Hello, welcome to my talk page brothers and sisters, please comment below if you want to discuss anything.

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Electric Prunes you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Garagepunk66 -- Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a go at expanding the Dave Hassinger and Annette Tucker articles. There may be one or two nuggets (!) in there that you two could think about including in the Prunes article - I'll leave it up to you. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:43, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS: You may like this! Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I went in and did the addendum to the review. I placed the G.A. listing in a new template at the top of the article talk page. I'm guessing that the little bot (above) will electronically complete the classification process by removing the old junk in the templates right under the G.A. listing I put in. If the that doesn't happen, maybe I should go and do it myself (but would that get me in trouble?). As far as I am concerned the article is now G.A. and should be officially recognized as such. Garagepunk66 (talk) 18:53, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article The Electric Prunes you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Electric Prunes for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Garagepunk66 -- Garagepunk66 (talk) 09:41, 3 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Congratulations on the G.A.! Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message; I don't mind helping at all. From scanning your 'talk' page, it looks like you and I have similar tastes in music. I haven't done any major writing in Wikipedia in quite a while (though I still make small contributions regularly), so I might be a little behind the times. Uploading an image to Wikipedia is a little tricky, and it took me several tries to get the hang of it, but here is some instruction that should help you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:File_Upload_Wizard . (There might be a new version of the 'upload wizard' that could make it easier than it was back when I was doing this a lot). Album covers, single covers and those kinds of things are automatically usable in Wikipedia; and of course, the images are very easy to find on the Internet (I usually use the 'images' page in Google). Don't worry about finding a copyright tag or whatever when you save the image from that search – as long as the image is of the front cover, you are 100% covered for 'fair use' no matter how you find the image. I should amend that to say that album/single covers are automatically usable for articles about that album or about that single; for some reason, you are not allowed to use an album cover to illustrate an article about the band. Then there is some language that you need to attach with the uploaded file to show the 'use rationale' for the image, and that you are making it under 'fair use'. This is a relatively recent image that I uploaded which has the attachments in it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:StonePoneys-CD-2.jpg . If you open the file as though you were going to edit it, that will show the details on what you need there. You can then copy that over to the file that is created after you upload an image. I always used a previous upload to get that stuff; the layout, etc. has to be exact, or it doesn't work right. The uploading goes to 'Wikimedia' actually, not to Wikipedia directly, so don't let that throw you off. Good luck. Shocking Blue (talk) 10:17, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First, I am a huge fan of the Human Expression also; that was one of the first psych CD's that I got. I hear what you are saying, and I got a lot of fulfillment with my work in Wikipedia. I even got an "Original Barnstar" for one of my first lengthy articles, on Mouse and the Traps. But I had a huge fight with the guardians of Wikipedia over my article on Milan the Leather Boy; while I finally won the war, it left a bad taste in my mouth. I loaded up articles on all of the Pebbles albums, including Highs in the Mid-Sixties – months and months of work – and they are gradually being deleted; even Pebbles, Volume 2 has been eliminated. About six months ago, I noticed that the majority of my contributions were being reverted – even one that I had put in a "disambiguation" page (I didn't understand that at all). Mind you, I wasn't changing wording; typically I was adding information. It is like people have staked out an article and have decided that they like it just the way it is, and nothing can get through. But don't mind me; that is just the way I feel based on my experience. Hopefully you are not having to go through something like that. I urge you to stick with it and keep up the good work; what you are doing is important, and it should be there 100 years from now. Shocking Blue (talk) 13:07, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What I have been doing for the last five years instead of writing in Wikipedia is creating posts in Facebook, and more recently, I have been putting the articles out in a website. What I call an 'under appreciated rock band' is one that does not have an article in Wikipedia yet. I also talk about a lot of other things in addition to the UARB. Check it out if you are interested: https://sites.google.com/site/underappreciatedrockbands/ . Shocking Blue (talk) 10:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am certainly glad that happened; I was wondering who had written that great article on the Magicians. I appreciate your good work! Shocking Blue (talk) 13:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again. And I appreciate your trying to revive the Pebbles articles from deletion. They are going after the English Freakbeat articles also; I got a notice on English Freakbeat, Volume 3 just this month. :-( Shocking Blue (talk) 11:44, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey you'll notice I put a vote to keep the English Freakbeat article. So, I am confident that the article can be retained. Garagepunk66 (talk) 19:00, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Country Joe and the Fish you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Binksternet -- Binksternet (talk) 05:00, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Country Joe and the Fish you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Country Joe and the Fish for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Binksternet -- Binksternet (talk) 22:01, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping Victuallers (talk) 00:01, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Music Machine you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Garagepunk66 -- Garagepunk66 (talk) 07:20, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have completed the review of the Music Machine article. I have now inserted the tag which lists the article as G.A., however it may take a couple of days for the bot to complete the process--i.e. inserting all of the new templates on the talk page, etc. Congratulations on the great job! Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:36, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article The Music Machine you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Music Machine for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Garagepunk66 -- Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:43, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey 'Slick, just wanted to say I'm really excited by your nomination of this song article. Haven't yet read it thoroughly, but from what I have seen, you've done a great job on expanding the piece! Did you want to add any comments/quotes from contemporary reviews perhaps? I've looked at the NME's review from December '65 – nothing much of interest there – but there could be something useful in the two Record Mirror reviews or KRLA Beat's, all of which are at Rock's Backpages … JG66 (talk) 11:23, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

JG66 I would love some contemporary reviews. The problem for me was, from all the books and sources I read, I only found one review from the time period. I thought it would look poor if there was only one such review so I've been putting it on hold until another three or four could be found.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:14, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Norwegian Wood (This Bird Has Flown) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ojorojo -- Ojorojo (talk) 18:21, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article Norwegian Wood (This Bird Has Flown) 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:Norwegian Wood (This Bird Has Flown) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ojorojo -- Ojorojo (talk) 16:02, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could this [1] be a quiet return of CrazyAces? Niteshift36 (talk) 03:11, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Niteshift36 you may be on to something, but consider this: CrazyAces has edited with his own account in the past month, and none of the edits from this other account are toward creating new pages, which was CA's biggest complaint. I'm not saying you are wrong, I have very little knowledge on how to tell who's a sock. Either way, I'll help keep an eye on this user to see if there is a connection. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• He took a little time off and started building new stuff on Feb 4. This other account suddenly became active again on Feb 6, editing MA articles. The other one does have 4 edits from 2012. If I were gambling, I'd say it probably isn't the same, but I figured a second set of eyes that already knows his tendencies wouldn't hurt. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:45, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Niteshift36 I'll keep tabs on the account. If their edits go beyond the minor ones we have seen, it will be easier to tell what we are dealing with. I'll also ping PRehse, since he was the one who uncovered CA's first sockpuppet.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:55, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD just happened, so it may draw him out. [2]. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:52, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Niteshift36 I noticed an IP puppet of him make an edit here too: [3]. I am interested in those anonymous accounts, but I am also trying to figure out his alternate user account he mentioned was created in February 2016. There is also a possibility he is bluffing about that. Whether he is telling the truth or not, I have a bad feeling that we have not seen the last of him.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:41, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have forgotten how the user talk works; I guess I am really out of practice. :-) I made a reply in the section that you left for me; you do get those replies, right? Shocking Blue (talk) 10:23, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Garagepunk66 (☎) has given you a slice of Dobos to enjoy! 7&6=thirteen gave me a slice, and I'm passin' one to you. Seven layers of fun, because you were so nice to mention GP66 on your main page. And, thanks for everything else.Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:47, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. In New Orleans we have our own version called Doberge cake. I need to get a better picture for the Doberge article, because they usually have more layers than the one pictured there. [[4]]Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've just noticed how poor and thin the article on the album is. Entire books, and countless articles, have been written about it - one of the all-time great albums. I'd be willing to start making some improvements to the article - what do you think about joining in an improvement drive? Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:21, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ghmyrtle I would be happy to help in any way I can. I have a book or two I can dig up that should lead to some more details (just gotta find them!). I could work on some of the background history and perhaps find more in-depth reviews for its reception section. Let me know how you want to divide the work and I can adjust to that. Thank you for including me in the project.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:36, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The best way to start it, I think, would be simply for each of us to use whatever sources we have and gradually piece a better article together. We could use a sandbox, or simply work on the article as it stands now - I don't have a strong view on how best to do it. So long as we know we are both working to the same end and can discuss anything that arises, I don't think there should be a problem. I have a couple of books, and of course we can find good online sources. I'm not promising to start it straight away, but I'll see if I get something going in the next week or two. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:05, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ghmyrtle ok I got it. I need to finish an article to have space in my sandbox, so it will be a day or two before I start any editing. When that is complete, I'll focus on a little pre-history: mention the release of Da Capo, the state of the band, and Arthur Lee's relationship with his bandmates. If I recall correctly, the group was rapidly deteriorating at the time recording sessions began so it should be an interesting backdrop to the album itself. We can stay in touch and ultimately I think we will create a much more in-depth article.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:55, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. You can have as many sandboxes as you like of course (just call them Sandbox1, Sandbox2, etc.)! Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:11, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ghmyrtle I added some background information to the article. Let me know how you feel about it and we can move forward. It covers the state of the band before recording sessions commenced. I think from this point on it would be more appropriate to discuss on the article's talk page if that is okay with you.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 13:30, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All looks good so far. I have the books by Hultkrans, Barney Hoskyns, and Michael Stuart-Ware, which I can draw on - and probably some other more general ones. My problem at the moment is in finding the time to do all the things I need to do (not just on WP), so I suggest you carry on, and if I disagree with anything I'll raise it on the article talk page (or direct with you if necessary). Regards, Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]

I haven't forgotten about this - it's just a question of finding the time. Can I suggest that we use a similar format to that at Marquee Moon (a featured article) - that is, Background, Recording, Music and lyrics (I suggest a song-by-song approach), Release and reception, Legacy and influence, Track listing, Personnel. I've now received the Einarson book, Forever Changes: Arthur Lee and the book of Love, which looks pretty good and reliable to me. By the way, there is an article about the creation of the album in the new August 2016 issue of Uncut, which is great to see, but a quick look suggests that it doesn't add anything new to the story. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:22, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ghmyrtle it's fine, I actually stopped adding to the article for now because I was waiting for the same book to be delivered. I can still contribute to the reception section in the meantime. The format you suggested sounds good, I'll go back to work on the article in a day or two.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:39, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey GracefulSlick. I know that I am a bit late in getting back to you regarding the info that you sent me back in January; but thanks for the information. I was a bit peeved, not at you by any means, and it took a while for me to get back to it other than minor edits to other pages. I finally tried what you suggested, although it took me a while to figure it out. Finally made the move back on June 5. When I get time I will add the album cover for Twist with the Ventures as well. I'm looking to get my feet wetter with some more simple Ventures albums before attempting some obscure bands that need documenting in my lifetime. My music collection goes back to the early 50's, and includes over 55,000 song titles; and I have added to some of your articles and articles that you have contributed to. I noticed another user, Shocking Blue who seems to be in the same groove as you and I. He's closer to my age (he's a wee bit older) and seems to be as knowledgeable as well. Now to my question. How do I get back to a blank sandbox? Do I just delete all of the non-essential info or is there another "more acceptable" way? I also thought about doing it off-line and the redlining and copy paste. Your recommendations would be appreciated. Frankzappatwin (talk) 19:33, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Frankzappatwin glad to see the article got created. Since it is now an article, you just delete all the information you no longer need. When you say "off-line", if you mean off of wikipedia, that is okay, but I imagine it would be a little messy, since I do not think other documents list your sources as citations like Wiki does. Other than that, you can keep creating articles like you have: redlining and pasting all the info on to the new page. If you need help with band articles just ask because I've written about numerous groups that are around the same era you are interested in. Another user, Garagepunk66 is also very interested in 1960s music and enjoys talking about it as much as me.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:11, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By "off-line" I actually meant writing it in Word, but adding links and references later. But as you explained, that would unnecessary. Thanks again for your help. Frankzappatwin (talk) 00:28, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article L.A. Woman you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ritchie333 -- Ritchie333 (talk) 20:01, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article L.A. Woman 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:L.A. Woman for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ritchie333 -- Ritchie333 (talk) 14:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey TheGracefulSlick, I've been getting back into it lately. I have seen your name on a couple of pages that I have enhanced. I left you a message on the talk page of L. A. Woman. Please look at the edits that I did on the Syndicate of Sound and The Hombres pages and let me know if you have any suggestions. I am looking at what info I can add to the Sonics right now. Frankzappatwin (talk) 11:56, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Frankzappatwin I like the additions thus far. The only thing you would need to remember is in titles not every word is capitalized (like "of, "and", "for", etc.) but other than that the edits are flawless. Just a recommendation, but if you like the Syndicate of Sound, you could write an article on their album. I believe it did chart so that would constitute notability. As for L.A. Woman, I do not know what to say because sources claim the band performed well which is why they added the New Orleans concert. If you have sources that say otherwise I will consider altering the section after the GA review is over.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:57, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying that you need to alter it, I was just offering my opinion regarding a concert that I attended, over 45 years ago. Bass was too loud through most of the concert, the band was really only together on the L.A. Woman tracks, not their older stuff. Vocals were very uneven, Morrison forgot some of the older lyrics, especially towards the end of the show. Since that was the only Doors concert that I ever saw, maybe it went "well" by Doors standards. At least Morrison showed up. If you have access to the "Boot-Yer-Butt!" CD, side four, Love Her Madly, Ship of Fools, L.A. Woman and the Changeling were from that concert...listen for yourself and judge. Although Love Her Madly wasn't too bad

Regarding the "of's and's for's" etc...I know better, just didn't think of it at the time. The nuns taught me that in grammar school! LOL! I have considered an article on the SOS album. Time is a factor sometimes. Frankzappatwin (talk) 15:59, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

L.A. Woman sounds like a different band to the earlier group, as they sound like they are enjoying playing together, whereas live gigs seemed to be a liability because of the audience or Morrison being fed up and not really caring much. I've wondered if Morrison had lived, would he had confirmed sometime around December '71 that he had quit the group, not least because the others started recording Other Voices and Manzarek could at least cover the vocals well enough. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:10, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ritchie333 first off, thank you for the review, you may see other Doors-related GA nominations in the coming months. In my opinion, I think Morrison would have taken a hiatus from the band, but would have eventually, maybe in five years or so, come back strictly for recording purposes. However, as sad as it is to say, I could never pictured an "old Morrison". The fact he made it out of the 1960s is a miracle in its own right. A part of me wishes he could have lived the simple poet's life in Paris, but that was not to be.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:22, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Frankzappatwin there is no rush on the album idea. Just a forewarning, if you do create an article for it, the track listing on the band's page would no longer be neccessary since it would be available on the album article.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:04, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TheGracefulSlick - Aware of that, and upon further research I found that the album only made it as high as 148, hardly enough to qualify it as notable. Frankzappatwin (talk) 09:22, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article L.A. Woman you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:L.A. Woman for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ritchie333 -- Ritchie333 (talk) 17:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TheGracefulSlick. L.A. Woman, an article you either created or to which you significantly contributed,has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 12:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TheGracefulSlick. The Quiet Jungle, an article you either created or to which you significantly contributed,has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 12:01, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On 4 August 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Quiet Jungle, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the band The Quiet Jungle began as a house act before achieving commercial success with a novelty song composed for Toronto Maple Leafs player Eddie Shack? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Quiet Jungle. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, The Quiet Jungle), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:51, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think? [5] Niteshift36 (talk) 00:26, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Niteshift36 yes that has to be him. Almost every keep vote he has ever written begins with "He is considered the father of [insert here]". Also, it is the user's only edit, I have no idea why he would do that when he knows he will get caught. That account needs to be blocked by someone.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:31, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Probably this one: [6] and I'm wondering if the other articles he voted on were written by him as a sock. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:05, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Niteshift36 yeah probably him again. I am not sure those other articles are his though because he voted delete (confusingly enough). I do not know why he writes a vote that is basically just an opinion without anything to back it up, but I guess it makes him feel important.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:14, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Monks you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Garagepunk66 -- Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:00, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have started the review for the article the Monks. This process may take 7 days. Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:00, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I see you two (you and Garagepunk66) are creating all the 60s garage band pages I once intended to create but because of lacking of online sources (back then) and time I couldn't. All very well done. Keep up the good work. I will try and add some discographies to those articles when I get the time. And thank you for leaving a comment on my talk page couple of months ago. I do not sign in much often anymore. Cheers! ~ Elitropia (talk) 21:35, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elitropia thank you for the praise. I personally enjoyed your articles, especially the July page, that group is one of my favorite psychedelic bands. I think people are starting to see the importance of 60s garage in the digital age, which is leading to more online sources. Honestly, when I first started creating articles, I looked at your pages among others to learn the correct style and way of organizing. If you have time, you should message Garagepunk66 as well because he enjoys talking about 60s music as much as me.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:50, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On 17 August 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article L.A. Woman, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Jim Morrison recorded some vocals for the Doors' L.A. Woman in the bathroom doorway? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/L.A. Woman. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, L.A. Woman), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:06, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have just listed the Monks article as GA. I want to commend you for the excellent work on the article! A bot will be inserting the little green pellet at the top corner of the article within the next few days. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article The Monks you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Monks for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Garagepunk66 -- Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:01, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

Just a heads up about this discussion over at WP:AN regarding the Herman Mason AfD you opened. I left a comment/question that mentioned you (really just to ask about context). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:59, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at these contributions - do I detect of block evasion.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:27, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PRehse I see what you mean. I was mainly convinced by the user's frantic period of creating articles. Like "he who shall not be named", he leaves bare links, writes like he completed it in 5 minutes, same grammatical errors, and it is in his same body of work. If you took this to Bishonen or another admin, I would support your suspicion that this is indeed the editor we are thinking of. Niteshift36 I think you would agree as well.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:22, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Almost certainly some block evading. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:39, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mike V why is this going on? I knew something like this would happen. I have nothing to do with any other account. If you actually check the editing history I did my best to disassociate with that account completely because the user has completely different objectives than me. If I made a mistake I would be the first to admit it, but I genuinely have done nothing wrong. Look at my history, I am a solid editor who has created many articles with little issues. Why would I suddenly resort to sockpuppetry? If you ask users I work with such as Garagepunk66 and Ghmyrtle they too will support my side that this is all a huge misunderstanding.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 12:56, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The technical data showed that there were multiple instances of overlap between your account and ALongStay (talk · contribs). Behaviorally, there were several instances where you used one account to create an AfD listing and used the other account to support your position. (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alain Andrianov: ALongStay, TheGracefulSlick) If you wish, I can contact a checkuser of your choosing to double check my findings. Mike V • Talk 13:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mike V if you check discussions, I also asked the account to leave me and Garagepunk66 alone and I was against him on other Afds. Me and GP66 came to the conclusion the user is attempting to immitate me and can possibly be CrazyAces489, who as far back as April has been sending me threatening e-mails even though I changed my e-mail three times. I never said this on wiki until now because I was hoping ignoring it would eventually make him bored and leave me alone. I can write a whole essay explaining the complete situation because you truly are out of the loop on the predicimate. As I have said, I am a solid editor so what good comes from blocking me for something I know I did not do? I am more useful when you allow me to get back to what I enjoy doing, which is content creation.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 13:56, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just ignore this and take the free week off to visit the library, then come back refreshed with your newly-founded knowledge to work on some articles. Seriously, there's no point arguing with checkusers even if you're totally right and they're totally wrong, it's a complete time waste. Remember that nobody reading L. A. Woman gives a flying monkeys if you are blocked or not. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:00, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie333 I cannot do that. More sockpuppets of CrazyAces are spreading the word of my block. I did nothing wrong and they need to know that too so I can be trusted. Giving in shows I am guilty, at least in my eyes.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Hi TGS. I've seen many of your (top-class) edits, over many years, and you don't look like the sort of editor who'd want to bother creating sock accounts (especially for, ahem, "comic" effect). I know how it is to be wrongly accused. When he blocked me, Mike V attributed some accounts to me that I had no hand in creating whatsoever. If you do edit from somewhere with shared computers, such as a public library, it's quite possible that your IP address will at times be identical, or in the same range as, other accounts. This block is really annoying, I know, but I just took a month off and felt much better for it. But isn't there a mechanism by which you can formally appeal this block? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:26, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GracefulSlick, if you look at Martin's talk, there's no evidence of him being treated as someone guilty, so please hope. You are in good company, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:56, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is very strange especially considering that soon after a newly created account starts advertising this (message on my talk page). Was this part of an SPI or did Mike V spontaneously notice the connection. I certainly don't think there is one - what was the Check user result?Peter Rehse (talk) 14:11, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently PRehse it is a part of a check user, but I know what really happened. As soon as I was blocked CrazyAces began celebrating his plan working. He has traced my e-mail and IP address for this to happen. I am 100% innocent, but it will not matter. Garagepunk66 Ghmyrtle I apologize for the trouble CrazyAces caused. Please believe me that I would never resort to sockpuppetry or lie to you guys. If Mike V does not see that, I'll be back in a week to continue helping out.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:29, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TheGracefulSlick, several users have queried the block on MikeV's page, so I suppose we'll soon know. Mike V, I already asked Ponyo to doublecheck your result, before I saw your offer above of contacting a CU of TGS's choosing. But of course I don't know how long it'll be before she's available. Therefore I'd appreciate it if you could ask on the CUs' IRC channel or mailing list for a check that may be a little quicker, because there really are some contradictory circumstances here. Bishonen | talk 14:55, 30 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]

I've had a look at some of the contributions from the two accounts. Without knowing the IPs in question (which I can't get due to the privacy reasons mentioned at the top of this thread) I can't really make an educated judgement, though since you're using the mobile web editor, that suggests you might be using a mobile provider subnet, where your IP changes depending on which way the wind's blowing. One thing that doesn't help is both you and ALongStay have similar editing styles, always using the mobile editor and rarely using edit summaries. That doesn't help your cause, unfortunately - while Mike V could checkuser me and Rhondamerrick and get a confirmed match, it's pretty obvious from editing styles we're different people. If you want to formally appeal the block, the recommend channel is to email arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org and explaining calmly what the problem is - you should have been told this. A normal unblock request will probably be declined with a rationale similar to "sorry, we can't deal with checkuser blocks". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:05, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've got another idea - go onto archive.org and listen to all of the Grateful Dead's Europe '72 tour dates from start to finish. When you've done that, your block will have expired! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:45, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• (came here via stalking someone else's talkpage) CrazyAces has been unusually active and vindictive lately, even for him, so I'm inclined to believe this has been masterminded by him. Unfortunate, and I hope TGS can be proven innocent and unblocked soon. Softlavender (talk) 16:12, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishonen: I've sent an email to the functionary list to request some input from other CUs. FWIW, I also looked into a few of the CrazyAces accounts. Technically, it's quite easy to distinguish TheGracefulSlick from CrazyAces. Mike V • Talk 16:49, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mike V I hope you know CrazyAces looks at my edits on a daily basis. He knows my style more than anyone else other than me. The ALongStay account was created solely to create tension between me and Garagepunk66 (it nearly worked too). I had nothing to gain from a sockpuppet account. Why would I be hostile toward someone I work with and talk with for nearly a year? Why would I Afd his articles and say keep in his defense? If you can answer those questions with a credible response, I will gladly wait out this week. If not, I am sorry to say but you made a terrible mistake.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:24, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Mike V have you failed to notice CrazyAces sockpuppets are mocking you and me every step of the way? Please do not punish the wrong person simply because it means you made an error in judgment. I will not hold it against you.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:40, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Mike. That's good, because I hear on the grapevine that Ponyo's pretty busy. Er, easy to distinguish TGS from CrazyAces..? Has anybody suggested they're the same? I hardly think that's what TGS meant above. Anyway, I endorse what TGS says about all the trolling from CrazyAces socks: he's being vindictive allright, not that that's a new thing. It must be a little awkward for you to be praised and thanked by him on your own page. Bishonen | talk 18:22, 30 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]

A few CUs have already looked and one will comment here shortly. Distinguishing the accounts was in reference to this comment: As soon as I was blocked CrazyAces began celebrating his plan working. He has traced my e-mail and IP address for this to happen. Simply put, that's not the case here. Mike V • Talk 18:31, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per Mike's request, I have looked at the accounts in question here. The overlap between the accounts on two dynamic ranges and one semi-static IP address could not be more clear than in this case. There is no doubt that TheGracefulSlick and ALongStay are either being operated by the same person, or are sitting next to each other, sharing the same device. That being said, I see no evidence of any other related accounts in the CU data. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 18:45, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The "same device"? That's a surprise. I thought CU was limited to detecting devices with the same O/S, or O/S version. Is Wikipedia now recording the serial numbers of all our devices? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:59, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When someone edits using a mobile device, as can be seen in the contributions of both accounts, two devices cannot share the same mobile IP address. I can infer that they're using the same device because both accounts have shared the same mobile IP address many times. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:22, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @DoRD: Not quite true, as can be seen here. Two or more mobile devices, including devices belonging to totally unrelated people (provided they're in the same general area), can under certain circumstances share a single public IP address, without knowing it themselves. I have no idea how common it is, but it is technically possible. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:42, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas.W I appreciate the comment, but pointing that out to them will not do any good. They seem to not care to remedy their mistake. Best I can do is wait it out and prove them wrong by doing what I always did in the first place.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:01, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) It may be technically possible, but the odds of these two accounts, using the same device, OS/browser version, etc., editing at the same time, from the same IP address, are vanishingly low. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:07, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I just wanted to point out that two mobile devices editing from the same public IP address at the same time isn't by and of itself proof for them being the same person, or even being in the *exact* same location. I would even go as far as saying that such a shared IP address would be fairly common in large cities, like London for example. But even in a very large city the chances for it to happen multiple times on multiple IPs to the same two *unrelated* people/accounts would be *very* slim, unless those IPs are all in a single subnet small enough to reasonably be assigned to a single NAT router in a mobile network. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:41, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mike V DoRD I guess Ritchie333 was right, there was no point trying to prove my innocence. Well said frankly you are both wrong and that's that. Apparently several well-respected users who defend my reputation as a solid editor mean nothing to you, and the fact that CrazyAces is practically laughing at how you fell for it makes it that much worse. You look at the technicals but not at the pure facts, which spell out how irrational it is for me to have a sockpuppet. It is a shame you are going to punish me when I have always tried to put out my best effort within the guidelines of Wiki. Oh well, I had a hope you would fix your mistake, but I guess that is not the case. I will be back in a week doing what I always did: working on expanding wikipedia (and nothing else).TheGracefulSlick (talk)19:06, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to jump in here randomly (your talk page was on my watchlist from that notice a few sections up), but there are a couple things I was surprised not to see come up here. I may have missed it, but if you haven't already, an alternative explanation for the apparent technical match (putting behavior aside altogether for the time being) would probably go a long way to helping your case, rather than just insisting it isn't you. I understand that may be a frustrating proposition, especially if you're not technically inclined, but there are some rather serious implications to consider. If it's a troll targeting you, the overlap should be cause for alarm, rather than just an on-wiki inconvenience, because that would mean he/she would be physically near you or engaging in some impressive technical undertakings to determine your IP and then spoof it [repeatedly?] -- something that has implications beyond Wikipedia. Another possibility is the far-fetched coincidence: someone (probably someone near you) happens to edit some of the same pages and has multiple times been given the same IP as you. On the other hand, I'll just say that I think most editors would empathize with someone who reached for a sock out of desperation, in reaction to well documented long-term harassment. The sock would still have to be blocked, and there would have to be a commitment not to do so again, but in that sort of scenario there's certainly an argument for a block of the main account to be unnecessary. Not saying that's what's going on here -- just saying I think most people would "get it", even if they don't condone it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:28, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rhododendrites I mentioned above an individual (presumably CrazyAces489 based on the e-mails I received) has found three of my e-mail names and has tracked my mobile device on multiple occasions, but was dismissed immediately by Mike V for some reason unknown to me. I did not want to disclose this out of fear I would be permanently blocked but I contacted authorities two months ago to solve what I considered stalking when I discovered what I just said. For a brief while, the issue was fixed; however, it is obvious it was a temporary solution. Now I do not have the technical know-how to explain how this happened; I am just disappointed I am being punished for it. Like I also said, I doubt the Checkusers will amend their mistake so I will go back to editing in a week and hope I am not punished anymore.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:10, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TGS, that sounds quite chilling, possibly even bordering on cyberstalking, in my opinion. I'm really not sure the best outcome has been achieved here. But like you, I do not have the necessary technical expertise to comment further. You are a great editor and I do hope this episode will not dishearten you. In my own case, I found it quite funny that such a mistake should be allowed to stand as "fact" in the Wikipedia history, but Mike V seemed wholly disinclined to adjust his original conclusions. Your case sounds much more worrying. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:00, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I would ask Mike V and other CUs what they would do if they were in a situation like TGS's (assuming things are as TGS says -- which seems at very least plausible and worth considering, given how much Wikipedia struggles with harassment issues). Obviously there's a concern that anyone caught socking could say "IP spoofing! harassment!" Are there non-technical or technical precautions TGS could take to avoid further problems (specifically asking regarding Wikipedia editing -- not asking you to opine about off-wiki strategies/activities)? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:28, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rhododendrites I see your point about "IP spoofing", but, by taking a look at CrazyAces' sockpuppets, you can see that my case is genuine. He made accounts solely to mock things I have said to Garagepunk66, such as why I was off pretty much off wiki for a week or so, and make in-general insults about my sexuality, my age, and my interests. If Mike V does not respond soon, I will ask for a neutral CheckUser to actually listen to my side instead of punishing me because they were too hasty.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:36, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like if you haven't already, an email to ArbCom is in order. Not in response to this block in particular (although they could take a look), but to keep them in the loop about your situation. And as an aside, regardless of this particular incident, it's clear you've had some odious shit thrown your way. Thank you for persevering and continuing to contribute to Wikipedia. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:44, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you can read this Garagepunk66. From what I can tell, you are upset about what you heard. I want you to know I am innocent and the Checkusers simply ignored the very serious issues I brought forth. I do not care about the block anymore; I just do not want to lose a friend simply because three Checkusers refused to take me seriously after having a near perfect track record of staying out of trouble. If you doubt me, know that just an hour ago CrazyAces489 (again) sent me a hideous e-mail directed toward me, which boasted about how he fooled everyone and put me in my place. If you want on-wiki evidence, look at his other sockpuppets that were meant to attack you and me (User:ALongSleep I found is just ALongStay 2.0 that was caught sooner). CrazyAces says he has every intention to do this again so my time here is limited if the same steps are taken by "experienced" Checkusers. I am in the process of accumulating months of technical evidence so this time I cannot be cyber-stalked and I will not have this troubling issue hang over my head anymore. If you do not want to talk to me, I understand but I am forever going to maintain my innocence on this issue. Be back in a week and hopefully we can get back to what we were doing in the first place uninterrupted.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:09, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to worry--my inclination is to presume your innocence. I am not here to judge people, just to write. Whatever I had to endure with LongStay is minor compared to what you have had to endure at the hands of CrazyAces--and, the whole situation about LongStay may not yet be known. I think it is important to know that, when you return, you will have the welcome and support of most people here, including myself. Garagepunk66 (talk) 17:10, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is nice to know Garagepunk66, now this week can go by with ease. I had Ritchie333, Bishonen, PRehse, Softlavender, Ghmyrtle, and Martenivan all agree that the situation does not seem right, but apparently that meant nothing. Even when CA mocked the CheckUser Mike V through my appeal, he seemed oblivious to the fact more was going on (or could not admit he made a mistake). I was simply dismissed even when I revealed the very real case of CA tracking my mobile device, which pokes large holes in accusing me of sockpuppetry. It was all "technical date" to him, but it was not paired with any common sense or humanity. ALongStay was/is another version of CrazyAces; I can safely say that now with the recent e-mails he has sent me in "celebration". Be careful in my absense, CA may take advantage of the situation because I know for a fact he traces our conversations based on his recent edits on sockpuppet accounts confirmed to his name. I may try to move my sandbox (which is inaccessible) projects to my Userpage so I can get some work done. You would think since blocks are not supposed to be punitive and I proclaimed that I only want to write, that I would be unblocked, but I guess Mike V does not want to right an obvious wrong. Anyways, take care and I hope this will be the last you hear of this bother.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:47, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]