wrote or contributed to is nominated but trust the system at AfD. The articles will be considered by uninvolved editors.

ALongStay, you are out-of-line dictating terms that other editors need to abide by. While you say you have edited in the past, right now, you are a two day old account with 21 edits. You have no power of authority to tell other editors what they need to do. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

AfDs

I know what it is like to have someone deliberately focus on articles I wrote <g> but you should trust the community to see which groups are notable. The only one I could not instantly vet on my own was the Stumblin Blox - but I suspect you will find someone keeping it for sure at the AfD <g>. Collect (talk) 23:34, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your kindness and concern. What you have said means so much to me, because, like you I have worked hard to do constructive things, so it hurts when a dubious and hostile user tries to undermine the efforts of sincere and dedicated people. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:35, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

AFD !voting

Regarding this edit; you are only permitted to !vote in an AfD once. You may add additional comments, but they should not be additional "Keep" or "Delete" !votes, but rather clearly labeled as a comment or something similar. I've amended your comment label as such; you can change it to something else as long as it doesn't give the appearance of an additional !vote. Thanks, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:12, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Garage rock

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations – getting on the DYK list is about as good as it gets! :-) Shocking Blue (talk) 12:40, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Good luck! Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Garage rock

'Grats to those involved. Enjoy your enthusiasm for the subject.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 06:51, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Good luck with everything! Garagepunk66 (talk) 14:11, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Congratulations! Henry Flynt and the Insurrections has been given a reprieve! Here's hoping that never happens again!!! MurderByDeletionism"bang!" 23:46, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for coming to my defense in a difficult time. I thank you so much for your kind recognition of my efforts. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:27, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:The Music Machine/GA1

Garagepunk66, this is a friendly reminder that you opened this GA review nearly four weeks ago, and haven't been back to start it since. Please try to get it under way before the end of the year. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:19, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

I've done some editing on it already, since I took on the review. I was planning to get to the actual review very soon, but I ran into some issues which put me behind a bit, but I'll get to that as soon as I can. Garagepunk66 (talk) 07:48, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Schotia afra Tags

Hi, you tagged Schotia afra with this edit saying it was both a "dead end" (true at the time) and "overlinked" (not only not true but also can't be true with "dead end"). You also added "orphan" which also was not true a it was already linked from Schotia, Deudorix antalus and others. It's good that you've started to use Twinkle for these types of review (I see you have 24 edits with it), but please be careful not to over tag as it will confused and Bite new editors. All the best KylieTastic (talk) 13:23, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry, I wish only what is best for the article. If there is a tag that doesn't need to be there, you can remove it, but just put in comments why the tag is not necessary (and be justified in doing so). The "overlinked" may have been a mistake--I intended to say "underlinked." My only with is for the best development of the article and I wish you the best! Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:51, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

P.S.: I notice that the article has grown and improved since I reviewed it--I think it has the potential to become a fantastic article. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:54, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Hello Garagepunk66: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:23, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

And seasons' greetings to you. All the best wishes and a Happy New Year! Garagepunk66 (talk) 18:38, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

2016

	Happy New Year 2016!
	Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unneccessary blisters.    – Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:46, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Wishing you a happy new year! Garagepunk66 (talk) 08:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year Garagepunk66!

Happy New Year!

Garagepunk66,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Tito Dutta (talk) 18:56, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2016}} to user talk pages.

And a Happy New Year to you!!! Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:55, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Garage rock

The article Garage rock you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Garage rock 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 Binksternet -- Binksternet (talk) 22:42, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, GloryRoad66. You have new messages at Sundayclose's talk page.
Message added 03:51, 3 January 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sundayclose (talk) 03:51, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Music and whatever, etc. Part II

Here is another thread to discuss music, articles, philosophy/meaning of existence, history of the world, including the weather (or whatever). Garagepunk66 (talk) 18:42, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

The book also gives you and me another reason to go back to the psychedelic rock article. I know I mentioned my concerns about it awhile back to Ghmyrtle but nothing really got done. The article completely either jumps over or ignores the genre's early history. The term "LSD" was first used in 1960 on the the Gamblers' record "LSD-25", "psychedelic" was heard in 1964 in a Holy Mondel Rounders recording, not to mention its spacey essense. It also does not mention the Deep's Psychedelic Moods or give much credit to the 13th Floor Elevators. Mostly, it just bypasses the important innovators for big-time artists. Sorry if I seen a little annoyed by this, but I'm sure you would agree this info is important to the understanding of the genre.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:41, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm happy that you mentioned it. The psych article already discusses the Holy Rounders. But, I did not know about the 1960 song. Thank you so much for telling me--more reason for me to buy that book. I might add mention of it in the psychedelic garage section that I should be adding to the G.R. article very soon (see sandbox #2). Of course, I will pass the new section it by Ghmyrtle first. I hope he is OK the section about the social context, because it is the best thing I have ever written at Wikipedia. I now have a direct source that ties the whole thing together--a university study--dealing with not only the whole cultural/historical context of the 60s and psychedelic--but how it all relates specifically to garage rock. The university study takes my thoughts out of the realm of the synthetic (the ivory tower on Blooms' taxonomy) into the concrete (basic empirical knowledge). I feel that the article needs to have that one special place that dips into the whole zeitgeist of the era--locating garage rock's place in the scheme of things--and psychedelic is where that opportune moment arises. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:15, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I came up with some amusing new info. on the Deep, while doing the psych garage section of the G.R. article. There is a profile on them in Esquire. We can now say definitively that the band is from New York. Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:51, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok good, as long as it is still noted that the recording was done in Philadelphia, where about half the band members were also selected for the project. Also, word of advice, when voting on AfDs, to make a worthwhile vote you will need to bring up policies to support your statement or additional sources if lack of coverage was the main concern. Saying make the article better or time will tell if the subject is notable, or something along that line does not hold up when an admin makes a decision. Some users may even get a little nasty toward you, since their main focus is AFDs and they take it seriously. I know from experiencing it myself (I needed it though to learn) so I thought I'd just share that with you if AFDs are going to be a part of your editing.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:10, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I definitely mention that the recordings were done in Philly--in fact you'll notice some very interesting anecdotes about the recording sessions at Cameo--some late night "goings on" which I read about in Esquire and are amusing to say the least. As for Afd's: I probably won't linger around that awful garbage heap much, but I feel like I'd had to do it today. I should go study the notability policies--but I like writing best. I just thought I'd make a few rounds there today. Normally I'd rather be focused on high-minded pursuits. I'm almost finished with the new psych section for the G.R. article. It's still a bit rough--I've got to fine-tune some tings there. Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:46, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

By the way, I want to take this opportunity to wish you a Merry Christmas. Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:44, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Things have been kinda slow the last few weeks, which is a good thing. Glad to finally have a calm period with no deletionists, or other crazy antics. Since I haven't done this for a little while, I wanted to recommend this group called Aorta, which surprisingly has a decently thorough article already. Their first album is quite unique to me, not to mention the cover art is a bit chilling. I think it has some sort of concept to the songs, but I need to listen to it a few more times to truly understand the idea.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 08:02, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll definitely check them out--I'm know I'll love them, because you dig all the best stuff. Garagepunk66 (talk) 07:32, 28 December 2015 (UTC) Garagepunk66 (talk) 07:32, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad I approached JG66, he seems like a really nice individual. It may be a bit broad assumption on my part, but it seems any editor who is immersed in the qualities of 60s music and culture is a friendly person. I've yet to be proven wrong so there could be some truth to this.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 13:28, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, hearing your wonderful words spoken right now is further evidence that that theory is correct! Garagepunk66 (talk) 19:11, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

This is a little disturbing news, but do you remember that individual who harassed me on multiple IPs? Well apparently he/she has not forgotten me, a day ago the individual sent a "poem" to users who helped me in the past with this issue, threatening them with promises that he/she will commit similar actions on their pages. I explained past events to the admins at ANI so they understand it is the same person over and over. It is strange that a person can be so fixated on another for months on end, especially considering I don't remember purposefully doing wrong to anyone. I just feel so bad that he/she feels the need to go after others who are just trying to do the right thing, since my page is blocked from any IP.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:50, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

It is awful that you have had to endure such harassment from that lowlife, and it is terrible that that depraved individual is now trying to target others. I hope that everything can turn out alright. By the way, thank you for defending the Stumblin' Blox article. I realize that I probably should have picked a band that had more yield in terms of info and sources. But, I fell in love with their song "It's Alright" when I was working on the Green Crystal Ties series and noticed that they had an AllMusic profile. So, maybe in a jolt of enthusiasm I got carried away. But, I am hopeful that I might be able to find some more info on the band. I want to buy that Green Crystal Ties CD, in fact I want to eventually get the whole set. Thank you for turning me on to that great series! Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:39, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Hey, I just noticed that you finished the article on "If I ever Cease to Love." I really enjoyed reading it. I added a few tidbits (being a local). I'll try to find some local-written books. I've heard that there's a connection between the Mummers and Mardi Gras. Some of the Mummers come to Mardi Gras to march every year--I think they usually appear in the Rex parade and a few others. I believe that some Mummers may have been instrumental in the founding of the Cowbellians in Mobile, Alabama in the 1840s--I think that the Cowbellians held first annual parade there--but I'm not sure--at least the Mummers were an influence. Then, some of the Cowbellians were responsible the founding of Comus in 1856--the fist organization to hold an annual Mardi Gras parade & ball here (Comus paraded up until about twenty five years ago). People from Mobile like to use that bit of history to claim they celebrated Mardi Gras before us and that we got the whole thing from them--but actually New Orleans had long celebrated Mardi Gras since it founding. French settler and founder of New Orleans, Bienville and his group celebrated Mardi Gras when they first arrived at the mouth of the Mississippi River. The celebration had gone on here for a long time--there were even parades and balls--but they were one-time events (I think that for a few years Madi Gras had to be outlawed in New Orleans--before Comus). Comus started the tradition of the annually-held parade and ball, but set a different theme each year, which is now the norm. So, I'll grant Mobile some credit there. Garagepunk66 (talk) 10:17, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

P.S.: But, before I get to Mardi Gras... Happy New Year! Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:50, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the hard work on the review, looks like I can finally cross out this GA for things I hoped to accomplish here. I'm not sure as of yet, but my next GA project may be towards the Chocolate Watchband or even the Incredible String Band. The second one may be a stretch because I know Ghmyrtle is very fond of that group and I wouldn't want to upset him. By the way, I'm kinda irritated the Stumblin' Blox AFD hasn't been closed (hopefully to keep). All AFDs end in 7 days and, unless it's just me, it feels like it's been at least 2 weeks.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:54, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

They have re-entered the discussion two times for the Stumblin' Blox, which has cased that problem. I hope that it can find satisfactory resolution soon. Terrific job on the article. Maybe go for the Chocolate Watchband next (as not to step on anyone's turf). I want to work on the Seeds, but it will take some time--I need find some books and sources. Hey, by the way, take a look at the new psychedelic garage suite in the G.R. article! I'd love to have any feedback you might have to share. Garagepunk66 (talk) 06:04, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I know the Seeds' website has some great info, particularly on their albums (that's where I found a ton of info for the Seeds albums articles I wrote), and Shindig! magazine covered the group a while back. As for the G. R. article, to be perfectly honest, I think your introduction to psychedelic rock is better than the actual psychedelic rock article's explaination. You actually talked in depth about the bands that were pioneers of the genre, instead of just crediting the big-name artists for being the sole creators. One thing I feel that is worth including though is the Blues Magoos also released an album with the word "psychedelic" called Psychedelic Lollipop. I mention this because it was released around the same time as Psychedelic Moods and The Psychedelic Sounds of the 13th Floor Elevators, so the three albums are usually discussed in the same context, due to their close timeframe.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:44, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I mentioned the thing about Psych. Lollipop, but it shows a little further down--you'll see its mention a little bit down. I thought about how to say it sooner--but I decided I had to mention it later in the passage--as not to appear redundant. I could re-think it of course. But I'd have to be careful--it is like a painting (with a composition)--once you move one thing, then you have to re-configure other things to make it balance out. I'm sure that you've noticed the same thing while working on the Bosstown article--once you get a lot of bands mentioned, it becomes like a jigsaw puzzle. It's fun, but tricky. And, while doing the biggest additions to the G.R. article this summer--just dealing with all of the references/citations alone was like managing a corporation bank account! Man, it was like juggling several hundred balls! It is easier now that most of that is tucked away, but, gosh, it was a pain while I was working on it. I developed a technique of putting two entities into each ref name tag--because in a multi-band article you might have a numerous different articles by the same author (i.e. Earlewine or Unterberger) or from the same company (AllMusic), but about different bands--so I said something like: < ref name="Unterberger (Knights)" > mentioning both the author and the band (or one other keyword). You'll notice that I always tap twice in between each sentence (which, of course is the industry standard), because even though it only shows as one space in the article font, by having two spaces between each sentence on the edit page helps other editors see where the sentences begin and end--while they are typing. In an article like the G.R. you want to help the other editors find their way around the best you can, because everything looks like a maze--there is a detailed setup-citation (some times several) in between every single sentence--so everything looks conviluted. Just look at the edit page for the "Punk aesthetic and subculture" section--it is wild! Garagepunk66 (talk) 08:01, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, did you list the Music Machine articke in the list of GA articles? That is how the boy will place the good article status on the page. And I see what you mean about the Psychedelic Lollipop placement in the article, I don't what to scramble the section for something that is still explained within the article.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:35, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I have it listed (You'll see on talk page), and a bot is supposed to finalize the process within several days, by putting it onto the G.A. page, and replacing all of the old templates, etc. However, if the bot does not come through in the next couple of days, then I could contact someone. It should go through automatically. Garagepunk66 (talk) 21:00, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

P.S.: I noticed that they have already replaced the old templates. I went ahead and inserted a green wafer in the top corner. However, I do not yet see the article mentioned on the G.A. page--it takes an administrator or bot to edit that page, but I'm sure that it will show there soon. Garagepunk66 (talk) 21:08, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, you are supposed to list it on the GA page and the bot inserts the "good article" template on the article itself.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:14, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I put it in. I didn't know we could edit that page. You didn't need to take the wafer out--I've put it in myself in other articles that just went G.A. before and never had a problem. The bot will only add it if it is not already there. Garagepunk66 (talk) 21:19, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, ok I didn't know that. I added it back in, and, of course, the bot appears to be functioning again, just as I did so. Thanks for the time you put in, if you are interested in reviewing the Chocolate Watchband when the time comes (probably a month or two from now), I'll mention it to you before anyone else.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:47, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I know that the Chocolates will have a terrific article when you are done. For Seeds article, I want to order one or two books, because I know that reviewers like to see that in addition the web sources--and actually that is a good thing--I have a soft spot for books (along with so much that is "retro"). The printed encyclopedia may be a thing of the past (although I admit to loving those big sets of Britannica, World Book, American Heritage, and Compton's you see at libraries--they'll one day be collectors' items), but I hope that books will always appeal to people--long live books! I have put in orders for several books (including the Rolling Stone Illustrated History, Garage/Psychedelic Satisfactions, etc. as well as some books covering regions) to help build up the weak spots in G.R. article. I want to do a section of the Pacific Northwest (covering a lot of the post-British Invasion developments there) and build up some of the under-served sections such as the South, the Midwest and plains, mountain states, islands, etc. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:42, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I just got notice that the Music Machine article is being considered to be featured on the DYK page, and it looks promising this far. I'm glad to see people taking notice to these types of groups, especially so soon after it was promoted to GA.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:36, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Good luck--it'll probably show on the DYK in the next couple of weeks, maybe sooner--depending on how long the backlog is. When my article went G.A. they had a huge backlog, so I had to wait, but it has probably dissipated a bit since then. Hey, you'll notice that last night I went in and put in some info about cities and states, etc. at the list of garage rock bands. That'll be helpful for people to know where they came from at a glance. I've been meaning to do it for awhile, but I never got around to it. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

It's great to see the Stumblin' Blox was finally decided to be kept. Now that earlier ugliness can truly be put away for good. The last few days have been pretty cool because I've been talking with Randy Bowles of the Velvet Illusions. He pointed out some ways to expand the article, and later we started talking about his career, the Illusions, and some of my stories. It's always nice to talk to someone (like you too!) who doesn't get confused by the name Chocolate Watchband or Strawberry Alarm Clock or others. He enjoyed our discussion so much he even mailed me a copy of the original "Acid Head" single. It would definitely be the highlight of my collection!TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:33, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

That is wonderful. How did you happen to get into contact with him? Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

On Facebook Bowles created a page for the Velvet Illusions. I messaged him there and he was friendly enough to reply within minutes. This is actually the second time in recent days that creating Wikipedia articles has lead me to converse with some great 60s artists. Just yesterday I actually I received a thank you e-mail from bass player Steve Montague of Creation of Sunlight. By the way, on another note, I have been listening to what I believe is one of Paul Revere and the Raiders' most underappreciated songs: "Louie, Go Home". It has a (poorly) written article here already but I'm going to expand it soon. I thought it was really creative to make a "sequel" to "Louie, Louie", but unfortunately it isn't as remember as well as "Kicks", "Hungry", "Indian Reservation", and others.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:40, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

It is one of their best songs--I think it appeared on their third album. I really dig the Mussies' version. check it out! [[3]] Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:44, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Wow the Mussies' version is actually a lot better than I'd expect. It derserves a little more notice than what it has. I really enjoy the fact they didn't deviate too far from the Raiders' version (even the singing is somewhat similar). I'm all for experimentation when covering a song (Vanilla Fudge did it better than just about anyone), but sometimes a song should just be preserved in its original state. A group called the Transatlantics also covered "Louie Go Home", but I'm not too much of a fan for it. You may also agree it isn't the best alternate interpration out there. And if we're sharing some obscure recordings, I got one maybe you haven't heard by the Quests called "Scream Loud". Check it out if you want: [4]TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:07, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I think the Raiders cut whole different "Louie Go Home" in '64,--a totally different song with the same name. Maybe--I'm not sure. And, I think that the Beach Boys may have done a version of that song on one of their early albums--but, once again, I'd have to go check. I may be wrong. By the way--I've always really dug the Quests--I particularly love "Shadows in the Night." I was wondering if you'd like me to do an article on them--I think we have some good sources (though not AllMusic unfortunately). By the way, don't forget about that article about the Myddle Class you mentioned a long time ago that you wanted to do. I know you're busy, but I cant' wait till you get around to doing it! Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I was thinking about doing the Quests, but you're right, I am busy, so if you want I won't object. I keep holding off every time on the Myddle Class because I constantly have new ideas and I'm afraid I'll forget them if I don't start them right away. Another option, if you want, is we could swap bands: I write about the Quests and you the Myddle Class. But, again, that is up to you. And I think the Transatlantics did cover "Louie, Go Home", but the lyrics seemed altered. I never heard a Beach Boys version, so I'll check it out. I also heard David Bowie recorded the song, which I'd need to listen to too.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:35, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Great idea! You could do the Quests and I could do the Myddle Class--I'll work extra hard on it, since you have been so kind let me do it. I may be wrong about the Beach Boys, though--I know they did "Louie Louie"--but I think they might have done "Louie Go Home" too. I could be wrong--I'd have to go check that out. One idea: I was thinking we could do articles on the Psychedelic States series of compilations. We could divvy up the comps for different states. We could also improve the lead-out article, which is kinda lacking (I'm sure you agree). The only thing--we might want to check on sources (but I think that all of the comps have an AllMusic bio). I (sadly) do not yet own any of these comps, but I intend to get them step by step in time. You may own a couple of them. Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:27, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I hope that you liked the article on the Myddle Class. I look forward to you doing the one on the Quests. I'll look into the Psychedelic States, and see if the sources would be helpful enough for a project. Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:39, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I came along a website that covered a portion of the Psychedelic States, I'll need to do some searching to find it again. I'm sure you heard the great David Bowie died last night. To be honest, I was never a huge fan as I am with Jefferson Airplane or the Doors, but the music world has lost a visionary that cannot be replaced. He will be forever missed.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm saddened by his passing--I heard about it on the radio this morning on the way to work. Like most, I've always particularly dug his work from the early to mid 70s (Ziggy Stardust and pre-Ziggy). But, I've enjyed his other periods too. He was such a multi-talented artist--as you said, a visionary who cannot be replaced. I have a DVD of him live with the Spiders from the early 70s, Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders form Mars--it is incredible. You'd really dig it--highly recommended. Hey, I just received a copy of Garage, Psychedelic, and Other Satisfactions that you had recommended. From a first glance, it looks like the author gets into a detailed discussion about the musical particulars of the style. It'll be a great read. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:28, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh great, I know you will enjoy the book. The author is so descriptive with each word that I honestly learned more in that book than I did in one that extends to 300 pages or more. I plan on using it for additions to the "Hey Joe" and "Light My Fire" articles, sometime in the future. It seems I never have a free period with those kind of projects as I keep trying to complete the Bosstown article (and then gather all the sources!).TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:45, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh gosh, I know what you mean! I've been busy too lately--mainly workload from my job. There are so many Wiki projects that I'd like to get to, but I have to be patient and just let them come in time (and the G.R thing seems to be never-ending). I'd like to do some stuff on the Seeds' article. I want to see if there are some good books about them (and Lyle Saxon)--if not, I could probably use a couple written about the Sunset Strip scene--I'm sure that they would have a lot of helpful info. But, we need not worry--the time will come for all of out projects--I guess the trick is just to chisel away one step at a time. But I am really looking forward to your Chocolate Watchband article upgrade, along with the Bosstown, etc. Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:59, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

The quotation marks RfC idea

I strongly advise a review of the last few years of debate on quotation punctuation if you actually want to pursue the RfC angle Darkfrog24 is pushing you toward. Most of what that editor says about the various quotation styles is incorrect (especially that logical quotation "is British"). While the subjective issue of whether commas look better "tucked in", as you put it, has people who both agree and disagree with it, WP has stuck with the logical quotation system because it objectively produces more accurate quotation, which is much more important in a work like this than whether the commas look nice to everyone (which is not actually possible; plenty of people don't like the typesetters' or "American" quotation style, which isn't American). There's really nothing else to it. DF24 has been pursuing a campaign against LQ for 6.5 years, a pattern known as tendentious editing, about which administrative action is likely to be taken pretty soon if it continues. I'm skeptical you want to be drawn into this, and the entire thing looks like a bad idea to me. You're relatively new here, asked an innocent question, and are suddenly being recruited to launch a complicated procedural salvo in some other editor's very long-term battle – the same editor who says that the last RfC on the matter was procedurally flawed because it didn't go their way. I'd be asking myself, "Doesn't this seem a bit extreme? How am I supposed to produce a 'better' RfC when I don't even know how RfCs are done here? Why doesn't that long-term editor do it instead of trying to get a newcomer to do so? Am I being set up to take a fall, being used as cannon-fodder? Doesn't it seem odd that this editor is charismatically well-spoken, but doesn't see able to follow the reasoning in the arguments presented about the issue? Isn't it most likely that this lone campaigner is trying to seem like their blind cause has more support, at my expense if it goes south?"  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:07, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I never meant to stir up controversy there, and I respect all well-informed points of view--you obviously are very knowledgeable on this issue. Thank you for contacting me. I want to let you know that I have no personal ill will towards anyone, and only whish you the very best. I may have had question about the present guidelines, but otherwise, I can live happily within the framework of what has been agreed upon. I can sometimes play "devil's advocate", but at the end of the day, I'll try my best to adhere to Wikipedia's standards and policies. Wishing you a happy new year! Garagepunk66 (talk) 23:29, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, you didn't do anything wrong or out of the ordinary. It's perfectly reasonable to bring up a question, concern, suggestion, or objection regarding any guideline or policy page; that's why they have talk pages after all. In practice, outright objections tend not to go very far most of the time, unless they raise a new issue, but that's no reason not to chime in. It's just that in most cases it's already been discussed many times before. My own first experiences at the MoS page were similar. Virtually every change I wanted to make (all based on my experience as mostly an American English reader/writer, though I actually learned to read in the UK) was immediately rejected as old news. So I just read and watched a while until I saw what the WP-internal rationales for things were, and it all made sense (or mostly; MoS has changed a lot in the intervening years). If I could rewrite MoS to suit my own needs and expectations, I'd change at least 50 things. Heh.

Anyway, what you walked into is just that this one thing has been ongoing for over half a decade with this particular editor, who uses the tactic of re-launching their campaign in threads that other people start about quotation marks or English dialects; that way maybe it will seem to some like it's not the same editor who keeps going on and on about it. (This is a form of "gaming the system".) Sometimes that's just how it goes here, until the editing community has had enough of someone's antics. Many topics here have a problem like this, with a minority opinion that will not let a matter rest, and eventually it goes to our Arbitration Committee, who put a lid on it (from a behavior perspective; they don't "adjudicate" whose facts are right or wrong). The vast majority of these situations are not internal matters, but content disputes in topics surrounded by controversy (Israel and Palestine, creationism in schools, whether electronic cigarettes are a health hazard, etc.); only very rarely does it affect internal documentation areas, and few disputes every rise to that level. Mostly people just get along, or they hash it out until a consensus is reached. It only tends to drag on like this when a consensus is reached and someone won't accept it.

Mostly, just don't worry about, and enjoy yourself here. Hope you have a great New Year as well!  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:20, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year! Garagepunk66 (talk) 12:23, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

SmC has said some things about me that are not true, so please allow me to defend myself. I do not know whether he's lying or whether he believes what he's saying, but it is not true all the same.

I'm not engaging in tendentious editing, and all the things I've said about punctuation and about Wikipedia's WP:LQ rule are true. You've seen the sources that I've cited already cited, and I can list them again whenever anyone wants. My complaint about the previous RfC was not about its outcome but about its beginning—the initial text was heavily biased in favor of British style, and the editor who posted it ignored a thread in which several of the rest of us were trying to work out a text that we could all agree on as fair. Basically, this other editor went behind our backs.

SmC's assertion that I'm the only one who's trying to change WP:LQ is just not true, and the archive proves it. The reason I have trouble following SmC's arguments is that, when I ask him how he's drawing his conclusions, he does not point to his sources. Sometimes he say "just go reread my old posts" but won't say which ones or what sources he thinks agree with him or what their titles or links were, not even when explicitly asked to do so. On a few occasions he's posted sources that disagreed with him and just said that they agreed. I think what's happening is that he's projecting his own views and wishes onto the sources, kind of like when you read a horoscope, but that's just a guess. There could be something else going on.

As for "administrative action," the last time SmC tried to report me for "misconduct," the admins topic-banned him instead (WP:BOOMERANG).[5] Please take his ideas of what is and isn't proper behavior on Wikipedia with a corresponding amount of salt.

The big difference between SmC and myself is that I accept that he has a right to his own opinion, even if it is the opposite of what we can read in sources, and he doesn't accept that I have a right to mine even when it is the same as what is in the sources. What he also doesn't have the right to do is claim that I'm lying or making things up.

Bottom line: SmC and I are agreed on two things: 1) You did nothing wrong. 2) You should consider looking at what MOS:REGISTER has to say about previous discussions of WP:LQ. Anyone who challenges this rule should know what they're getting into.

SmC has said a few things about you too at WT:MOS. They're not negative but they might be inaccurate. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:38, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Wasn't a WP:BOOMERANG at all. The original admin respondent (at WP:RFPP) did agree that the WP:CIVILPOV campaign you pulled on MOS:FAQ was editwarring (I'll be relying on that later if necessary). A "drive-by" admin in the later WP:ANEW request simply didn't like the tone of the dispute and decided to slap us both, mutually with the exact same sanction, and you escaped from it on a technicality [6]. One that is no longer available. But you can go right on pretending you're immune to any repercussions if you like. The sanctions against me were later overturned by WP:AN [7], retroactively [8]. Never said you were logical quotation's only critic; you're just the only one making a singleminded almost-7-year campaign out of it. Garagepunk66, the pattern to observe if you look at old MoS Register archives of the quotation style disputes is DF24 demands sources for something, is provided sources, denies them or handwaves them away with weird rationalizations, later claims no sources were provided, and demands sources. Is provided sources, pretends they're not there, and repeats the pattern again. This has been going on for over 6 years. It's a time and energy wasting device. If DF says there are no sources and no one will provide anything, maybe someone new will see it and "join their side". Everyone else already knows it's a crock, and we're simply no longer bowing to disingenuous demands to keep citing the same sources in great details that DF24 will ignore, then claims weren't provided a day or a week later, and demand sources again. As I sad above, this is a basically a tar baby you don't want to get stuck to. As for DF24's insinuation that I've "said a few things about you ... [that] might be inaccurate", I simply quoted what you said above, and noted that you hadn't singled out Tony1 for personal criticism, but that DF24 had done so on their own page for you, as if to put words in your mouth about that other editor. As you can see, DF24 engages in a lot of projection.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:13, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

It would be best for me to accept that which is beyond my ability to change. Whatever concerns and criticisms I had aired about the current policy, I now realize that the issue has been dealt with previously and is a source of tension amongst other editors. I have to accept that the majority of editors had come to a certain conclusion before. The last thing I need right now is controversy--and I don't want to beat on the proverbial "dead horse" or get stuck in tar. I just want to work on my editing projects. I wish both of you the best. Maybe we all need to let the issue rest and just try to accept the current policy as it is--personal opinions about it notwithstanding. If we cannot succeed in having that policy changed, then we can improve Wikipedia in a host of other positive ways that are less contentious. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:48, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, GloryRoad66. You have new messages at Sundayclose's talk page.
Message added 04:00, 3 January 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sundayclose (talk) 04:00, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, this is in regards to an article I put up on Wikipedia recently: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Kane_(American_poet,_critic,_author)

I can't figure out how to tag the image (the photograph of the author) for authentication purposes. It is a publicity shot but there are no copyright issues, so I need to acknowledge that but I can't figure out what to do.

I also put the list in the Awards section into prose form and hyperlinked references. Hopefully that will be more suitable.

Thank you,

FaKhalid52

Just keep it there in the meantime, but if we later encounter a problem with it, we can deal with it then. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:26, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Myddle Class, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Dave Palmer and Tom Wilson. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

citation style of Amin Maher's page

Hi Garagepunk66,

I hope you are great. Thanks for your kind attention to the creation of new article Amin Maher.

I tried to correct the mistakes of the article. Wikipedia's references and explanations helped me to find how to write. About the "citation style", I can't find any problem and issue to edit. I appreciate if you let me know if still there is a citation problem. If there is, please let me know how to fix and edit it.

Warm Regards, سهیل پاشایی (talk) 08:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Best wishes! Garagepunk66 (talk) 19:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

About Epigraphia 3D

Hi @Garagepunk66:

I don't know why you have deleted my post in your discussion. I think that I didn't violate any rules and I was polite asking you what I need to know. Beside, I was asking you about the references template and what the article need to be correct. I think what I did (asked you) was correct, because you was who placed the references template indicating "This article needs additional citations for verification".

Excuse me if I am wrong with something, but please, reply to this because I want to learn more and it is the best form: asking what I don't know and how I can do to improve articles and Wikipedia (in general).

Thanks in advice!

Regards, Ivanhercaz (talk) 13:37, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I was unaware that a post had been deleted--that may have been accidental. But, thanks for your kind inquiry. Concerning the templates in articles, the tags are only there to point to ways an article can be expanded or improved--and are in no way meant to be critical of the creating editors--I am genuinely thankful for whatever contributions of you and others have done in making the new articles. New articles by their nature are in a "new" state (at a starting point). Therefore we put the tags there to point to areas for future improvement. Once the improvements recommended by the tags have been made, you can remove the tags--just as long as the recommended improvements have, indeed, been made. One reason I put the tags there is to let other editors know what they can do to improve an article as a way to deter those who would with to delete the article. While I may recommend deletion in extreme circumstances, I usually believe in giving an article a chance and want to give any pointers or indicators I can to achieving the article's potential. I wish you best of luck. If you have any questions you are more than welcome to let me know. Thanks! Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:21, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Names and "Cleanup", stubs and dab pages

Hallo Garagepunk66, I've noticed a few pages while stub-sorting, such as Umansky, where you've tagged a given-name or surname page as "Cleanup: Topic may not be suitable for an encyclopedia". In fact the encyclopedia has probably thousands of pages about individual given-names or surnames, some comprising just a list of name-holders (which is not a disambiguation page), and others going into a lot of detail about the origins and history of the name as such. Please don't waste your time by adding this tag.

A disambiguation page should not be marked as a stub, so if you find a page which you want to tag as a stub but which already has {{disambiguation}}, you need to decide which it needs, and remove the disambiguation template if you think it is a stub. If it's a dab page, don't label it as a stub. (Pages for multiple people with the same whole name such as "Jane Smith", including "Jane A. Smith" etc, are disambiguation pages; pages which list people who only have one name in common ("Jane" or "Smith") are stubs, and could be tagged more precisely as {{surname-stub}} , {{given-name-stub}} or just {{name-stub}}.

If you really feel that an article's topic is not suitable for the encyclopedia, then it isn't "Cleanup" you need, but Articles for Deletion. Happy Editing! PamD 19:39, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Similarly, please don't bother with "Cleanup:Needs expansion of text", as in Cedratine and others. That's called a stub! PamD 20:09, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll take that into account. Thanks. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:03, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made to Brian Mosteller has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Garchy (talk) 14:09, 15 January 2016 (UTC)