User talk:GloryRoad66

Welcome!

Hello, Garagepunk66, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! --IllaZilla (talk) 19:04, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

.

Garagepunk66, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Garagepunk66! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Please join other people who edit Wikipedia at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space on Wikipedia where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! SarahStierch (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your friendly neighborhood HostBot (talk)

Garage rock at McFarlane

McFarlane's encyclopaedia was available [online], over ten years ago, at WHAMMO (you'll find a link at the Australian rock article in the General refs section). The website has since been archived by Wayback Machine (and elsewhere). Some new entries were added and others were updated for the [online] version. He usually gives their year of formation and genre(s). Other than the ones you mentioned at Australian rock; for 1960s artists he uses the terms "garage rock", "garage punk" or "proto-punk" at:

The Atlantics (1961, initially as a surf group, 1966), Bitter Lemons (1965), The Black Diamonds (1965), The Cherokees (1961 as beat pop, offshoot: The D-Coys, 1966), Derek's Accent (1966), The Elois (1964, initially as R&B, 1967), The In-Sect (1965), La De Das (1964 as R&B in New Zealand, 1966), The Pink Finks (1965 as R&B), Spectrum (1969, see previous band of Mike Rudd in New Zealand, Chants R&B, 1966), and Tony Worsley and the Fabulous Blue Jays (1964 as beat/pop, see associated artist Toni McGann, 1965). It is difficult to search per artist at the Wayback Machine itself but other [online] sources may be available, such as the front-end index, here.

McFarlane reinforces my understanding that "beat boom" occurred in OzRock first, and was followed by harder R&B styles from 1965 onwards. Most of the early influences on these OzRockers were British invasion artists. In their turn they influenced Oz punk/post punk bands of the 1970s (not just The Saints), and then the "guitar rock revivalists" of the 1980s.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

== How to change settings?

If, in the future, you wish to change the settings for the lowercase sigmabot III: you'll have to go up to the code at the top of your talkpage. Possible changes depend on your preferences:

1. It works OK? Don't make any changes, hopefully it'll work OK in future.
2. 7 days is too soon or not often enough? Change the entry line |algo = old(7d) inside the bracket alter 7d to something else e.g 14d (for a fortnight) or 36h (for a day-and-a-half). Other values in days (d) or hours (h) are allowed.
3. Each archive is too big or too short? Change the entry line |maxarchivesize = 100K alter the value before K but don't go more than 2000. I suggest you don't go less than 35 (which is about the size of Archive 1, now).
4. No messages left? Sometimes, other than the Welcome message I have an almost blank talkpage, no one has put a message in over a week and the bot has moved them all. If you don't like this look then change the entry line |minthreadsleft = 0 where you can make the bot leave however many messages you want. The default is 5 (but I clean them all out: I don't mind an empty talkpage). In this case the last 5 threads will be left even if they are older than 7d.

I hope these explanations will make it easier for you to change the settings whenever you like. I might not be available in a timely manner to give you further assistance... I'd rather edit articles...shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:51, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

New article on the Creatures

I just took a look at the article now, and it looks good! I made a few pretty minor changes, but I'll keep an eye on it for any future changes. Bonnie (talk) 05:03, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Ed Wool and the Nomads

I made formatting changes to the article - hopefully you can add sources to a couple of the albums/singles. Happy to take a look at it! Bonnie (talk) 02:53, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the touch-ups on the Mod subculture article. I was looking for words that had the right sound and meaning. You've found them! Garagepunk66 (talk) 21:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mod (subculture), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Blow Up (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 2 April

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

• On the Mod (subculture) page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:36, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

April 2015

Please do not attack other editors, as you did on Talk:The Beatles. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. [1] Sundayclose (talk) 04:04, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I did not mean to attack you personally, but, at the time, I felt that you were not giving me a chance to make my best case concerning the content of the matter, which was frustrating, so I was letting you know that your comments were not helping. But, I sincerely regret that the discussion got so contentious. I apologize for any hard feelings. Garagepunk66 (talk) 23:24, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Apology accepted, and I appreciate your message. I have a couple of comments about your message, all intended in good faith:

"I didn't realize that it would be such a contentious issue. I would not have started the thread if I had known that would be the case.": I hope a contentious issue won't stop you from raising an issue on a talk page. That's how articles are improved. And I appreciate the effort you have made on this issue.

"It is usually not productive to give another editor the feeling that you are not open to their ideas or do not recognize his or her right to speak.": There is nothing in my comments (or any other editor's comments) that have even the slightest suggestion that you do not have a right to speak. As for being open to your ideas, I am open to discuss any idea, but yours is one with which I strongly disagree and thus I insisted on a consensus, as is typical on Wikipedia.

Best wishes, Sundayclose (talk) 00:11, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

And best wishes to you. Thank you for your kind consideration. Garagepunk66 (talk) 19:39, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited British Invasion, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Creation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Garage rock

Hi, I appreciate your edits to the garage rock article, I don't plan to alter anything major like you do, but I was wondering if some early garage bands like the Music Machine or the Swamp Rats should get an extra notice for their early development of garage punk. Just an option I'm throwing out their. I read some of your articles too, which I like. I wrote some too and plan to write about a band called the Contents Are. Hopefully we can cooperate on future articles because I enjoy this subject. Keep up the good work, I am thankful for it. Peace :) TheGracefulSlick ( talk)

Note: I started a list of female bands on the garage rock talk page for you. Hopefully it helps.

Thanks, so much, it helps a lot!!! Yes, we should definitely find a way to get the bands, that you mentioned, included in the Garagepunk66 (talk) 19:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)article.

It definitely wouldn't hurt to improve the Pleasure Seekers article too. It ultimately strengthens the already solid article you are developing. I will address these issues in the next day, if that is satisfactory for you.

Note: For future reference, I am actually a male. It's ok you thought I was otherwise, you are not the first :) TheGracefulSlick ( talk)

I'm sorry! Garagepunk66 (talk) 21:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Quite alright, my name on here is not the most masculine, but it is a tribute to the lovely Grace Slick so I like it.TheGracefulSlick (talk)

You've got good taste. Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

There was this band I thought was interesting. I don't mean for the article, just listening, their name is Wimple Witch (no article, sadly). They seem to have early punk influences, give them a try if you want. TheGracefulSlick ( talk)

I believe that they were from the UK and are considered Freakbeat, the British equivalent of garage rock. At some point, I would like to put together a section (in the garage rock article) about garage outside North America, and cover some of the Feakbeat bands such as Wimple Witch, along with garage bands from continental Europe, Australia/New Zealand, Latin America, and Asia (i.e.Group Sounds in Japan), etc. There is so much to be found. Most people have no idea how big the garage thing was--we're talking about the biggest rock boom ever (and by far)! I would wager to say that circa "65,"66,"67 there were more bands playing than in the whole last fifty years put together. There was just a staggering amount of great rock & roll made at this time--there are literally hundreds of thousands of records to hear. It is astounding. Garagepunk66 (talk) 23:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

It is very interesting to me, I barely hit the surface of all those bands out there. My favorites thus far are The Music Machine, The Human Expression, and The Chocolate Watchband (great name). Of course there are others I listen to and more I need to get to. Which is why I'm glad that such a widespread topic is receiving an article to reflect on the several developments. It sure has taught me a few things. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:34, 14 April 2015

Well, that makes two converts!!!Garagepunk66 (talk) 23:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

P.S., a great place to start is the 1998 Nuggets 4-CD Box set compilation. It combines all of the four Nuggets compilations into one huge cornucopia. It is a monument for the ages. Unfortunately, it is no longer in print, but you can get it off of amazon or eBay. For freakbeat, there was a similar 4-CD box set called Nuggets II, also no longer in print (but you can go to the same places to find it used).

I actually have the album, it wasn't what got me started, but sure is a fine piece to my collection. I believe it was two years ago or so with me listening to the Shadows of Knight. Still love them, of course, and I have expanded ever since. I should try to get the Nuggets II album, though as I am not nearly as familiar with Freakbeat as I should be. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:43, 14 April 2015

I've heard that there could be over 2000 compilation albums out there! I have about fifty comps, and I've barely scratched the surface. I've probably listened to over 2500 bands on Youtube. You can discover a handful of wonderful "new" bands each day, every day, for the rest of you life and still never get hear a fraction of 'em. There is just so much magical music from this period, it is beyond belief. What we're talking about here is the music of a golden age. The Wiki article serves such an important purpose to introduce people to this incredible music. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

FAC input

Hi! Since you're a member of WP's rock project, would you be interested in commenting or reviewing my FAC for the article xx (album)? It's received on editor's comments but no follow-up yet, so anything would be appreciated. Dan56 (talk) 02:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Henry Flynt & The Insurrections, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Folk and The Godz (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Chocolate Watchband

This article (The Chocolate Watchband) needs a lot of help, to say it plainly. I am not saying you need to do it because I know you have some important articles you are working on. I was just wondering how you think I should direct any editing: should I rewrite large portions of it to fit with found references (which may shorten some of the content), or reference what I can and leave the rest? Any other options you are free to express, I do know though that this band deserves an article that reflects their importance.TheGracefulSlick (talk)

Man you are right...the article is lacking a lot of sources! Probably the best thing to do, now, is to leave in all of the present content (best not to remove things that may be good things), but to find sources to confirm what is there--that is, assuming that the facts now there, are, indeed, true. If you see any unsourced things that are obviously incorrect, then you can change and correct them, but be sure that you have sources to back up the changes you make and put your rationale in the comments (in the strip at the bottom of your edit--it will show in the "View history"). Always use the highest level of discernment in these matters. If you think that a change might turn out to be controversial (or if other knowledgeable editors are likely to override it), then it is best to go to the talk page and get feedback from other editors, first. I would be glad to help any way I can. I also recommend contacting Ghmyrtle and Sabrebd: I work in tandem with them constantly on so many major projects. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions, I'm glad I came to you for them. I also thought I could make a draft on my sandbox, see if you like it, and replace the existing article, unless that is too extreme. The Chocolate Watchband's official website is where they probably found most of their content so I will look their first. You can help if you want, it is appreciated, but I also realize you have other subjects to attend to.TheGracefulSlick (talk)

Take what the article already has, but make it better. In other words, try to build on (or modify for the better) what is there, but only for the better. Start with what is there, then work with it. Some changes may be bigger than others, but you don't want to "throw the baby out with the bath water." If you were renovating a house, you probably would not tear the whole thing down, but would fix it up and add on extensions to accommodate the newborn children on the way. If it is broken, definitely fix it. If it "ain't broke don't fix it."

• Imagine that World Book or Britannica has just hired you to improve the article. What style would you use? Be conscientious of the needs of the typical reader. Avoid language that is bloated or pretentious. Language should be rich, varied, informative, and interesting, but with a noble simplicity. Keep language neutral and unbiased (only chronicle, never editorialize). For instance, I may sometimes be the most opinionated person on the talk threads, but, when I am editing an article, I cast aside my opinions. However, I do take into account that there may be different legitimate well-informed opinions on the topics (and I make it my business to know about all of them--all of the "angles"). So, take these into account, but don's take sides. Find a clear path that shoots like a straight arrow though the terrain. Discernment is key.
• Add citations for every fact covered at least several per paragraph. Try to find a variety of sources for references, not just from one website--only ones that are credible and reliable. Rolling Stone and AllMusic are good for basic, general info. But you will need to find more specific biographies. At the bottom of the Garage rock article are a bunch of good sites and books. Avoid dubious looking websites or sites that just mimic the words that have already appeared in Wikipedia articles (you'd be surprised how many just quote old Wiki articles--and they will not be acceptable).
• Create a specific citation for every time you refer to a information gained from a source. Type in the information just that way you would a bibliography entry on a research paper (detailed and specific).

You may want to bring this topic on the talk page of The Chocolate Watchband article: big chages can be controversial. Get to know all of the other editors who frequent that site (and the other related sites they frequent), particularly the good ones--the better you get to know them and establish credibility and trust in their eyes, the more autonomy they will give you. Prove yourself in the little things before you get to the big things. An unknown editor, even if experienced, is looked on with suspicion when he/she arrives at a new destination--but time does wonders. Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)Garagepunk66 (talk) 21:01, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for those notes, I have written articles before so I believe I got most of that down. I will go in the direction of fixing what is already their, instead of a completely new draft. May take longer, but in the end it will be a better article. I already started the intro portion and tomorrow I will work on the background. Right now, I wrote my infobox for my next article, No Way Out (The Chocolate Watchband album) in ny sandbox, but i think I will be off for the day. Hope your projects go well and I should be back soon :)

Note: There is a list of ideas for future articles in my sandbox I consider writing. If you are interested, feel free to take one of the subjects, they are down your alley regarding 1960s garage rock bands. Just, if you could, tell me you are doing so, so we do not write about the same thing, thanks.TheGracefulSlick (talk)

I finished the No Way Out article about the debut album by the Chocolate Watchband. I love the album and I am glad I got to write about it. I should be able to work more on the band's article tomorrow. I got to some of their early history, but the process is slow. (Still fun though) TheGracefulSlick ( talk)

I took a look at the new article on the Watchbands' first album and like it a lot. I also looked at the feature article on the band. You added some helpful information in the heading, but a few things:

• It is best to avoid using "loaded" language such as "snarling" to describe singer's style, in the text. Although I fully agree with that point of view, but it does not sound objective and encyclopedic (you could quote a rock critic saying something to that effect in a later part of the article). Also, "rebellious musical structure" sounds a bit off. Wouln't "rebellious musical posture" be better?
• The term "Garage punk" is usually used on Wiki to refer to garage-influenced music that came after the 70s. It is best not to say, "garage punk' as a general descriptor in a Wiki article on a 60s band (although it can certainly be used that way in other venues). This is not a matter of my own personal opinion--I actually agree with you 100%, but we have to take into account the views of the majority of editors (I have had some wonderful arguments on talk pages demonstrating that there is a legitimate point to be made that punk started way before the 70s, and that what came before should not be viewed as prototypical, but actual). Outside of the text in Wiki articles , I often refer to 60s bands as "garage punk" (and most fans of garage do), but keep in mind that, inside of the articles, Wiki still has to work within the nomenclature that has been established for classifications. It is best, therefore, to use the terms "garage rock," "protopunk or "60s punk," or when discussing a 60s band. I wish this was not the case, but it is reality.
• You could bring back mentions of the two movies they appeared in, Riot on Sunset Strip and Love-In's. Garagepunk66 (talk) 20:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

True, I didn't consider these points, and I will mention the last point you made. Some of my sources state it as garage punk which, I guess, got me off track. I also took their descriptions too much to heart, which I usually don't do, so I'm a little upset with myself. I, or you it's fine by me, will fix it shortly I just need to address a disruptive user who is attacking my music articles. Thanks for the help, as usual. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 22:12, 21 April 2015

No need to be upset--I have to re-edit myself constantly. Sometimes it takes me about a hundred times to get an edit right! And, I agree 100% that they are indeed garage punk (garage-oriented sources use the term all of the time): it's just that Wiki does not officially classify that way (mainly due to larger public misconceptions--knowledgeable editors know better). At Wiki it is certainly OK (and even necessary) to explain in sourced textual narratives that the words "punk rock" and "garage punk were both first used to describe 60s garage rock--it's just not used as the official "classification" or "designation" at this time.

The heading is now looking really good. One thing, in the last sentence of the heading you could slightly change the wording from "...however it was not as distinctive as their early works..." to "...however it is typically not as highly regarded as their previous work... Try to make the statement about the last album's lesser quality as neutral and objective as possible--you don't want this to sound like a review. A good way create a sense of neutrality is to use phrases such as "typically...," "generally...," and "...considered," "...perceived as," "...regarded," etc. Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:40, 22 April 2015 (UTC)Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:43, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Done and done, I'll get to the rest of the article eventually. I keep getting sidetracked, but at least I have enough references for when I do start. TheGracefulSlick ( talk)

Twentieth Century Zoo

This article (Twentieth Century Zoo) has been nominated for deletion by a user who doesn't understand the importance of early influential bands (the user has already nominated two pages that were unanimously voted keep). Since you obviously are knowledgeable about this era of music, I would appreciate if you weight-in on the nomination as I know you will consider the experimental aspects of the group. Thanks, and I see the garage rock page keeps getting better :) TheGracefulSlick (talk)

I left a comment on the talk page of that article to keep it. Apparently, the article nominated for deletion was a different article (probably on the same band) from 2008. In any event, I argued to keep it. One thing: be sure to go back and mention more specifics about the sources in the citations (i.e. the full rigor of a bibliography in a research paper). Garagepunk66 (talk) 21:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Will do, it was one of my early articles so forgive me for its needs for improvement. It will be on my ever-growing list of things to do. Also, I think your opinion will have a greater chance to be read if it's on the nomination page. TheGracefulSlick ( talk)

I just left a message on the deletion talk page. However, if that is not the best one, then supply me a blue link to the right one. Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Here, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twentieth Century Zoo (2nd nomination), that way others will officially be able to take your opinion into account. TheGracefulSlick (talk)

Check out my comments there!!! Garagepunk66 (talk) 23:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I cannot thank you enough, those statements were the truest and heartfelt ones I've read from someone in a while. Your point of view is perfect for the discussion and I'm glad I informed you of it, anyone reading it will surely be swayed in the article's favor. TheGracefulSlick ( talk)

Keeping this short as "someone" will consider it biased. This (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Peanut Butter Conspiracy Is Spreading) is being nominated for deletion. Could use your opinion. TheGracefulSlick (talk)

I put in a comment there against deleting the article. I am glad to see that other editors have joined us in opposing the deletion the article. Garagepunk66 (talk) 21:10, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, I thought this article might be a tough sell for some, but I am delightfully surprised. It's very uplifting to see more people seeing the relevance of these older groups. The user who nominated it takes things very personally (it's why he is going after these articles) and doesn't care about the topic we cover (he has told me he has no interest in this genre of music). It upsets me, not because I wrote them, but because his disregard for this era of music is troublesome. However, with others like you, these bands and musical acts will continue to remain relevant. TheGracefulSlick (talk)

Ghmrytle is on leave so unfortunately he cannot help. CrazyAces, I believe, sent me to AN/I, not entirely sure as it doesn't direct me to anything. Actually it's confirmed, he sent me to AN/I, apparently for asking people to weigh-in on deletion discussions. This needs to stop I just want to work on music articles. TheGracefulSlick (talk)