User talk:GloryRoad66/Archive 4

Your GA nomination of Garage rock

The article Garage rock you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Garage rock for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Binksternet -- Binksternet (talk) 03:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

The above automated message is not what I wanted to say... We can take longer than seven days to discuss and implement the changes under consideration by Ghmyrtle. I'm not in a rush. Binksternet (talk) 14:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

And, the good news is that I am very confident that we will reach consensus soon. GHmyrtle and I sometimes debate matters passionately with great mutual respect, but we always come to consensus--through the process of dialectic, we always come to something really incredible and much greater. I might have started with a hard-line position, but I am now beginning to see his points. I will be glad to accept whatever we arrive at in the near future and embrace the final product of his revisions as the basis of all future text in the Brit, section. In a lot of ways he has brought about improvements--it's really a matter now of taking what we have and fine-honing it. I don't see any major differences from this point out. I think we're going to have a really great section! Garagepunk66 (talk) 15:59, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Good news! We have now reached a consensus. I really love the way the section looks now. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Going for GA, etc.

Well, next step: I'm going for GA consideration regarding the G.R. article (!), and of course there are so many great musical topics... Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:40, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I think GA will be a slam dunk so preparations should be underway for a possible FA. The only other thing I can imagine a reviewer writing (other than varying the sources, which I mentioned) is suggestions for different word choice, but that is obviously very minor and fixable.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Please do let me know what specific sections/paragraphs/passages/lines, etc. you think would benefit from different word choices. I'll be the first to admit that there were a couple of places where I was tired, and maybe the words did not "spring to life" as well as I would have liked. The early regions sections were nice, such as California (God was that section fun!)--I was trying to capture the whole hipster "vibe" and excitement of the Sunset Strip--I want the reader to almost visualize the flashing lights and hear the sounds. New England is really nice if a bit short--I really liked the stuff about the Barbarians. I do need to add a section on the Pacific Northwest. Whereas, by the time I got to Japan I was literally on life support--so it looks really flat, and the sources were just so completely unhelpful. I need to spice it up--I could order the GS I Love You CD's and see if I can get some good info. from the liner notes. I want to spice up the parts of the Indian section too. England actually turned out really nice--I took to heart some of the things you critiqued there (keep in mind that I was almost working on a different nervous system by that time into the article, but I re-wrote it after hearing your valid criticisms. I took a break for a few days before doing Australia--I "perked back up" in that section and had a lot of good raw materials to work with there. For Canada and many parts of the U.S. (i.e. south, plains states, mountain states, the Quaker state...), the Islands--I could say a lot more. I also want to add a folk rock influence section (as you recommended) and a psychedelic garage section (see its raw beginnings in my sandbox 2) to swing the focus back to the USA, before the article goes to the decline section. Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

It's more by the opinion of the reviewer. I think overall the article has a nice flow to it, sure some sections are smaller than others, but that's only because you are not finished yet. One thing I learned from being reviewed is if the reviewer recommends a change of word choice, take the suggestion. As long as it doesn't change the sentence's meaning, doing so will make the reviewer know you respect their opinion and want to do what they can to reach GA. Though I was never difficult with a reviewer (I haven't had one I could say was high-strung or picky) I imagine being confrontational would only sway them to prolong or dropout of the process.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh yes, I know to be kind--I would go the extra mile to be agreeable. I don't imagine that they would ever want to change something in a bad way, but if I feel the reviewer is mistaken, I could kindly discuss it, but then leave it up to he/she to decide (in a friendly way), and defer to their best advice. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I just created a small article on the Green Crystal Ties series. If you wanted, you can get in on writing some of the album articles with me. I have volumes 6 to 10 so I intend to do those first. I'd be happy for your participation but I realize things might get busy when I consider you may still want to finish the Back from the Grave series and the GA review that is coming up.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:24, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Be glad to do it. I'm almost finished w/ BFTG. I've heard of the series, but do not own any of them. How many installments are in the series? Which ones would you like me to do: let me guess Vol. 1-5 and whatever comes after 10 (if there are any). Hey just for a lark, go check out BFTG Vol. 7 one more time. I've made a few "improvements" in the "little statement" there and have included more "helpful" blue links, which you might find interesting and "enlightening." I now have it just right--I'm satisfied. I know that I've been a bad boy, and some Wiki-disciplinarian will have to come erase my little Wikigraffiti masterpiece, but I just couldn't help it. Sometimes it is fun testing the limits of what is possible at Wiki--but you never know--they might actually like it (that's what I'm banking on). Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:40, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Just be careful, I think it's incredible appropriate and humorous at the same time, but I wouldn't want you in trouble over something harmlessly done out of good faith. As for the series, there are 10 albums in total, so 1-5 would be your half, unless you want to swap any (except 10 which I'm starting).TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:12, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

You don't need to worry, that will probably be the last time to go all out on the humor--kinda like the "grand finale" so to speak. As for the Green Crystal ties, I'd be happy to do the first five. Hey I've got the G.R. up for GA and the reviewing has begun on it. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:00, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Great, I see the two of you are going back in forth with some interesting discussions. I was wondering if you would want to review the Music Machine article when I get around to finishing it. I've had it in my second sandbox for awhile and I really need to sit down and type it up. Since this GA review your having will give you added experience to the process and the templates that go along with it, I thought maybe you'd like another chance at it in the near future.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like a good thing, but I'll need to wait until a holiday, say Thanksgiving (or definitely Christmas), because, as you can imagine, I am pretty hemmed-in with a bundle work from my job right now--I'm managing "eek" out some small articles for Wiki in spite of that, which is good, but come holiday I can do a lot more things such as reviews. One issue: I remember that I made some prior edits to that article (I'll have to go back and check--say regarding fuzzboxes and the like)--would that jeopardize my legitimacy as reviewer in others' eyes? Personally, I'd be glad to do it, but I wouldn't want any possible prior involvement with the article to later come under attack. But, if you do not think that would cause a problem, I could go ahead with it come the convenient time. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

P.S.: I want to ask Binksternet where he got the text-to-source checking tool. I'd love to have one for when I doing future reviews, not so much for your article, because I know you try to find your own words, but for others. I was thinking, like maybe this summer, I could volunteer a few reviews for various articles by unknown editors on the GA nomination block--I could learn the discipline and craft of a "true" reviewer. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

It's no problem, I still need to complete the expansion so that timeframe works well for me. The concern you raised shouldn't be an issue because the article as it stands now will be completely different once it's revised. The info won't be removed, but rather reworded and then extended so by the end the article will be at least three times as large. Since the shift was mainly my doing, you would be scrutinized for reviewing it.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

That is good, but my name is still going to show on the edit history, so I hope that it will be OK w/ others--but if that is no problem for you with you, than its no problem for me. Oh, please don't be mad at me about that slight change @ Courtry Joe (and, by the way, thanks for putting the plural "s" on there--I was in rush like usual). I was just thinking about all of those Dylan 1963 anthems (and I know that you know 'em too). I'm sure it was just a little typo. So, no biggie, just nitpickn,' I didn't mean it badly--and as you see I make snafus too. And, I like the article a lot, so please don't be mad--you know I'm just picky at times. Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:50, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

It's fine, you were in the right for changing it. I don't know what I was thinking when I wrote that, perhaps I meant the best-known song relating to the Vietnam War. It needs to be perfect, especially since it is being reconsidered for a DYK article, which would help get the band's message out.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 10:30, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh no worry, I've made the same mistake too--so I thank you for the times you've corrected me. My cardinal sin numero uno is that I have a tendency to rush and not do enough self-proofreading (i.e. when I cut and paste song titles from places like Discogs, forgetting to convert prepositions and minor words into lower case)--but luckily you always come in to fix them. So, I am grateful. Garagepunk66 (talk) 12:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm happy to say that Country Joe and the Fish is listed on the Did You Know page so hopefully that will help get the word out about the group. Also, since I haven't done this in awhile, I wanted to recommend the song "She Took My Oldsmobile" by the Romancers. Well worth a listen in my opinion.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:25, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

That's terrific about the DKN. I love that song by the Romancers and in fact I was thinking about to do an article on them, but I have a feeling you might have be thinking the same thing. Would you like me to do it or would you wish. I've been really busy with work-stuff this week, so I haven't been able to as much Wiki, though I'm waiting to see how the review goes. But I'm hoping things go well with the GA review w/ the G.R. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:37, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

No, I actually encourage you to write about the Romancers. I will be busy trying to get more articles on the Green Crystal Ties series, and other ideas such as "Bad Girl" by the Zakary Thaks, Larry & the Bluenotes, the Painted Ship, and Teddy & His Patches. The Romancers deserve a quality article as soon as possible and I know you can deliver one. I think the G.R. review is going to end on a high-note, it's obvious Binksternet wants to be able to award you the GA status, and is one of the more reasonable reviewers to work with.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:07, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Could I do the Montells? I know you mentioned them, but man do I have the scoop on them!Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

You don't need to ask me, just do what you want. I know you'd never try to pull a fast one and write about something you knew I planned to work on. I think I mentioned them because of a song I was interested in, so that band is fair game for you to create an article for. By the way, I was wondering if you knew the story of a band called the Myddle Class? One of their members unfortunately died young, but no sources actually say how. I think he was murdered, but, again, no actual details are specified anywhere. Anyways, if you come across something remember me because I've been trying to uncover what really happened.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I not only will but must ask you, because I remember you mentioning the Montells, and I would not even think of doing the article if it wasn't OK with you--but would it be OK (I wouldn't be mad if you said no--it's just that I've got good sources on the Florida bands)? Whatever you wish on that count. As for the Myddle Class, they were a great Jersey band (let me guess...maybe a turnpike ride away form your area?). They did some really nice stuff like "Free as the Wind." I think you once mentioned doing an article on them, so I won't ask for two bands (that would be asking too much!) so I'm guessing you could do one on them. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes "Free as the Wind" is my favorite from them, though their cover of the Electric Prunes' "I Happen to Love You" is impressive as well. Also, I encourage you to write on the Montells since you mentioned you have good sources. There is a band called Mouse and the Boys from Florida, if you have anything on them, I'd be interested in that as well. On another note, I thought I should speak about you and Ghmyrtle. Please realize if he has a concern about the British section of the G.R. article, it probably is warranted. You have showed signs of WP:OWN which is understandable considering you've conducted about 99% of this project, but don't let it cloud your judgement. I know GA is important to you (and me!) but the overall objective is creating an article that reaches all aspects effectively. I brought this here because I didn't want to publicize it like I mistakenly did awhile back.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

And, I thank you for your concerns, but I assure you that I have no feelings of ownership at that article (and I don't why that got brought up--we should just stick to the matters as pertains to the article), and I welcome his involvement. I'm fine with some of the changes, but I feel we need to get the section to have tighter focus, which is a legitimate concern--I have to speak my mind and appeal to him re-think some things. Even he admitted that I have raised some valid issues. And, please don't see me as being all wrong in this--I have a right to voice my concerns--that's not ownership, just concern on my part. I just wish we had dealt with this a few months ago--not now, so I was surprised that this would pop up at this time. But, it has put the review on hold and is stressful. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:52, 30 October 2015 (UTC)Garagepunk66 (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

@Garagepunk66. Don't worry, I'll re-edit that section as soon as I can, and I'm sure Binksternet will be able to hold off for a day or two. Please bear in mind, firstly, that I have over 10,000 articles on my watchlist, including Garage rock; my first priority (because it's more satisfying to me) is to create new articles rather than edit those created by other people; and that, in circumstances where it is clear that one or two editors are investing far more time and energy into an article than I am able or willing to do, I tend to hold back until they have finished doing what they want (often, to avoid edit conflicts as much as anything else). My concern is to make sure that articles are "good enough" - I'm afraid that that I set very little store on processes like DYK, GA and FA, though I'm happy to help other editors who think those badges are important. But, as I've said, you (and TheGracefulSlick) have done and are doing excellent work, and I'll expedite further changes as soon as I can do so. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much, and I am sorry if any way my remarks may have seemed disrespectful--you know that I just have a way of speaking my mind bluntly, but I always mean well--keep in mind that my old version, imperfect though it was, I went through a whole series of versions and revisions, whereas yours was done in five or six edits, so I was just giving feedback on something that I felt was promising but needed more revisions. I would like to state unequivocally that I will accept your final version as the basis of all future text in the section--it is only and issue of fine-tuning something that will end up better than what I had there before. Tonight, I might make few little tweaks in there (and by all means you can change them), but I will make sure they would be things you would approve of. Garagepunk66 (talk) 12:48, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I can say that I really like GHmyrtle's latest update of the section.Garagepunk66 (talk) 20:23, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

By the way, TheGracefulSlick, I appreciate your comments too and your kind consideration in raising them here. Though I mentioned that I didn't see the point of the ownership thing, I appreciate your concern for me--that you didn't want me to "upset the apple cart" for my own sake (regarding something that meant so much to me--and you too, so I thank you). Both GHmyrtle and I had our legitimate perspectives and criticisms and were honest in airing them--we had to hash out our points, which turned out to be a healthy thing, and I think resulted in the best possible section for the article. It was a constructive and necessary process, I just hope you can see that it was all meant for the best. Garagepunk66 (talk) 23:23, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

That was the way I saw things all along, I'm just glad you changed your views to allow it to happen. And don't be too concerned that the GA review is on hold, as I said before this won't be a typical process due to the sheer size of the article. Oh and Happy Halloween, hopefully you still celebrate the occasion. I'm not sure on the details, but don't some people in New Orleans who practice Voodoo go to a cemetery in the city on this day? Or is that a story I heard?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:05, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I am always open to changing my mind and working things out with people, and I would never deny anyone the right modify what I have previously written--if there is something that I got wrong, I am happy for someone else to fix it. At that time, I saw a draft that did not look right to my eyes and honestly spoke my mind, because we have to live with whatever gets printed in that section, and it is very important that we get it right. To speak out is not having clouded judgment. Clouded judgment would be allowing oneself to be forced to accept something that he or she considers unacceptable, and than later regretting having never spoken out about it or having done something to change it. If my older version was unacceptable to GHmyrtle, and he could not live with it in good conscience, then he had every right to change it, even if, his first altered version was something that I sincerely found unacceptable (and I think he'd probably see my point now in retrospect--just as now I see the problems in my older version), so together we hashed things out with the hope of finding common ground and came up with something much better--something we not only could agree to, but that we actually like better than anything that was there there before. It is a win-win situation. However, I beg to differ with the whole ownership contention, when assuming good faith would have been in better order--at no time have I ever felt like the article's owner. When you so generously attributed 99% of the credit to me, you were actually giving me far more credit than I give myself--that was a great compliment, but in all humility I think I've done less, however humungous the task. I have tried to build on the foundation of my predecessors at the article, and am helping build a bridge (yes a big bridge) to the future. I have always dutifully deferred to GHmyrtle in all final decisions at the article, even when I have spoken my mind out in advance on matters in which I disagree, because I owe him and everyone my best judgment, rightly or wrongly. GHmyrtle and I are good negotiators--neither infallible not me nor him (please!). We both have a great deal of flexibility--and we both have integrity--and respect. And, of course we recognize you just the same likewise as a valued fellow editor. Thank you for your comments--I just want you to see that both of us had our reasons and that honesty/integrity and just doing what' is best for the article is more important than anything else.

• On a lighter note... that cemetery thing's kind of an old wives tale--I guess some of the Haitians did it back in the 1840s, but I've never met anyone that practices Voodoo, but I guess there's always a first time. However, we are one of those places like Salem or London that you would call a good "Halloween town." We were real popular with the goth crowd a while back, with Anne Rice and all that. We're having the Voodoo Fest this weekend, but I've been so busy w/ work that I really haven't had time to catch the show, but I think some really good people are playing. I could kick myself for missing the Ponderosa Stomp this year, too--I was just so busy, but I'll try to catch the next one (I think it will be in '17). Hope you had a great Halloween! Garagepunk66 (talk) 16:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

You will note I went in and made more changes to the List of garage rock compilations--so thank you for mentioning that. Keep in mind that this is not a finished product, so as a work in progress it will evolve into something much better--but this has to be all of our work, not just mine--so I put it where everyone can have it available when they need it and be able to work on it together. I ahead and took out all non-sourced or non blue-linked entries. I modified the text further. You will be glad do see that he list is now quite different from its prior form and I don't think we should have a problem with deletionists now. For all prior entries, I have saved them in my sandbox #10. So, I hope you like the way it is evolving so far. Garagepunk66 (talk) 23:27, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

One thing I could do, with your approval, is have sections alphabetized then have the series within their respective sections. Also, for albums that don't have an actual series it would be appropriate to place them in the "Other" section. Another suggestion is, instead of listing every single album of a series we just note the series name. That way, sourcing is easier, we can add series that don't have an article (sourced, of course), and it is navigable and practical for users.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:30, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

One final idea is we list the number of albums in a series, it saves a lot of unneeded navigating with the article.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:46, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh, absolutely by all means--I'd love to see alphabet. The only thing is that since we only have a few blue entries in there now--maybe we could wait to do the alphabetization once we have enough comps to justify letters--there are probably only a handful of letters in there right now (B,G,P,M,N,& T?), so the rest would just be sitting there. Unless, you wanted me to re-instate all of the hundred some-odd comps that used to be there and put them back in--I could do that. I just didn't want deletionists to have a tantrum over them (you go me a little worried--and remember that your word is always the weight of ten million pounds of gold to me). But, if you want, put them back--would you like me to put them back? I agree about how Nuggets and Pebbles are separated from everything else--which wouldn't be the way I'd do it--but I've always tried to build on top of the foundations of what editors had there before me--so I'll make changes, but in steps (like peeling layers of an onion). It took me three years to remove that awful statement in the Emergence of punk aesthetic and subculture section (of the G.R. article) if you remember that read "Iggy & the Stooges arguably the last garage band..." Yuck! But, I was reluctant to change it out of respect to the editors that were there before, so I said to myself "I'll just wait till the time is right!" And, low and behold, a few weeks ago I up and changed it! Amen! I think that we could just list everything in alphabetical order in just one section--not separate Pebbles/Nuggets and have no "Other," etf. I could remove the albums that are part of a series and just list the series name as you said--but for each series put the word "(series)" after it. Then for stand-alone albums, we could list them in the same set-configuration, but they would not say "(series)" at the end, just have the title. My reckoning is that every stand-alone title is essentially a series--at least in potential, so is therefore of a similar nature. For instance, imagine this: we could release a new comp tomorrow called Clunkers as just as one album. But, then next year, we might change our minds and come out with Clunkers, Volume 2. Even Nuggets was never intended to be a series--it just worked out that way later. So, we could just put all of the titles on the same list in alphabetical order, but for the sake of simplicity, put "(series)" after the ones that are multiples. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, past editors who worked on this failed so whatever they did with the list should hold little merit. Sorry if that is blunt, but it is true. Feel free to morph the article because any change would be an improvement. I'd recommend not throwing every album in because each one needs a reference. I don't think you or me have the patience to sit down and source them all in an appropriate time. Just doing a few a day will bring the article back to an appropriate size. Your other suggestion on how to list them with or without a "(series)" mark is a good one I encourage fullfilling.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and alphabetized the entries as you had menioned. I removed the various individual entries in series and just put the series' titles, except for Nuggets, which enjoys a certain preeminence over all. I decided to keep the Nuggets & Pebbles in their own discrete section (on second thought). We can go in and name all of the titles in such a way that they can serve as perfect templates for the future names of articles, although we probably should leave them in black lettering as not to scare deletionists. We could probably put at least one reference next to non blue-lettered entries, before predatory birds swoop into snatch the little eggs. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

This thread is getting rather long so I started a new one below. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:15, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Liberty Bell (band), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Corpus Christi. 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) 10:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Green Crystal Ties, Volume 9: The Great Lost Psychedelic Garage Bands

added a link pointing to Psychedelic

The Palace Guards (Louisiana band)

added a link pointing to The Radiators

The Shy Guys (Oak Park band)

added a link pointing to Oak Park

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:51, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Green Crystal Ties, Volume 4: Mind-Expanding 60s Psychedelia

added a link pointing to Arthur Lee

The Opposite Six (Sacramento band)

added a link pointing to Big Beat Records

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

GA, list of comps, music, etc.

I thought I'd start a new thread here. The old one was getting kind of long. So if you any thoughts about articles, music, etc. you are welcome the register them. Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

One thing I'm planning to do on the list soon is place the two itallics on both sides of the title like we usually do for album titles. Also some minor reworking and a start at sourcing the albums. Time is of the essence so we need to do this together, if the article can be legitimate.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:44, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I took them off, because I was afraid that deleionsits would "freak out" when seeing all of that red L.E.D. But, you have a good point: we need to bring the red links back. I'm thankful for your help with this (and anyone else's), because by its very nature its a community project. Now, here is a thought--would you like me to remove all of the non-sourced or non blue-linked entries just for now, and keep them in my archive (in sandbox #10)? That way, it might stave off deletionsits.Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:05, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the misunderstanding, I meant something like this ' '(album title) ' ' to make album title. The red links wouldn't look good regardless of whether we're standing up to deletionists. By the way, glad to see a draft on the Liberty Bell band, I love that group. I want to read more about them but all their sources keep getting mixed in with the actual Liberty Bell!TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:07, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh, you mean real italics (I thought you were trying to say brackets). I guess we can't go through our whole Wiki-lives intimidated by deletionists. And yes, I've been seeing lot of stuff about the actual bell too--which I guess you've probably seen a hundred times. As for the band, I wish there were more sources. There are going to be holes in the biography due to that lack of information, which I regret, but I'll try to give them the best coverage I can, until more helpful sources emerge. Garagepunk66 (talk) 14:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I think the article is well-written, considering that you didn't have a whole lot to work with. I've been focusing extra to complete the Music Machine's new (and hopefully improved) article, so I should have it complete within two days. When it is complete, I will wait to send it to GA review because I really want you to conduct it.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:01, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate that you are willing to be so patient and kind--letting me wait 'till my schedule becomes more conducive--I'll get to it as soon as time can become available for me. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I might do some of the Green Crystal Ties series--I think you want me to do the first five... I'll get working on them. Gosh I've been so busy with work lately--we're really coming into "crunch time," but I'll get to them. I do not own any copies, but I can't wait to order some. I won't have the benefit of accessing the liner notes for the time being, so some of my song descriptions may sound a little bit threadbare--but I can go back later and embelleih them in time. I noticed you mentioned in the lead-out article that a lot of the songs come from the master tapes--I'm assuming that it indicates that in the liner notes. I might slightly tweak the language with the caveat of "when possible," because a small company like Collectables may not have had the ability to gain access to masters on all tracks (unless the liner notes are clear that they were used on all cuts)--I'm guessing that they were transcribed from various different sources: master tapes or acetates when possible, and the best-possible copies of 45's they could get their hands on. Would I be right? Correct me if I'm wrong. Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:28, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

The liner notes described the recordings to be taken in a similar way that Nuggets did, but looking back I think I took the info too literal. Glad to see you in on the project. This is a little ridiculous reason to like the series, but I actually really love when the covers depict a band. It reminds me of the later entries in the Pebbles series and is just interesting. The music of course I think was chosen well, which is why I'm glad to be able to write about the series.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 11:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

You've gotten me really interested in the series, so I'm going to have to order copies of the various entries. Oh, and yes, I like it when they put a band on the cover. Me personally, I like those album covers from the sixties that just show a picture the band on front, say standing in front of some trees or in an alley or whatever--then some plain black and white pictures on the back, showing the artists smoking a cigarette of whatever. Garagepunk66 (talk) 13:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, you had a point I was stretching it on the Groupies when I put "avant garde" in the info box--I guess it was their whole anti-commercial attitude/"abstact music" designation/New York, thing--but I was kinda in a rush, so I don't mind you taking that out. But, I wanted to ask about the Crystal Green Ties. I don't own any of the CD's, but based on some pictures of the CD artwork I found on the internet, it appears that the two people who wrote the liner notes for the series were Steve Kaplan and Matt Wendelken, would I be correct? I may be misspelling the names--the print looked small in the pictures. I want to mention their names in the articles. Based on what I got form the tiny fuzzy letters, in a caption I mentioned that the record company is centered in Narberth, PA. Does that sound right? Please correct me if I typed it in wrong--I'm not quite as familiar with the Keystone State, but I know someone who is. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:23, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I didn't mean it in a bad way about the Groupies, so thanks for understanding. Bands like United States of America, Fifty Foot Hose, and Mothers of Invention fit the distinction of the genre. As for the Green Crystal Ties spellings, you are correct on them. Also on the older subject of album covers, perhaps my favorite with the band on the front is the Electric Prunes' Underground album. The band actually put the whole cover together themselves because producers practically gave up on the whole project which is a shame.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:10, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I more than understand about the Groupies--in fact I was actually thinking about taking that "avant garde" thing out too--so you actually made things a little easier for me! I'd imagine that New York groups like the Fugs would more specifically be considered avant garde (or what I call "avant garage"--former member Ed Sanders used the word "punk rock" to describe a solo album of his in a 1970 interview), then of course the Velvet Underground (also "avant garage") who hung out in the Factory with Andy Warhol and all those "cooler than thou" people. Yeah, I love the Prunes' album artwork--the way the various images are superimposed. I just love album art from the 60s. Everything about that decade appeals to me so much aesthetically: early, middle, and late--high and low, not only musically, but everything: the cars, the styles, even the tacky neon-lit roadside architecture. Check out Burger Chef! [[1]] I am just hopelessly in love with the 60s and always have been. I wish some of the LA bands could have been treated better by producers and execs--but I guess the execs are a lot worse now. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

P.S.: I enjoyed the Larry and the Blue Notes article. I've got some additional info on the band that I think you'd like--when I get a few spare moments, I could add that stuff in. Garagepunk66 (talk) 18:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey, I added that extra info. there. But, if I got any of it wrong, by all means correct it. So, please don't be mad--I think you'll like the additions a lot--I see the additions as just more icing on an already good cake. I have a terrific DVD about the Fort Worth scene--the documentary shows some footage of Major Bill Smith who was a real character. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:15, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

You don't need to worry about me ever being mad, if there ever was a problem (which there hasn't been) I know we could work it out. I'd like to learn more about the Major, from what I read so far it seems he was really strict and literally would scare some of the musicians. He wanted "Night of the Sadist" to be changed to "Night of the Burglar" which I think would have ruined the song, so I'm glad they settled with "Phantom" (though "Sadist" sounds the best to me). By the way, I'm basically finished with the Music Machine changes, I just need to add references and fix the opening, then I'll add the update to the article. I also found some great bands to add to the list of write-ups like the Bare Facts, the Mourning Reign (wasn't a Chocolate Watchband member in this group?), and Danny and the Counts. There also was this hilariously-named band called the Mustard Men, which actually have a respectable song called "I Lost My Baby!" that's worth a listen. I think I found it on the garagehangover website, but they had a business card that is also very humorous.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:49, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, you're always so kind and understanding to put up with an overzealous, yet error-prone, perfectionist like me--I hope I'm not as bad as Maj. Smith! Yes, I love those bands a lot, though I didn't know about the Chocolate Watchband member in the Mourning Reign. I love their song "Satisfaction Guaranteed." So, I know you will enjoy doing those articles and I'll enjoy reading them. Give me some time on the Music Machine review. I'm going to busier during Thanksgiving than would be ideal (I want to squeeze-in some articles and stuff in the G.R. then), so I was thinking that I could try doing the review around Christmas/New Year's. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:13, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

P.S.: On a sadder note, I lament the passing of Allen Toussaint. He had a hand in so much of the great music that was made in New Orleans in the 50s, 60s, and 70s. I really would have thought he'd make it to 100, because though in his 80s, he still looked remarkably healthy, so I was surprised. A few months ago I saw him driving around in his beautiful 1970s-era Rolls Royce out by City Park and about two years ago I saw him at a restaurant. But, he had a wonderful life and gave so much, there is so much tanks to give. I know we both took it hard when B.B. King passed away. It seems that so many of the greats are dying off. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I feel the same way, I always believe that these legends will never die (in some ways they actually don't) but of course no one is immortal. Thankfully, Toussaint did live a fulfilling life and will surely be remember for a long time to come. On a lighter note, I thought I could share a cool thing that happened today. I talked with Debi Pomeroy (or Debi "Drums") the former drummer of the Daughters of Eve. Apparently, she found out I created the band's article awhile back and thanked me for it. We got to chat about what she is up to now and a little about Carl Bonafede, their producer.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:03, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Wow, that's awesome! The great thing is that we have had the privilege of getting to know these wonderful musicians--well with Dean Markley you were a little papoose at the time, but you still have that picture of him standing there with you when you were a baby to cherish for life. And, you told me your dad knew Bob Hocko. So, now you've gotten to meet Debi! I don't suppose the Daughters of Eve would have any plans to re-unite? But she must have been a wonderful person to meet. Let me guess--you saw her at the record store? Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:35, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

We originally were talking over email the last few days, and I finally met her in person at one of her concerts (she still performs!). The members still talk to each other too and have partial reunions, but I don't believe they will ever reunite, unfortunately. She had these amazing stories about traveling across the Midwest for gigs, even though she was nearly my age. The most interesting thing to me was her interest in drumming because few (only Jan Errico of the Vejtables and the Mojo Men comes to mind) women from the 1960s actually took up the instrument.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

This might seem crazy or paradoxical, but I'd wager there might have been even more female drummers in rock back in the 60s than now--judging by how many all-female groups there were then--and, of course, not to mention a few predominantly male bands then that had female drummers as well. It's a close call--I don't have any figures to compare, but I'd say the 60s is up there--to a degree that some may find surprising. Nonetheless, the female garage rock bands of the 60s were an incredible, yet largely unknown phenomenon. I hope she has gotten a chance to see the female bands section in the G.R. article--I know she'd enjoy seeing her band's mention included there. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:56, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

On a more somber note, I am really saddened about the incidents yesterday in Paris and how the terrorists commit such vile acts of brutality against their fellow human beings--innocent civilians. It is a horror what has happened to the unfortunate victims and their families and this is a time when we must all, as peace loving people, come together and unite for the sake of a better world. Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I know it is a tragedy, I literally cried when I saw how hateful we act toward each other. But you should also see how people reacted to the bombings France countered with in Iraq. They cheered for the deaths that resulted, not even caring that innocent civilians were killed in the process. They have the mentality that all Muslims are evil and were happy that any of them, no matter who they are, are dead I know that ISIS needs to be exterminated, but do we have to lose our sense of reason and humanity in the process? Just something to think about I suppose as we pray for the family we lost.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what the world is coming to and I am confounded by the clever and asymmetrical tactics of terrorists who have so little regard for their fellow human beings. It is well-meaning and idealistic people like you that give me hope for the future. Please don't let ever anyone take that away. Never. Ever. By the way, don't let things such as the situation with Crazy Aces take you away from what should be your true focus--please don't allow yourself to get sucked into that sinkhole--it will drag you into a cynical abyss. Let it drop. If I give advice here, it is knowing that I am if anything even more imperfect, and that on many occasions you have tried to give me "calm-down" advice for my own good--and I want to say that I will try to be less headstrong about things in the future. I think what has gotten me so wired-up at times is that the G.R. article means so much to me that I get too fanatical about wanting to make sure that it comes out just right--that means even more to me than G.A. or F.A. But, there are things more important than even the G.R. article those little green wafers and crystal starfish and that is people. For instance the kindness that you have shown me means more to me than any of that "G.R." and "GA" stuff, and I am eternally grateful. I will try to be a better more humble person. Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I understand your advice and will do my best to follow it. I still will protect the articles he degrades however if the situation comes to head. At some point my argument with him shifted to ideologies and I understand now why he is so confrontational and twisted. Just read his views on Malcolm X, the Nation of Islam, and his stance on world issues, it truly is a "my race against the world" mentality. It's scary, it's outdated, and ineffective. I gave him historic facts to prove how ineffective it is, but he just calls it fiction. Just goes to show how much he knows about the very groups he "supports" I guess.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 11:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Keep in mind that everyone has their ideologies and that even a relatively mild philosophy such as liberalism will be perceived by some extreme conservatives to be a form of communism--and will be considered major a threat to the human race. But, in saying that, I don't want to sound like a relativist. I've read Malcolm X's autobiography, and I lament that some radicals have misconstrued his beliefs in such a way as to justify hatred and vengeance, when in reality, he was not in favor of mindless violence, at least not after he left the Nation of Islam--his was more a philosophy of peaceful self-determination in his last years, a type of pan-African consciousness not that different from, say, Rastafarianism. But, keep in mind that there is so much hurt in the black community with such deeply-seated roots, that it is not surprising that some (a small minority) will espouse such views as Crazy Aces--it's going to take a long time for these wounds to be healed, I'm afraid. We can't expect everyone to see eye to eye on everything that sometimes the best way to make peace is just to step back (if those whose mindset is antithetical to yours are not in an offensive posture). I think it would be best to find a good editor who regularly covers the types of sports Crazy Aces follows--someone he likes, and let that person be the one to clean up after his mishaps. It is probably best for us to keep focused on the areas we cover and not worry about that, but of course you are free to do whatever you choose, and you know I'll respect whatever decision you make, because I know you always mean well. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, see, you understand Malcolm X's views well enough to know what you are talking about. I strongly countered CA's ranting, by mentioning in the last few years of his life, X advocated a peaceful approach. It stopped CA dead in his tracks, so it's obvious he doesn't truly realize what he supports. He wasn't even aware of the fact Malcolm X was killed by the very group X once supported, the Nation of Islam, which was terribly corrupt in the 1960s. I understand and am saddened by the fact the black community still faces adversity, but it is not made better by someone like CA who uses it as an excuse to be a downright awful person and (less importantly in a wider-sense) a poor editor. I guess I'm just trying too hard to convince an individual who is set in his mind, whether he knows what he is talking about or not. Anyways, enough of CA, I'm ready to get back to work. Thank you for being here to discuss this with me, it really helped.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:36, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think he is a completely awful person. But, I think that he has allowed himself to become consumed with vengeance over a possibly rightful sense of being wronged, whether on a personal level or due to the societal injustices that have been committed against black America--something that we in white society could try to better understand. I would guess that he may have had some prior bad dealings with whites that have hurt him and made it difficult for him to interpret white actions/intensions in a positive light. So, the slightest misunderstanding might turn out to be self-fulfilling prophecy in his mind. I would imagine that he considers white people to be paternalistic in most trans-racial interactions (which I have to admit may have some validity based on our country's history). So, one would have to be careful not to reinforce that pre-conceived notion. There may be no remedy in his case, but if there is one it lies beyond our present scope. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:50, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

See, but my reasoning is on Wikipedia, no one is critizing him for being an African-American. Everyone has said that they are only trying to help him follow basic guidelines we all follow. We're not asking for much and we're not going at it differently because of his race. CA's treated equally here and his race was never brought up in the discussion by those who want to help him. Not once has he even revealed that perhaps he's so upset as a result of real-life experiences altering his outlook on white-black interactions. From all the arguments he's had CA randomly brings up race, not because he's had some terrible experience being discriminated against, but because it gets him out of a jam. That's disgusting to me when you considered there are real African-Americans out there who are actually burdened by racism. CA acts like a victim when, again I reiterate, there are real people facing the worst forms of hatred. I mean just look at the response CA made to the admin who upheld his block, comparing his "silencing" to the Holocaust or slavery in America. That's a little melodramatic, wouldn't you think?

On other developments, I see we have completed the Green Crystal Ties series. I thank you for your contributions to the discography, it makes it a much more positive experience when I have a capable user like yourself to work with.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:39, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't mean in any way to absolve CA of his abusive language and multiple transgressions--I'm just trying to recognize that he is probably not going to respond well to anything that you or I try to do, so I am resigned to the futility of trying. I don't want to come across as defending him--there is no excuse for his actions, which are deplorable. I don't doubt that he uses his situation as a way to get away with irresponsible things, which he may feel entitled, but I cannot rule out that his words and actions may nonetheless emanate from a deeper disconnect from reality brought on by some kind of real or imagined misfortune which he may not have full control at the present time. To a certain extent, we in white Americana have to realize that the vast majority of black people in the United States have probably encountered racism in some form in their lives, which is a tragedy, but I agree that most handle the situation quite admirably--much better than he. On a lighter note, it was fun working on the Green Crystal Ties series articles. And, I it is always so great to work with you too! Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I thought I might start a new thread, as this one has gotten rather long. Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:22, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

The Druids of Stonehenge (band)

added links pointing to Psychedelic and Who Do You Love

The Penthouse 5

added links pointing to Suzie Q and Psychedelic

Allen Toussaint

added a link pointing to Charles Neville

The Daisy Chain (California band)

added a link pointing to Psychedelic

The Enfields

added a link pointing to Psychedelic

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The Savages

No worries. I was just doing category cleanup because some of the bands in the "Garage rock groups" category (or even bumped up a level in the general "garage rock" genre category instead) were from countries that already have a "(Country) garage rock groups" subcategory, and should thus have been there instead of in the more general ones — I'm not particularly an expert in the genre as a rule, and don't have any special insight or opinions about whether a band is better described as "garage rock" or "garage punk" (although obviously those terms overlap). And as you probably also saw, I at one point accidentally moved The Savages to the American subcategory, and then corrected myself. If you want to switch whether a band is categorized as "rock" or "punk", though, then I don't really have an issue other than being aware of which countries have "garage rock" subcategories (Bermuda doesn't yet, since there seems to just be the one band so far.) Bearcat (talk) 15:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

No problem, and thank you for all of your great work in so many areas here at Wikipedia! Garagepunk66 (talk) 19:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

_______________________________________________

A page you started (Bohemian Vendetta) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Bohemian Vendetta, Garagepunk66!

Wikipedia editor LavaBaron just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

great article!

To reply, leave a comment on LavaBaron's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Whatever new (or old) under the sun

I started a thread here to discuss music and whatever topics. Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I understand what you mean. I guess I am upset that we're just trying to help so CA can stay here and contribute, and we get such an unnessary and negative response. Anyways, I found this extremely cool compilation album called Allentown Anglophiles. It features Allentown, Pennsylvania garage bands, including this band called the Shillings, which was one of the groups my grandfather was a part of before forming his own band. If you listen to the song "Lying and Trying", my grandfather is the one playing guitar! It's amazing the things I learn about him, when you can jog his memory to recall these events in his life.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh man, that is incredible--your grandfather played in a band!!! I'm definitively making that compilation my next purchase! I'm guessing that he's still around and you've gotten to chat with him, based on what you've said. The garage band thing was so pervasive and it touched the lives of so many people. In my mind it is the great untold story of rock & roll. And, I'm glad that we can have the chance chronicle these bands! Garagepunk66 (talk) 17:16, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I just listened to the record. And, your grandfather sounds just like me when I plug in my Strat--although I'd say he's a better player. Garagepunk66 (talk) 17:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, he's still kickin' thankfully. His memory sometimes fails him, but I'm glad he remembers enough to tell me about his interesting life. It was odd how I discovered the album. I was actually looking up references for an article I'm writing on the "Bosstown Sound". Apparently, the song "Lying and Trying" was popular in Boston, and the author mentioned a link to the album. I told my grandfather about the Shillings, and he instantly recalled that was his first group before he formed his own band called the Crunch. Though I believe him already, he is looking through his old photos for a photograph of the whole band to prove he was in the Shillings. It was cool enough that he recorded a single with his own band, but to have another recording recognized on an album after all these years really goes to show how impactful garage rock was/is to people from the biggest of cities to those literally living in your neighborhood.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I found a picture of what I think may be the Limits, but I'm not quite sure--all I see is an "s" at the end of the band's logo on the bass drum head (not very helpful--every band had that "-s" back then, Amen!).[[2]] And based on the description, they may have shared fellow members with the Shillings. Click behind the picture and there is an article about the Limit and the Allentown scene (I've always dug the song "Shame," by the Kings Ransom). And, I love this old yellowed picture--the band on the little stage, with the basketball net, the Woolworth's party decorations, the Ludiwg drums, and Fender amps, etc.--this means more to me than all of these $100,000,000 megawatt computer controlled lights, LED, & p.a. mass productions you see at modern shows. To me, this image is indelible and goes straight to the very heart of rock & roll. There is an inherent goodness in it which is something special--pictures such as these are part of our collective family memories--taken from humanity's collective scrapbook--from a magical moment in time to be forever cherished. Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:03, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

P.S.: I can't wait to read the article you're preparing about the Allentown Anglophiles comp! Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I commend you on your work on improving the Allen Toussaint article. To be honest, I'm sometimes cautious in editting articles about "high-profile" figures like him, especially when everyone else will clammer to write about the man after his unfortunate passing. But you walk into it with no fear, which I respect. I feel like the article is in good hands, and hopefully some other users will wake up and at least make it a DYK article, since Toussaint is such an important figure to music.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:30, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I want to say that I have felt the same fear--I know it all too well. My only excuse is being from New Orleans, that's all--so I know the topography or the area, just like you know Pennsylvania. It's no great thing on my part. I've just had a chance to meet Toussaint firsthand (just the way you've known Dean Marlely, Debi Pomeroy, and your wonderful grandfather) and would see him driving around in his 70s Rolls, so I knew that he must have moved back to New Orleans, so I found the sources to confirm that and put it in. Having gone through the Katrina thing myself, I felt that more could be said about his hurricane experience, so I found some stuff on that too. Everyone in New Orleans knows about how the funk thing was going on in the Crescent City in the 60s, so I made some sourced modifications to those statements and then added a few other tidbits, then sourced some statements that were already there. But, you have made some wonderful contributions at Allen Toussaint's article too--so you have contributed--you are just as much a part of celebrating and commemorating this great man as far as I am concerned--he would be so joyful to see that there are wonderful music lovers like you, who are willing to write so eloquently about your passion. Garagepunk66 (talk) 23:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

P.S.:I wrote an article about all-female group the Daisy Chain. Sadly, the sources were not very helpful, so the article is a lot shorter than what I would have wished. However, they do have two AllMusic pieces, and they did an album, which I think will protect the article from deletionists. I want to order a copy of their Sundazed CD, because, in addition to the wonderful music, I can find some good info from the liner notes and interviews contained there to bloster the article, which right now, though "straight," is kind of... "lame." But, in the meantime we can keep an eye on it to protect it from predatory vultures until I can add some more biographical info. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I actually have the Daisy Chains album on my iPod classic, I think you will enjoy it. I don't think anyone will delete it, though, to be honest, we hardly meet much of the standard Wikipedia guidelines. But I think it is neccessary that users cut us some slack because, in order to make the point on how grand scaled the garage rock era was, we need to write articles on these obscure groups. Plus, let us be honest, many of these bands have interesting stories, they are coming back into the public scope, and their music is better than even the most successful pop musicians of today.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I've played the album on Youtube and dug it, but I want to buy it. I would imagine that Wiki deletionists will be less inclined to go after us when they see that our articles are carefully written and filled with the best sources we can find, considering the time-lapse of 50 years, yet these bands are still being compiled. I can't promise that means nothing will ever be deleted, but I'd say that it would be a rare thing--and we can always go to the nomination for deletion page and raise hell! Trying to have a well-written article deleted takes time and effort, is contentious--I'd guess that most editors are too busy with their own projects and wouldn't want to go through the trouble (although there are a few sharks as we've seen). It is just so wonderful that we can cover this magical music. So, I think that most editors will back us up. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey, one other issue. Tell me what you think. I'm thinking about changing my user name. I know you don't want me to do this, but I'm torn. See, I'm writing an article about the Flint-Goodrige Hospital, a, historic African American-owned institution, that was located right near the Dew Drop Inn (the big hangout for R&B acts in the 50s in New Orleans). Ghmyrtle did an article on the Dew Drop Inn--and it was located in an area not far from where I grew up (and not far from where I live now, in fact). So, I'd like to write about some of the places that used to be in that neighborhood. But, when I write about the hospital, I don't want people to think "Who is that crazy bast#@&?" So, a new name might give me more flexibility. Also, the more I think about it, my current name may be causing some editors to have a negative perception of me--there may be a bad stigma. Of course, not with you--you know that "punk" in the 60s context is not a negative thing at all--it really means "sincere" and "kind-hearted," like all of the wonderful people who made the music--the kind of person I really aim to be. But, others may not know that and think I am some kind of caustic or contentious person. So, I cold shorten the name to GP66, or if it needs to be longer, something like "Garageprince66" or "Garagepint66," etc. But, maybe I shouldn't change it--I quite like my user name the way it is. What do you think? Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:12, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it would be a good idea. Name changing is a somewhat complicated process of appeals that needs a valid reason like to avoid harassment or vandalism. Plus, you have already developed a "street cred", if you will, with your current username, which will need to be explained to other users so they know you are the same individual. Besides, others don't really mind a username unless it's offensive or they think it's clever enough to joke about.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:22, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey, I can't believe it! The G.R. went GA!!! And, I've got to thank you for encouraging me and believing in me when I sometimes doubted myself--you were always there, my wonderful friend, to give me the strength that I otherwise wouldn't have had. I could not have done this without you. Maybe "Garagepunk66" is good luck after all! Garagepunk66 (talk) 06:06, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

P.S.: Happy Thanksgiving!!! Garagepunk66 (talk) 06:14, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I knew it was only a matter of time. It's amazing to finally see the musical genre get the recognition it deserves. I'm glad you stuck through to the end, even when it seemed like the whole ordeal would not have a light at the end of the tunnel. By the way, I found you were writing an article on the Lost, which I'm particularly excited to see. In my research for the "Bosstown Sound" article I'm writing, I read the Lost had an important role in the scene's pre-history. They played for the opening of the Boston Tea Party, which was the most important venue in the city. It started the whole underground music scene in Boston, and the Lost, in a way, began that entire process.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:02, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for everything. Yeah, it is great the way the Lost, even though they were from Vermont, tied right in with the whole scene in Boston, with the Remains and everyone. I'll be sure to put in the show at Tea Party (providing sources of course). By the way, check out the Remains awesome performance on on the Ed Sullivan show in December 1965.......in color! [[3]] Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:51, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

P.S.: I took you up on your recommendation and mentioned some stuff about the Lost's gigs at the Boston Tea Party in their article. Hey, I wondering if you would like to do a review of the Garage rock article at the DYK Nominations page? [[4]] I kinda messed it up, being my first time there, but would you like to do the honors? Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:42, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Another reviewer got to it @ DYK and gave it a thumbs up. As for the review for the Music Machine article--I know you asked me to do it, and I am still interested. I am sorry that I've been so busy, but I've been trying to squeak out some new articles amongst the other things on my plate. I might go ahead and start the review, but can you be patient and give me some time to finish it. I had said I'll have a lot of time during Christmas/New Years, but I could go ahead and start it. I might even be able to finish it sooner. I just ask for your patience. Would you like me to go ahead and start-up the review tomorrow? Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:16, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

That is good news about the DYK. I would have chimmed in but to be honest I don't really understand the whole process. I had a brush with the review when another kind user nominated Country Joe and the Fish, and I was given notice, but I didn't really pay too much mind to it, even when it passed. I kinda understand now from your review and other ones I read over, so next time I will be more responsive. As for the Music Machine article, there is no rush to start if you are trying to write articles. If you wanted to start though, I would be willing to work through an extended process so you can keep writing articles without much interruption.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:54, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

That's so kind of you to be willing to be patient. I'll be happy to start up the review! Garagepunk66 (talk) 07:01, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I started up the review. Garagepunk66 (talk) 07:13, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey, I was noticing that we still have a few Garage Beat 66 albums left. If you would like, I could do Vol. 2, and you could do the rest. By the way, I really enjoyed the stuff we did for Green Crystal Ties. That series was a lot of fun. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:20, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I will try to get around to it. I've been trying to do Boston-related articles to bolster the Bosstown article when that too is completed. I wanted to write about the psychedelic bands called Front Page Review and the Hallucinations, Ultimate Spinach's second album, and improve some other existing pages like Listening. I feel like if the articles surrounding the whole scene were also in-depth, readers would appreciate the Bosstown Sound a little more. Hopefully.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:40, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

That would definitely bolster people's appreciation. If you need a helping hand, I could do an article on the Boston Tea Party (if sources permit)--but only if you would like me to do that. I'm really enjoying learning about the Bosstown scene, which you've brought to my attention. I lament that that, with being preoccupied with all the garage stuff, I have not been able to cover more of the late 60s end of things, which I also love. In time, I'd like to expand more in that direction, but Rome isn't built in a day. I've kind of established myself as a specialist, but I'm beginning to venture out more. But, you never need worry, GP66 will always be the same fella at heart. Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:09, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

P.S.: My heart goes out to the editors who originally did the Listening article--they had a keen understanding of the scene and some brilliant ideas, but their syntax was atrocious! I'm sure you were thinking the same thing when you were pouring over the convoluted jumble of words there. I went in and cleaned some of it up. I re-worded the thing about "group sound," so people won't confuse it with the Japanese rock of the 60s. Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:46, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I would thank the editor for writing the article, especially for such an overlooked psychedelic band. When I expand the article, I want to detail their history a little better because I have some thorough liner notes from the CD reissue of Listening's album.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:03, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Can't wait to read it when you're done! Garagepunk66 (talk) 06:04, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm beginning some editing in the MM article. I did a few tiny edits in the opening paragraph. I basically took the sculpture you had there and made a few extra chisel marks. You'll notice that what we've got now is a really perfect symphony of words. I replaced "ambiance" with "affectation" to try to establish a more neutral tone in the beginning (as dry appetizer), yet in the succession of words following tried to conjure up that ambiance using "hallucinogenic" as a more pictorial/sensory way of saying (yet without saying) "psychedelic" and "ambiance" in one fell swoop. Garagepunk66 (talk) 08:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Great, I approve of anything that can culminate in the article being the best possible document for the readers to learn from. I've probably altered this article more than any other so I realize that it takes time to get the desired results. At the very least, I think the page is improved over my first edited version of it, and the original state I found it in almost a year ago (Fixing the page was one of the main reasons I joined Wikipedia!)TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't know that improving this article is what inspired you to become a Wikipedian! And, it is great that you have such a dedication to the cause of excellence. We keep chiseling away at these articles like stone--crafting them out as we go! Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Well there are a few other reasons, some of which I can happily say I accomplished and others I still need to complete. What must motivated initially was my desire to work on some random groups that I liked, but I didn't expect to be around long (I was really bull-headed before so I thought someone would block me!). Then, as I'm sure you realized as well, I noticed that there were hardly any psychedelic or garage rock bands recognized here. I honestly believe that our combine articles doubled, or even tripled, the total amount of psychedelic/garage band-based articles, which is something to be proud of. More importantly, the quality within those articles is not jeopardized despite how much we write.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:41, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I am so thankful to have you here. I was kind of obstinate, too, when I got here. I really didn't intend to be a Wiki-editor per se, but one day I just noticed that I could do an edit, so I made an edit, unregistered of course, and got an undo and angry warning on the history page: "Undo user: 953:6454:880:555:111:9984 (or whatever the IP address was); hint: please take your issue to talk page and discuss it there rather than engage in disruptive editing--next time you will be blocked." So, I noticed at the top I could register and become a user. I signed up and then wrote a dissertation on several talk pages. I probably was a bit long-winded and over-persistent (if people think I'm that way now, they should've seen me then--I've actually mellowed out a lot!). I crossed swords with all the "big-wig" editors and got them to re-think some of their previous assumptions about the whole genesis of the musicology and early (pre-1975) conceptualization and identification of punk. I actually wish that we could use the word "punk" in the opening of the MM article (the way it was), but I accept that public opinion has not evolved to the point where Wiki can yet define it in those terms. In the 60s the concept had not yet arrived, but the music was already there. Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

P.S.: My whole thesis is that punk existed in practice (unconsciously) before it existed in theory. First as music (unconsciously) in the 1960s, then as theory (critics in early 1970s), then as self-conscious practice and new subculture (late 70s). But, I liked its earlier form better, because there was a sweetness and a humanity in the 60s garage that you don't get with a lot of the later stuff (but I do love some of the later stuff like the Clash, who were socially conscious--but unconsciously trying to bring the 60s hippie idealism into the 70s punk movement). Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I know what you mean, I still mistakenly put punk rock in the MM article because, to me (and how sources tend to explain it) they were a pioneer of the genre, so it would make sense to credit them as such. But I'm not going to protest against the higher-ups for something that I believe will eventually be accepted. I haven't gotten into late 1970s punk music, though I must admit I haven't investigated it properly. I like the bands it produced, especially the Sonic Youth, who are on my list of bands that deserve to be in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. By the way, the Hall chooses candidates so terribly. Think about this, Ice-Cube is getting in before Sting, the Zombies are off the ballot, and groups like Country Joe and the Fish, ? and the Mysterians, and the Beau Brummels have never been considered. On top of that Deep Purple may have to wait another year, the only deserving 70s band being considered, which is awful.

P.S. I would be on the lookout for LongNailsShortHair, it seems he/she is only here to cause acts of disruption to music articles and has targeted some pages we tend to work in (Count Five, "Psychotic Reaction", Psychedelic rock, etc.). Normally, I would give the benefit of the doubt that the user didn't know better, but look at their talk page and it explains everything. It isn't something blatantly obvious like page blanking, but in the interest of retaining accurate articles we should just check in every now and then. Don't bother mess engine they haven't responded to anything...ever!TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:28, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I actually loved the way you said "punk" there (a lot!) and agree wholeheartedly--in fact I'm just overjoyed that there is one other editor here who feels the same way about it! And, the source you read was correct. But, sadly, I realize that when defining whole genres and categories at Wiki, we have to go along with the majority of sources and public opinion, which has not gotten there yet (nor consensus of editors--I took a temperature check a while back and had to accept that they're not in that ball court--they're dead-set against it--I've gotten the other editors to the point where they will accept its mention as historical backdrop, but not as an official category--there was once a time that they would have not even granted that). Like you, I yearn for the day when 60s punk can be wholeheartedly embraced as punk by the larger world (as it rightfully should). Come that time, I'd be the first to go and change the wording back to "punk." So, I don't think you made a mistake there at all--but that, like me, you're just too far ahead of your time (or behind it!), and that the world is going to have to catch up our perspective (or go back to it--the original punk perspective!). 60s garage/psych fans use the word punk all the time and have been for over 45 years, but the rest of the world is unaware. We have the truth on our side, and I think that ultimately our view will prevail. As for LongNailsShortHair, I'll keep my eyes on him. We may have to report his deeds to administrators. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:28, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

By the way, I hope that you are OK with my edits in the MM article so far. Please don't be mad if I've slightly modified a few very small things--please don't take that to mean that I have anything less than the highest respect for what you've assembled--I want to say that I'm really enjoying reading what you've put in there, and I mean that sincerely. So, in no way are my edits meant to detract from, but only to highlight your teriffic work, but feel free to discuss any issue you feel needs to be addressed about the process. Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:56, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I have no issue, it's not like your edits have altered the meaning of the article in anyway. Most of it had to do with the flow of the wording and so far I agree that your changes make sentences sound better to the reader. I actually feel a little more assured since you haven't found the need to additional information, so hopefully it means I was thorough in my research.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:22, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind understanding. I have to admit that, in my quest for excellence and perfection, I may have at times ruffled people's feathers, and that is always something I regret, which ultimately ends up hurting me more than anyone I might have inadvertently caused pain. I realize that one of the occasional tragedies of Wikipedia is that sometimes even peaceful people of good intentions clash over the minutest things and end up in misunderstandings--because we all are passionate believers in wanting to make things better--yet editors here sometimes fail to see eye to eye. I wish I could go back and patch up any hard feelings I have caused with anyone I may have angered, because I never wished them any wrong--the only person I have ever been hardest on is myself. And, I'd like to add that there is no one here that I have greater respect for than you. Believe it or not, you have taught me many things that have made me a better editor. And, I'd be the first person to grant you advantages certain areas--because we all have our various strengths and unique offerings we bring to the table. So, I ask you to bear with me in the review. Now, please don't be mad if I do happen to find a couple of small details that could be added, because that would in no way be a reflection on you. I think the reason you asked me to do the review is because you know that, if there were any things to add, I would be the person to identify them. I do think we need to add the thing about guitarist Mark Landon bringing in the glove thing from his previous group. If I can find any other things, I'll let you know. But, always with the highest thanks, regards, and respect for the wonderful work you've done in the article. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:43, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

The glove thing is actually something I wanted to discuss. From everything I've read -- interviews, album liner notes, and histories -- the authors and ex-bandmates all credit Bonniwell with the glove. In an interview for Psychedelic Baby magazine and with Richie Unterberger, Bonniwell even explained why he thought of the glove (it was about unity). In the CD reissue liner notes for their debut album, it also credits Bonniwell with designing the group's image, and, again, notes that he had an idea that the glove represented their unity. I think the allmusic page that wrote about the Purple Gang only mentioned their use of a glove to show a coincidence. I even recall Landon commenting that he didn't particularly enjoy wearing the glove because it would tear during concerts, but went along with it since Bonniwell was the leader. If you want to comment on this, I'm willing to continue a discussion.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:33, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

We could maybe give both accounts. It may not be definite where it started, but I think I remember AllMusic pointing discussing it in relation to the Purple Gang. I have a quote from the bassist in the Purple gang who says he originally proposed the idea of purple gloves (he saw a cowboy movie or something like that) to the rest of the band. I have a feeling that the Purple Gang (if they had started the concept) stopped using the gloves at some point. I've seen a photo of the Purple Gang that looks circa 1966 or early 1967--they are not wearing gloves. I have a feeling that they got tired of it or just decided to let the MM use gloves instead. If the Purple Gang had been wearing gloves, then it would have been circa 1965, maybe early '66. And, of course that takes nothing away from the MM--they really had a totally different image with the black clothes concept and all. But, it is an interesting tidbit to consider putting in the article. The challenge would be to find the just right way to say it. We'd probably have to use a couple of quotes. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:58, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Well not to be rude, but if references overwhelmingly conclude Bonniwell came up with the idea, then I need to go with that. The bassist for the Purple Gang may have thought of the idea first, but that doesn't mean it inspired the Music Machine in any way. I can't really go on a "feeling", and it wouldn't really belong in the article for the reasoning that the Purple Gang also just happened to wear a single glove. It's a nice coincidence sure, and I would consider agreeing to the addition if you found a definitive source that says the band inspired the Music Machine to wear a glove as a part of their uniform. I read the allmusic biography on the Purple Gang and from what I read, it seems the author is just mentioning Landon's next band, the MM, did something very similar, but doesn't go as far as to write they were the reason why.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:22, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

The two sources that suggested it when I was writing the Purple Gang article were the AllMusic and a Mike Dugo interview in Beyond the Beat Generation. I just went with the flow, based on what Purple Gang sources indicated. Beyond the Beat, of course, is a small-name website. But AllMusic is not. Arkeny says that MM "co-opted" the look, which is clearly saying MM got it from the prior band. I had not realized that the majority references would favor the MM account. I never said you have to put the alternative view in--it was just a thought--and I admitted that it might be a tricky thing to write, so I'm not hell-bent on this. It is just that I went along with my sources as you have gone along with yours. But, I didn't realize that my suggestion would be problematic and I am sorry it has caused a dilemma. Luckily, I don't think the MM article necessarily claims MM started the idea, so maybe that gets us off the hook. I leave it up to you. I will respect whatever decision you come to. Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:59, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

We will get back to this soon, I just have a question. You remember that editor I mentioned? Well he keeps adding that the Count Five are an acid rock band, and my question is, do you think they are? He/she is using allmusic which, per several discussions, has been deemed unreliable for genres. I just can't hear anything that resembles acid rock and I've given him/her three explanations on my edits. I noted allmusic can't be used for genres and gave a few real acid rock bands/artists (Jimi Hendrix, Country Joe and the Fish, Jefferson Airplane, etc.) so I think I'm being reasonable.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:29, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning this about LongNailsShortHair. I noticed that he put "acid rock" next to the Counts (and similar things next to other artists), and I was thinking the same thing...what should we do? AllMusic can be helpful, and in fact I would usually say that it should be considered reliable for genres, because (at least when regarding obscure bands) if we didn't have it to use as a touchstone, often we wouldn't have enough other places to go to for verifying the genres. This is an area where good editors make discernments. We have that "sixth sense," and it works when we know and understand out topics. The problem is that we have an editor who probably does not even listen to or care about this music--he's just going around and saying "a ha...they're acid rock" or "look here...they're country rock"..."cuz AllMusic says so!" So Longnails wants to take editors like you and I who love this music are knowledgeable about it and "instruct" us on it to make himself feel almighty. I also think he is making a mockery out of our sources by doing this and threatens to erode their foundation. I would say that for the time being let's just bear with him when he adds extra genres into the info box (if the genres are mentioned in AllMusic). Then maybe in a few months down the road, after he has been blocked several times and has tired of his own little pranks and has withdrawn into the Wiki sunset, we can quietly go in and "erase" his graffiti. Garagepunk66 (talk) 20:42, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

P.S. I see you undid some of his edits--I'm glad you did. I'll back you up 100%. Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:36, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree with me, I felt like I was sure about my judgement, but I needed to have another knowledgable opinion as well. His/Her edits may not seem like a big deal to normal editors, but for musical editors like us, it is a total pain. Count Five is not just a rock band, they are one of the most recognized garage rock bands and I certainly think calling them an acid rock group is a stretch too far. The biography section of allmusic is helpful with genres, but the section dedicated to genres is not actually written by the authors, so sometimes it's incorrect. It takes someone (like us) who are willing to go the extra mile to recognize what type of music the groups are actually associated with. I may try to message the editor to show some good faith, and because I don't want to be blocked for edit-warring, but their talk page shows they don't ever respond to users.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:24, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

If the Counts had stayed together longer they probably would have done some acid rock stuff--you never know, they might have become what Lester Bangs satirically imagined for their future (in that classic piece he wrote in '71 while under the influence of booze and various medications). Some their songs could be called psychedelic, but we know that they don't stretch out far enough to be "acid rock." Now between you and me--I'll say this in a whisper: we don't want to openly criticize AllMusic too much around unfriendly editors, because there are ones who will try to diss AllMusic and use it against us when we use it as a reference. Remember that editor who tried to put down AllMusic as a way undermine my research (I personally believe that AllMusic is a good and reliable source, but nothing is infallible). We don't want LongNails to get onto that "slam AllMusic" spiel either--he'll probably do anything just to score points. If we say "up," he'll try to use "down" to undermine us, if we say "down," he'll play the "up" game. I hope that he is genuine and sincere (however misguided)--maybe I should give him the benefit of the doubt as a new editor--but something tells me he's playing game. Because, if he was sincere, by now he would have made and attempt to have a constructive dialogue with more experienced editors. What do you think? Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:03, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Well "Psychotic Reaction" definitely has that psychedelic vibe. I agree that the Count Five would have gone in that direction, and would like to think they could have developed as songwriters. I really enjoy their album ("Peace of Mind" and "Can't Get Your Lovin'" are among my favorites) but it's obvious some of the songs were "fillers", which I'm sure we could have seen less of with a second (and maybe third?) album. The band members were young teenagers, so that adolescents is expected of a group attempting to hone their skills. As for Longnails, the user has been here for two years and all their messages on their talk page are about issues with genres, so they must know what they are doing is wrong. In all honesty, he/she reminds me of another user who was indefinitely blocked for similar problems, and could possibly be one of their sockpuppets.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I think we smell a rat. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:57, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

P.S.: You're really going to love the article I'm working on about the Montells. It will definitely read like an detective adventure story. There is a whole situation with Morton Downey Jr., who later became famous in the 90s as a shock talk show host. He was a DJ at WFUN in Miami in 1965 (as "Doc" Downey). He created a bunch of scandals in the year he was there, and sadly got the Montells (who were decent and innocent people) caught in some of his stunts. You will enjoy reading about it! Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:07, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

This thread is getting rather long, so I thought I'd start a new one below. Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:41, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

References

Garage rock GA

		The GA barnstar
		Excellent work you performed at the Garage rock article which is now assessed as a Good Article. Congratulations! Binksternet (talk) 05:46, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh wow! I'm overjoyed! I would like to say thank you, Binksternet, for taking your time to do the review. I would like to thank all of the many hands that went into building up the article: people such as Ghmyrtle, SabreBD, TheGracefulSlick, and so many others. Garagepunk66 (talk) 06:00, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations, man! The garage rock article looks fantastic – and so many footnotes! And it is gratifying to see so many of the articles that I wrote tying to it, and many more bands that I love also listed. I got an Original Barnstar for my article on Mouse and the Traps, and it is rare that I have felt so satisfied. Your work very much deserves its GA rating. All my best. Shocking Blue (talk) 16:15, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks so much, and congrats to you on your work on the Mouse & the Traps article and so many others! Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:42, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Maestro FZ-1 Fuzz-Tone, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Satisfaction. 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) 10:46, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

My Barnstar!

Thank you so much for the Editor's Barnstar; I cannot tell you how good that makes me feel! Y'all keep up the good work. I still visit Wikipedia every morning and put in my two cents' worth a few times a month. Who knows – I might get motivated to write up another whole article before long. :-) Shocking Blue (talk) 15:40, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, it seems that, over time, as I've edited a lot of the articles and lists, I've noticed, over and over again, that you either wrote them or had a hand in their development. So, I feel that we are explaining on a foundation you set for us. So I just thought, I'd like to show my appreciation for your efforts as a pioneer in these domains. I know that you are busy with a lot of other writing projects, but I look forward to your continued contributions here at Wiki. Garagepunk66 (talk) 15:54, 7 December 2015 (UTC)