User talk:TheGracefulSlick

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

Zachary Taylor: I have requested feedback

TheGracefulSlick recently accepted an edit to remove two sentences from Zachary Taylor. There is a section on that article's talk page where I requested feedback on the potential of that edit to be WP:GOOD. Please address the issue in section "168 years" before reverting the edit again, thanks. - Sleyece 17:43:02, July 3, 2017 (UTC)

The Good Article Nominations Page Needs Your Help!

Good Articles: Music needs the help of willing reviewers!

Hi there. You nominated an article for evaluation against the good article criteria some time ago, but I noticed you have yet to review an article yourself. Although it's not mandatory, it would be helpful if every user who creates a nomination also reviewed at least one other article, as this would help clear the massive backlog. Reviewing someone else's article can also help you in the long run: every article reviewed brings yours one position closer to the top of the nominations list! If you worked on the article you nominated, chances are you're already familiar with the six good article criteria. It really isn't hard to review, and may take an experienced editor only a few hours to complete. If you have the time and would like to help, please click here, take a moment to figure out which article you'd like to review, then click on its (start review) button. Thank you for reading, and if you need assistance with your review at any point, please feel free to leave a message on my talk page and I'll respond to you as soon as I can. Homeostasis07 (talk)

Lest We Forget: The Best Of

Hi, @TheGracefulSlick: you might remember me from our collaboration on the "Look at Your Game, Girl" article. I recently nominated the (short) article for Marilyn Manson's album Lest We Forget: The Best Of for GA and I was wondering if you might like to review it. Let me know --MagicatthemovieS

Welcome to the Months of African Cinema!

Greetings!

The AfroCine Project welcomes you to October, the first out of the two months which has been dedicated to improving contents that centre around the cinema of Africa, the Caribbean, and the diaspora.

This is a global online edit-a-thon, which is happening in at least 5 language editions of Wikipedia, including the English Wikipedia! Join us in this exciting venture, by helping to create or expand articles which are connected to this scope. Also remember to list your name under the participants section, if you haven't done so already.

On English Wikipedia, we would be recognizing Users who are able to achieve the following:

• Overall winner (1st, 2nd, 3rd places)
• Country Winners
• Diversity winner
• High quality contributors
• Gender-gap fillers
• Page improvers
• Wikidata Translators

For further information about the contest, the recognition categories and how to participate, please visit the contest page here. For further inquiries, please leave comments on the contest talkpage or on the main project talkpage. See you around :).--Jamie Tubers (talk) 22:50, 03 October 2018 (UTC)

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

TheGracefulSlick (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Over three months ago, I was blocked for socking. Wikipedia, at the time, became a unhealthy environment for me and, admittedly, faith in myself took a nose-dive. The site offers viable solutions to handle what I was putting myself through, but I failed to invest the necessary time to understand what would have worked best for me, as well as the project. Instead, I took a disruptive approach, hoping an admin would block me for my socking. Writing and my friends outside of Wikipedia have helped me rebuild my confidence. After taking a two month break from anything related to Wikipedia, I began writing articles for WikiNews. I introduced myself to entirely new editors, who welcomed me despite the behavior that led to my block. If I am granted re-entry into the community, I intend to apply the lessons the editors at WikiNews taught me. I will remove myself from controversial topic areas of Wikipedia such as present-day politics for the next six months, then honestly evaluate my progress with an administrator. I look to finish editing GA projects in my sandbox and collaborate on other historical subjects; long-term, I plan to improve the remaining studio albums by the Doors to GA status, write articles on books, and contribute more to content on women. By joining Women in Green, I look to set positive goals for my editing. In the unlikely event I find myself relapsing, I know now I have strong support in the community, to not feel ashamed to ask for help, and I have the ability to ask for a self-block. This is a route I should have understood more prior to making my mistake. If it is the opinion of the admin that my request here is insufficient or something needs clarifying regarding my plans, please prompt me further.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:05, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Accept reason:

I've closed the appeal to AN as successful. Please note that it also comes with a warning that this is a last chance and that any future disruption is likely to be met with and indef block that won't be as easy to appeal. Anyway, welcome back. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:41, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Pinging Bbb23 as the blocking admin. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:47, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm open to the thoughts of others and I like the honesty of the unblock request, but I would prefer to wait the standard period of six months, which would be February 5, 2019, before considering an unblock.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:19, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree it's a little early. But it's a good appeal, and I think we might possibly apply one of the "variations" in the Standard offer essay: "The six-month threshold can be adjustable under special circumstances. If an editor shows an unusually good insight into the circumstances that led to the block, and sets out a credible proposal for how they will deal with those issues in future, then a return might be considered sooner." Bishonen | talk 11:14, 24 November 2018 (UTC).

I saw this earlier and was thinking along the same lines as Bishonen. Usually I'd want to wait for the SO six months too, but I don't think we could ask for a better unblock request than this and I'd be happy to unblock now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:13, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Okay folks, regardless of what the essay says, the six-month period is not set in stone. That said, I do not think TGS should be unblocked without more. How about we let the community decide at WP:AN as we often do after six months have expired? I will consent to the community's consensus. That was my initial thought anyway but I didn't want to prejudice any comments from other administrators.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:44, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

@Bbb23: if you go that route I will be prepared to answer any questions, if there are any. Thanks for considering my appeal.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:47, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Bbb23. I thought of taking it to AN, but I don't know much about the background, and your block notice isn't very detailed. Could you do it, please? Bishonen | talk 08:52, 26 November 2018 (UTC).

I would have been happy to see an unblock just on the basis of this request, but I also don't know the details and so I'd defer and would support an AN request too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:22, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

@Bishonen and Boing! said Zebedee: It's a bit unusual for admins to want to unblock a sock without knowing the "details". My block notice is standard. Given how many socks I block, if I used personalized block notices, I'd get even less sleep than I already do. In any event, perhaps it would be best for TGS to explain what she did. It's helpful for you to explain why, TGS, but it's equally important for you to set forth what your various accounts actually did. That would include the most recent sock, Nobody's Keeper (talk · contribs · count), as well as the ones from longer ago: ABriefPassing (talk · contribs · count) and ALongStay (talk · contribs · count).--Bbb23 (talk) 14:20, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, yes, that's kind of what I'm saying (and I meant I would have been happy to unblock if you went along with it). As it is I'll defer to you as you do know the details, and I agree with your AN suggestion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:25, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

• This really needs a community consensus, IMO. Not only was TGS outrageously socking in 2016 (two socks, which were attacking Garagepunk66 and masquerading as CrazyAces489), even when confronted with clear evidence from Mike V. and DeltaQuad that CU results showed incontrovertibly that the two impersonators were TGS, he kept denying it over and over and over (see this thread and this thread). Not having learned his lesson, he socked again three months ago to cast two votes in an RFA. Although TGS is a good content creator, I'm afraid these violations are quite egregious when taken together, and that TGS has lost the community's trust. I think that three months is too soon to ask for an unblock, and that any unblock request should be put to AN or ANI, or at the very least have the input of parties familiar with the situation. Softlavender (talk) 15:02, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

• @Softlavender: Why do you call her a he (she says her real name is Grace)? Speaking of whom, @TGS, when you respond to my request, please also (1) identify any accounts you've used and (2) whether you have ever intentionally edited logged out (do not disclose the IP(s)).--Bbb23 (talk) 15:56, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

• TGS has repeatedly maintained that he is a guy, and has repeatedly corrected those who have assumed he was female. I see now that in May 2017 he added to his userpage to state "Grace, born Tyler T.", so I do not know what his current self-identified gender is, I only know that I have never personally seen anyone familiar with the user and his username call TGS anything but he/him. Softlavender (talk) 16:07, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

• Ahh, well in the absence of TGS telling us what pronoun they prefer, I'll start using the wonderful plural pronoun. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:13, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

• @Bbb23: sorry for the delay. Yes, I was first blocked in 2016 for socking with ABriefPassing and then ALongStay. Those were used mainly to nominate articles for deletion without taking any heat from CrazyAces and a friend Garagepunk66, as well as serve as an “extra vote”. Sad to say Garagepunk and I have not communicated as much as we once had. I will explain why, this time around, I socked again. Let me point out, however, I am not using it as an excuse. What led to my socking was a lack of self-esteem, believing persistent hurtful comments, and—most importantly—not reporting it to admins or others who could help me. I used the sock in hopes of being caught and forced to break from Wikipedia when I could not take the necessary steps to take a break myself. When minor edits failed, I voted at AFDs; finally, I used it at RfA, knowing admins had to be on alert there.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:37, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

• PS, I have never intentionally edited logged out, though there was an incident where a relative did edit on my IP. I passed the situation on to Arbcom and they accepted the explanation. Drmies, I believe, was the one who replied to my e-mail at that time.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:41, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

• TGS, there are many things that trouble me about your behavior, but why did you lie about the two sock accounts in 2016? There is a disturbing pattern of deceit and poor judgment that goes back years. Why should we believe anything you say?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:49, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

• @Bbb23: I lied in 2016 to try and protect my friendship. Notice how the two accounts were inactive for nearly two months prior to being blocked? It came as a surprise and I thought denying it would save that friendship; I was wrong. I cannot change my prior actions and you understandably should be hesitant. Sharing my mental health at the time is not easy for me to do. It is difficult to prove to you the time I spent rebuilding my self-esteem and finding genuine enjoyment in writing again. Perhaps only the new attitude I bring to Wikipedia will convince you of my honesty. I am open to criticism and discussion, but will no longer be in it for the competitive nature this place sometimes brings about or the insults. I still value the intent of this place, but I never again will value it over my own health. In short, I just see no reason to lie because I have nothing to gain; it has only worsened my situation in the past and reflects poorly on who I actually am.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:29, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you @Softlavender: for the ping. I'm happy to see the openness and willingness to participate in a post-mortem of what happened and acknowledging of that. I normally wouldn't even be persuaded to consider your unblock request, but it's one of the ones that addresses all the points needed in WP:GTAB, which is a rarity, and shows at minimum you understand your mistake. Right now, i'm considering the possibility of the three months being commuted, but I also think that it's so early that it would be inappropriate to not consult the community. That being said, regardless of the unblock, I am here via email if you wish to talk about mental health. I have struggles of my own along with some strategies that may help. Feel free to inbox me. Also please ping me in any reply you want me to see. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 23:10, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you DeltaQuad. I will always remember your offer when I need help on how to approach a situation better. I know in the future I need to pause and accept counsel more often. Many times in the past I always thought I needed to handle things myself, but now I know that is far from the truth. I would be happy to have the community’s input and will accept the decision regardless of the outcome.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:32, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• @Boing! said Zebedee and Bishonen: Folks, I think I've more than flushed out all the details. DeltaQuad has stated that we should take this to AN. Do you agree? @TGS, thank you for your patience.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:40, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

  Yep, I agree. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:31, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• Further comment: For TGS to state that he (I am using the user's historic pronouns until they state otherwise) has a "friendship" with Garagepunk66 is grossly misleading, as he used the socks specifically to attack Garagepunk66 while pretending that the socks were actually CrazyAces489. Furthermore, he continued harassing Garagepunk66 even after the socks were blocked, to the point that Garagepunk66 had to reach out to Bishonen to request an interaction ban [1], and even after that the harassment did not stop. Softlavender (talk) 05:40, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• @Softlavender: look at the countless discussions Garagepunk and I had prior to my block and our shared interests. Me describing that as “friendship” is not meant to mislead anyone; I genuinely felt that is what it was. In response to that diff, Bishonen wrote there were no obvious signs that TheGracefulSlick is posting in bad faith. Garagepunk was at the time, however, understandably upset about my past behavior and perhaps even just by my very presence. I do not deny my socking was harassment, and I tried reconciling with him for that; but as a consequence of my behavior, we no longer speak and I came to terms with that. But, again, I did not intend to mislead anyone by believing our lengthy discussions and collaborations once constituted a friendship.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:42, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• You ceased to have a "friendship" with him when you created two sockpuppets to attack him. So calling it a "friendship" after your socking was found out by checkusers was simply you trying to prevent being found out by someone who actually thought your friendship with him was sincere. No one creates sockpuppets to attack an actual friend. Softlavender (talk) 06:54, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• @Softlavender: What are your qualifications in psychology and/or psychoanalysis? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:57, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and copied this to AN, because this talk page is becoming heated and less than ideal for the topic at hand, and I don't think Bishonen would mind getting it to AN more quickly since that seems to be the rough consensus here as a condition an unblock. As is my standard when I do AN copy appeals: it's on hold and I'm listed as the reviewing admin, but any other admin is free to close the appeal/unblock without consulting me. Note that I have not looked at the CU data here, but am just copying this in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator since Bbb23 has said he would be fine with an unblock if there was consensus at AN. The diff of the appeal can be found here [2]. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:09, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• @Pudeo:, since your comment was seeking a response, I feel I should clarify something. Softlavender is referring to my 2016 block when I did, admittedly, deny any socking, despite obviously being behind it. I do not recall denying wrongdoing with this current offense and described everything I did here at my talk page, per Bbb23’s request. Hope that helps address your concerns.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 09:38, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

  I've copied that to the AN discussion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:43, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• With all due respect, Boing! said Zebedee, I think that Softlavender is one of the few people around here who appreciates the pain which the harassment has brought me. It continued even after the first block, and I have humbly resigned myself to the likelihood that it will probably never stop. I think my guarantee of protection from harassment (by the editor in question) should certainty be a condition in whatever potential unblock arrangement happens or does not happen, and, yes, I would like very much to become more active in Wikipedia again, so I think it is important. Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:04, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

• @Garagepunk66: I understand that the socking was harassment and you did not like how I viewed the Garage rock article a year ago, but how can you say the harassment will “probably never stop”? It was wrong of me to not share my honest opinion of the article. But I vividly recall apologizing to you, and we tried to work things out after the garage rock debate, but I stopped communicating with you when it was apparent you were no longer interested in speaking to me. How has harassment continued in any capacity when we have not interacted with each other for months? I hope you can find a way to return to regular editing if that is what you wish to do.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:18, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

• In fact, the last time we spoke was October 2017, when I offered to review articles for you. It is sad that it has been so long since we had our last discussion on music, the 1960s, etc.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:40, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

• The reason I did not want you to review my article is because of your chequered past with those sockpuppets at AfD, as well a certain interoperate remarks at the Garage rock article talk and elsewhere coming just off the heels of the last block. Furthermore, in the apology you alluded to in your prior remark: it did not seem to be a sincere acknowledgement of the pain the situation caused me, nor showed any real sense of remorse [3]—you appeared more intent on arguing with me about how I used my words when I spoke out boldly (on that prospective RfA talk page) about the fact that you harassed me (which was indeed the case—it had to be said). And, there were other incidents after that which Softlavender has alluded to which continued and I have every reason to expect more to come in the future. Right now you seem more intent on thwarting any stipulation guaranteeing future non-harassment on my part, which I find troubling. Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:03, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
• @Garagepunk66:...but we not spoken for over a year; I also was regularly editing subjects outside of music. What reasons do you have to expect harassment suddenly in the future? And I am not trying to “thwart” anything; pledging to not harass you or anyone else is a stipulation I gladly accept.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:12, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

• Hi @Garagepunk66: I certainly agree that Softlavender understands the past events better than most, but I think speculation on the thinking processes of other people should be avoided - we should stick to what people do and say, and avoid speculating on what and how they might be thinking and on their motives. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:13, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

• In fact @Garagepunk66:, I will agree to continue avoiding you as I have been for over a year, or—as I would prefer—finally settling this together. That is entirely your decision and I will respect it. I apologize, again, for what was blatant harassment with the sock puppets and for being overly assertive, as well as hiding my true criticisms when Ilovetopaint proposed drastic changes to an article you worked passionately on; I wish I had expressed this to you sooner and honestly miss working with you.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:29, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
• TGS, best of luck to you. I'm glad it worked out.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:19, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

• @Bbb23: thank you for allowing it to go to AN in the first place. I will make sure not to disappoint.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:31, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

• TheGracefulSlick, I appreciate your thoughtful words above. I still have the utmost respect and can only wish you well. If I have taken some harsh stances with you in recent times, they have only been to defend what I consider my own well-being and work as an editor, not as an attack on you or anyone else. I appreciate your acknowledgement of how hard I worked on the GR article. I realize that hard work on an article does not make me or anyone else immune to criticism. But, what happened in that split discussion at the GR article was that a proposal was made that was way too drastic and would have damaged the article. Keep in mind that I had just recently been involved in a another much longer debate with that same editor (on another article talk page) that went on for what seemed like eternity and was very exhausting. Also, this came right off the heels of the Long Stay ordeal. It all came as quite a shock just when I needed to have a "cooling down" period. Suddenly, I was now having to worry that all I had worked GR article would be blown apart—so yes I was very on the edge. What I needed at the time was constructive criticism that was measured, not inflated. I interpreted some of your comments in that first GR thread (after the split proposal) as a bit extreme and not particularly specific or helpful. Criticisms are best when they are indisputably reasonable and predicated on specifics in the article, hopefully provided along with constructive advice for practical solutions. Criticism of people's work in articles should not be presented in a way can be construed as a unilateral ultimatum, but given with the realization that there may be a host of pro and con viewpoints to be considered as well. This is the way I strive to function when I offer criticisms of other people's work. I like anyone else deserve that same that same consideration from others. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:08, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

John B Magruder

It's appreciated- and when you are unblocked, feel free to put this on your page (Since you nominated the article and put a bunch of work into it):

This user helped promote John B. Magruder to good article status.

💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 12:19, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Racial Hygiene cover 1988.jpeg

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:09, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yoel Adler

Hello, you recently voted in favour of the deletion of Yoel Adler. I just wanted to inform you that this person was not the original subject of the article. The article was completely changed to a non-notable topic the day before it was filed for deletion.

Could you please look at the new arguments put forward on its AfD page, and consider changing your vote for an immediate end of procedure? Emass100 (talk) 15:13, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

@Emass100: Thanks for moving the article back; I should have done that.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:19, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Your unblock conditions

Part are you unblock conditions that you have taken upon yourself was I will remove myself from controversial topic areas of Wikipedia such as present-day politics for the next six months, then honestly evaluate my progress with an administrator..Such edit goes against this conditions [4] or this [5].If you want to remove this condition that OK but you should ask permission from community at WP:AN --Shrike (talk) 09:45, 9 December 2018 (UTC)