Talk:Midnight Syndicate/Archive 1

message: Changes to section "Formation."
Removed vanity statements and unsubstantiated opinons in the form of PR. Reverted to some facts previously mentioned which directly relate to topic of Formation. References cited: Midnight Syndicate self-titled debut album credits and student work, Born of the Night album credits, Library of Congress copyright search, posted press releases and interviews from 1998, Happy Halloween magazine article 2001. Information supplied by websites for Cedar Point, Busch Gardens, and Six Flags, and a few other theme parks, show no use of Midnight Syndicate music, but some parks like Universal Studios still play selected tracks from their Born of the Night (1998) and Realm of Shadows (1999) albums.  Two movies can be verified as containing Midnight Syndicate music: Demons at The Door, and Dead and Rotting. 
Section titled "Continuing"
This entire section should be removed per guidelines on Wikipedia:Vanity_guidelines and Wikipedia:Autobiography. It contains vanity and PR about future project plans, but nothing encyclopedic.  GuardianZ 03:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes and a vote for section removal 

message: This appears to be self-promotion due to many of the opinionated phrases listed in the section "Formation" along with repeated changing of factual content with no references given, plus the fact that the users have not signed in. Giving the benfit of the doubt, I edited the Formation section using references from various magazines and album credits, and toning down the obvious self-promo stuff. Had placed a discussion here to suggest the user (no sig) make changes, but it seems the band (another no sig) seems intent on only promoting upcoming projects and ignoring the Wiki guidelines for vanity articles.  In the next section entitled "Continuing" there appear to be further promotions for some movies "in the works". This is nothing but a blatant advertisement.  GuardianZ 01:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: People should use sources, sure.  But an anonymous user's contributions aren't automatically less valuable, just because they haven't signed in.  I removed the prod tag - problems that can be fixed by editing aren't cause for deletion.  These guys have an allmusic guide bio, so it's definitely not the kind of garage-band vanity we usually get.  Friday (talk) 19:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

text: It seems the revisionist history/formation of this band was reverted once again, this time by the band's Public Relations manager, noted on the band's website as being a Public Relations Customer Service agent named Liz St. James (note, this person has no user page).  This really smacks of self-promotion. It certainly falls way outside the Wiki guidelines for Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. 
I do note the link to one supposed article, but that seems to be just a reiteration of the band's own press release. I vote for AFD considering the many revisions of this band's supposed formation. Frankly, none of the information about theme parks is verifiable from what I have researched, but then again this info seems to be coming from the band itself, so there you have it.GuardianZ 22:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Deletion 

message: JJay, while posting my appologies here for removing your reference (which I speedily replaced), the page was reverted again!  I added the link for composer and producer that I inadvertantly removed before, and lo-and-behold it was changed before I finished typing. I am not all that new to this sytem. I have edited some Lovecraft articles on another Wiki. And while I gave the benefit of the doubt to the Midnight Syndicate salesperson for editing their own page, it really seems out of hand now. The references I added simply show that this band is attempting to re-write history. Your reference to the Plain Dealer proves this, which states: "In 1998 Monolith Graphics produced the cd 'Born of the Night' which streamlined the music of local band Midnight Syndicate to appeal to a gothic audience." The owner of Monolith Graphics is Joseph Vargo as referenced by the cd album credits. Likewise the band keeps removing other band members from their formation. I don't know why this is. I would keep a watch on this. GuardianZ 15:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I am watching it. But the way to deal with it is by editing. I removed a few lines previously and will remove material again if it is too promotional. -- JJay 16:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that we don't want self-promotional material here.  And, while I don't consider what a band says about itself on their own website to be a reliable source as far as establishing the significance of the band, I do believe it's a reasonable source to use in some ways.  If a band says on their website that they're working on a new record, I think we can reasonably use this info in an article ("According to the band's website, they're working on a new record called "Something" which they expect to be out on some date").  Friday (talk) 17:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Vandalism 

message: Dear 152.163.100.70 You went way overboard in you latest edits. Not every single contributor need be mentioned and not every single little thing they did, only the band members and major contributors like the producer/director, who is a notible person. A "sound designer" with only 2 songs to credit who was not a member of the band is not notible. Ditto for the engineer, who was also not a band member and has no other notible credits to his name. Likewise song titles, unless noteworthy, need not be mentioned. Also, your timeline is off as well as research. According to the Plain Dealer and the interview in Dark Realms (which was also previously deleted), Vargo is credited for the band's focus, direction and original concept of creating a Halloween cd. Either you are participating in Douglas' previous revisionist history or you simply did not do the research. Also, every album release is already listed in the Discography, so it is not neccessary to mention it again unless there was some noteworthy aspect, such as the breakthrough releases which led to the succes in the haunt industry or the music used in the King Diamond tour (which was in 2000 in the US). Otherwise general noteworthy topics can be included. The point is that it must be notable and verifiable without coming across like a press release from the band. GuardianZ 18:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleaning up more self-promo stuff and more revisionist history 

message: You say this is too much like a PR release for the band but then you post something that does the same for Vargo.    That seems to be your modus operandi on this particular page.  You should start up a Joseph Vargo article.  He's well-known enough I would think.   Additionally, you seem to favor the two releases he was involved in and want to downplay or put down the other releases.  Why did you change the description of the first CD?   What's a Creative Director?  Keeping it to credits listed in booklets is best.  I'm adding back information on other releases.  That interview you posted was taken from Vargo's publication so I question that, just for the record.
Who are you? Another of the band's friends? You need to sign your discussions. That interview includes Douglas and Goszka. I subscribe to that magazine and it is a totally relevant resource. Their articles on other subjects are very acurate. In fact Dark Realms published at least 50 other fantasy artists, not to mention bands, over the years. The interviewer is Peter Iorillo. There are similar credits given in the Plain Dealer article a year earlier. In that article it credits Monolith Graphics as the producer. I have other articles I'd rather work on but since Douglas' modus operandi seems to be to change history I have taken an interest in this article. Creative director is already explained above, and if you read the wiki link I think it is described well enough. Stop taking out the wiki links for composer, producer and creative director. That's all part of this process. If you'd like to add more wiki links to relevent music topics, feel free to do so.  GuardianZ 14:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleaning up more self-promo 

message: Several unsigned users have been making personal attacks on this page, seemingly at the behest of one of the band members. I'm not sure why the band itself is propagating this type of thing but I suggest to admin that if it continues the page be removed altogether. GuardianZ 07:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Vandalism 

message: Here a link that explains a good deal of the previous problems this page seems to have had in terms of its prior changing history. It shows some very in-depth history of this band's origins and is backed up with photos, documents (including copyrights) and even an audio interview with Edward Douglas, Gavin Goszka and Joseph Vargo. For further research when adding to this article, I suggest first reading; www.legionofthenight.com 
GuardianZ 02:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further Research 

message: ====NOTE: I have merged the various articles in a structured way that will hopefully appease this band and their friends/vandals, while adhering to the actual recorded events in history, as opposed to the bands decidedly slated edits. ====
Several unsigned users have been reverting back and forth between various versions of this article. Most of the information in this article appears to be self-promotion for Midnight Syndicate and promotion for other businesses that the band is affiliated with, while simultaneously editing out other sources of relevant information.  
Some versions of this article list certain dates that members joined the band, left the band, ect., and when key events occured such as debuts of albums at some of the notable theme parks, what events occured that resulted in the band's success, and which members were credited... While in other versions the dates, events and people are changed or rearranged (subtly yet deceivingly, and unverified) so as to be quite misleading to the casual reader. If one reads this article at times it appears as though only the two current band members are to be credited with any success, while other versions give an entirely different history. 
Key versions this article to compare: 
Compare dates and band members: unsigned edits 24.252.247.68 and 67.140.80.142 IP Note: 24.252.247.68 points to Atlanta, GA. 67.140.80.142 (also 67.140.88.100 in earlier edits) points to a server in Chardon, Ohio, homebase of Midnight Syndicate.
Compare events and persons, past band members and those leading up to national exposure with a promo campaign by the band, with the latter being posted by the current lineup, the band itselt and is POV:  GuardianZ and Midsyndicate
Compare Midsyndicate to MarcusPan revison of the former post by band, posted by a source in the press.
Compare same day Feb 20, 2006 one wiki member edited by unsigned, who changed credits and also added self-promo text.
In reading these different versions, it becomes obvious that the current lineup is attempting to alter their own history, at least in terms of publicizing a very different account of not just its past lineup but changing the history of events as they occured ... and I do believe it is current lineup itself doing the majority of editing as well as those others representing the businesses that are linked here. 
One recent resource link in particular seems to be a bone of contention between these people, yet it documents a very detailed early history of the band, including photos, audio interviews, copyright forms, letters, and other quotes from publications, and also shows how members of the current lineup have indeed changed their tune (so to speak). I do not consider some of the more recent interviews posted on this page to be entirely verifiable sources when compared to past statements to the press, as the current lineup itself is the only source of information for the publisher, and they do seem intent upon changing history as the following website indicates.
For anyone who would care to dig into the past and compare it with more current views, I suggest this Legion of the Night website, and although it appears to be published by one of the former members of this group, it is entirely verifiable (as good any wiki page I've seen) with links to past interviews (written and audio) that contradict the information presented in recent interviews and currently posted on this wiki page, as well as copyright registrations, which are verifiable by doing a search on the Library of Congress website. 
I vote for a complete re-write of this article by an admin or someone unaffiliated with the band, removing uneccessary links to obvious promotional websites and giving a clear and concise history of this group, it's members past and present, their roles and contributions, and only list major and verifiable accomplishments, as opposed to the blatant promotional wording that is now contained herein. I also do not think this is the place to post upcoming projects as this band has done in the past; again, that type of thing is purely promotional and not encyclopedic.
Oroboros 1 22:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After further edits by unsigned 67.140.80.142, I've tried to clean this up a bit and remove self-promo. I'll just leave the Legion website resource here for now and see if the band (who is very likely editing) has a problem with their history being given in an encyclopedic manner, or if it's only the aforementioned website they have an issue with. Oroboros 1 04:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok. Well, this clinches it. The current band line up (who must be 67.140.80.142) is definitely at work here, reverting edits that have been verified to more promotional text which not only omits verifiable credits but strives to promote "upcoming" projects, and that is NOT what Wiki is about. I will bring this to the attention of an admin and see what happens next. Oroboros 1 15:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I have left several soft warnings to  User 67.140.80.142 about vandalism, removing content, not signing in, etc. Those have been ignored. This user continues to revert to old versions of the article (calling new writes "vandalism") and keeps removing valid resources, credits for one of their past (and very noteworthy) members, and even the list of films they have had their music in. They continue to post promotional text and they also continue to change the CONTEXT of validated information. I have assumed good faith, and have even removed a valuable resource that  User 67.140.80.142 calls defamatory... (after all, no one really wants to be called a liar) but this is truly pathetic. This band starts a wiki page, it's expanded and allowed to be used for self-promotion, linking between other businesses they currently work with, and they keep editing out historical facts---and when I attempt to write a purely encyclopedic article and post all my references, they just keep reverting back to their autobiography and a different historical tract, removing eveything I entered which is entirely verifiable such as a radio interview with the band from 1998, credits from CD liner notes, and an article on a haunted house that obviously influenced one of their recent albums. It seems I am in an edit war and don't really know where to go from here. Any support (from anyone other than this band and it's promotional agents) would be appreciated. Some real digging will be needed. Oroboros 1 22:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Reverting to blatant promotional and deceptive version of article continues by band and friends, who also continue to remove valid references. Oroboros 1 22:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Plooa, I do not think your reference supports your changes. For one, the Plain Dealer article is purely a promotional piece, not an encyclopedic article. It promotes only a local event. Also, your reverts are going back to the same promotional and revisionist history already complained of earlier... and shown to be deceptive. Please understand that the focus here is on historical fact and not what a band may only wish to promote. You also removed many other sources that are viable and important to this discussion. I shall leave your source of October 2006 Plain Dealer, but I argue that it is advertising and does nothing to support your changes.GuardianZ 18:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Per suggestion by Dionyseus I have replaced dispute notice and chose some more specific cleanup templates. Oroboros 1 03:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Dispute notice removed/rv by unsigned immediately afterwards. Dispute resolution requested.Oroboros 1 07:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Dionyseus, Perhaps you are not comparing the articles for CONTEXT. And I actully did not 'begin' calling the other unsigned editors vandals. That is their tactic (see their revert summaries). I only began this discussion after 6 reverts of my edits were made by one IP then another which pointed to same. I did make some soft warnings on the IP pages, but I don't know how far I should take that. See your talk page for more. Oroboros 1 04:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputing NPOV (New Issue OCT 2006) 

message: Several unsigned users have been reverting back and forth between various versions of this article. Most of the information in this article appears to be self-promotion for Midnight Syndicate and promotion for other businesses that the band is affiliated with, while simultaneously editing out other sources of relevant information.  
Some versions of this article list certain dates that members joined the band, left the band, ect., and when key events occured such as debuts of albums at some of the notable theme parks, what events occured that resulted in the band's success, and which members were credited... While in other versions the dates, events and people are changed or rearranged (subtly yet deceivingly, and unverified) so as to be quite misleading to the casual reader. If one reads this article at times it appears as though only the two current band members are to be credited with any success, while other versions give an entirely different history. 
Key versions this article to compare: 
Compare dates and band members: unsigned edits 24.252.247.68 and 67.140.80.142 IP Note: 24.252.247.68 points to Atlanta, GA. 67.140.80.142 (also 67.140.88.100 in earlier edits) points to a server in Chardon, Ohio, homebase of Midnight Syndicate.
Compare events and persons, past band members and those leading up to national exposure with a promo campaign by the band, with the latter being posted by the current lineup, the band itselt and is POV:  GuardianZ and Midsyndicate
Compare Midsyndicate to MarcusPan revison of the former post by band, posted by a source in the press.
Compare same day Feb 20, 2006 one wiki member edited by unsigned, who changed credits and also added self-promo text.
In reading these different versions, it becomes obvious that the current lineup is attempting to alter their own history, at least in terms of publicizing a very different account of not just its past lineup but changing the history of events as they occured ... and I do believe it is current lineup itself doing the majority of editing as well as those others representing the businesses that are linked here. 
One recent resource link in particular seems to be a bone of contention between these people, yet it documents a very detailed early history of the band, including photos, audio interviews, copyright forms, letters, and other quotes from publications, and also shows how members of the current lineup have indeed changed their tune (so to speak). I do not consider some of the more recent interviews posted on this page to be entirely verifiable sources when compared to past statements to the press, as the current lineup itself is the only source of information for the publisher, and they do seem intent upon changing history as the following website indicates.
For anyone who would care to dig into the past and compare it with more current views, I suggest this Legion of the Night website, and although it appears to be published by one of the former members of this group, it is entirely verifiable (as good any wiki page I've seen) with links to past interviews (written and audio) that contradict the information presented in recent interviews and currently posted on this wiki page, as well as copyright registrations, which are verifiable by doing a search on the Library of Congress website. 
I vote for a complete re-write of this article by an admin or someone unaffiliated with the band, removing uneccessary links to obvious promotional websites and giving a clear and concise history of this group, it's members past and present, their roles and contributions, and only list major and verifiable accomplishments, as opposed to the blatant promotional wording that is now contained herein. I also do not think this is the place to post upcoming projects as this band has done in the past; again, that type of thing is purely promotional and not encyclopedic.
Oroboros 1 22:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After further edits by unsigned 67.140.80.142, I've tried to clean this up a bit and remove self-promo. I'll just leave the Legion website resource here for now and see if the band (who is very likely editing) has a problem with their history being given in an encyclopedic manner, or if it's only the aforementioned website they have an issue with. Oroboros 1 04:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok. Well, this clinches it. The current band line up (who must be 67.140.80.142) is definitely at work here, reverting edits that have been verified to more promotional text which not only omits verifiable credits but strives to promote "upcoming" projects, and that is NOT what Wiki is about. I will bring this to the attention of an admin and see what happens next. Oroboros 1 15:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I have left several soft warnings to  User 67.140.80.142 about vandalism, removing content, not signing in, etc. Those have been ignored. This user continues to revert to old versions of the article (calling new writes "vandalism") and keeps removing valid resources, credits for one of their past (and very noteworthy) members, and even the list of films they have had their music in. They continue to post promotional text and they also continue to change the CONTEXT of validated information. I have assumed good faith, and have even removed a valuable resource that  User 67.140.80.142 calls defamatory... (after all, no one really wants to be called a liar) but this is truly pathetic. This band starts a wiki page, it's expanded and allowed to be used for self-promotion, linking between other businesses they currently work with, and they keep editing out historical facts---and when I attempt to write a purely encyclopedic article and post all my references, they just keep reverting back to their autobiography and a different historical tract, removing eveything I entered which is entirely verifiable such as a radio interview with the band from 1998, credits from CD liner notes, and an article on a haunted house that obviously influenced one of their recent albums. It seems I am in an edit war and don't really know where to go from here. Any support (from anyone other than this band and it's promotional agents) would be appreciated. Some real digging will be needed. Oroboros 1 22:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Reverting to blatant promotional and deceptive version of article continues by band and friends, who also continue to remove valid references. Oroboros 1 22:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Plooa, I do not think your reference supports your changes. For one, the Plain Dealer article is purely a promotional piece, not an encyclopedic article. It promotes only a local event. Also, your reverts are going back to the same promotional and revisionist history already complained of earlier... and shown to be deceptive. Please understand that the focus here is on historical fact and not what a band may only wish to promote. You also removed many other sources that are viable and important to this discussion. I shall leave your source of October 2006 Plain Dealer, but I argue that it is advertising and does nothing to support your changes.GuardianZ 18:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Per suggestion by Dionyseus I have replaced dispute notice and chose some more specific cleanup templates. Oroboros 1 03:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Dispute notice removed/rv by unsigned immediately afterwards. Dispute resolution requested.Oroboros 1 07:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Dionyseus, Perhaps you are not comparing the articles for CONTEXT. And I actully did not 'begin' calling the other unsigned editors vandals. That is their tactic (see their revert summaries). I only began this discussion after 6 reverts of my edits were made by one IP then another which pointed to same. I did make some soft warnings on the IP pages, but I don't know how far I should take that. See your talk page for more. Oroboros 1 04:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NOTE: I have [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Midnight_Syndicate&oldid=83098821 merged the various articles] in a structured way that will hopefully appease this band and their friends/vandals, while adhering to the actual recorded events in history, as opposed to the bands decidedly slated edits. 

message: I've semi-protected this page.  Edit summaries suggest there may be two conflicts of interest here: that the band's current lineup may have been editing the article anonymously and that Oroboros 1 may be a disgruntled former band member.  I don't know whether either of these accusations are true, but the intimate degree of familiarity with this band's history makes both possibilities credible.  Any unregistered user who wants to continue editing this page can sign up for an account, wait four days, and edit.  I recommend WP:RFC or WP:3O to resolve the content dispute. Durova 01:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One thing I've found suspicious is that Oroboros 1's very first edit with that account was on the 14th of this month to the Midnight Syndicate article, and he seemed to know quite a lot about Wikipedia, for example in his first edit he placed a POV-Check tag to the article.  Five days later he posted a report at Wikipedia:Abuse Reports.   A day later he posted a request to have the page protected.   Four days later he posted a report at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Media, art and literature.   The same day he posted a report at Wikipedia:Requests for investigation.  Most people don't even know about these pages.  It seems to me like if this isn't his first account, and he may have a personal motive against the band.  Dionyseus 05:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's nothing personal here. And fyi, I never posted to wiki before, but I do come here quite often for preliminary research, mainly for the resources that other editors note on these pages. I typically turn to those resources for my own writing, as I know that many articles here are general at best, and totally mistaken at worst. I don't believe everything I read, and when I read the above details, then really checked into things, I realized what a facade this band was building here (and yes, I came to believe it was the band. Who else would care?). I just felt it required some journalistic integrity. If you look at my first edits, before I got frustrated after being reverted each day, and afterwards once I tried to calm down and write something other than the cold facts and warm it up a bit, you will see that I really tried to do justice to this article. As it stands now, it's breaking several policies set forth by wiki (verifiability, npov, article posing as promotion, and cross-linking, and even defamatory statements made about living people). How do I know this, I read (a lot) and I pay attention. That is how I discovered all the wiki policy pages and the help they offered. When I asked for assistance, and did not get it within 24 hours, I tried elsewhere, thinking perhaps the editors in certain areas were not checking in reguarly. I tried each avenue that pertained to the wiki policies that this article and the unsigned editors were breaking (and there were many). I looked at other similar band pages and none are as blatantly outlandish as this one. If you look at other editor's remarks, you will see that I am not the only one here who thinks this. I just decided to "be bold" and take action. (and I am a 32 yr. old  woman, for the record). I DID pose this for  WP:RFC a few days ago as well. I am going to look back at some of my older re-writes and suggest some changes. back in a jif...  Oroboros 1 09:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding the RfC, it would help if you set up a section on this talk page to summarize the dispute.  Both sides can summarize their positions (this talk page isn't semi-protected).  If this is a good faith effort to improve the article, then thank you.  Sometimes disputes happen while both sides act in good faith.  There's also Wikipedia:Requests for mediation, although both sides must agree to participate in order for mediation to happen.  In defense of Wikipedia, browse some of the featured content such as Pericles and compare it against other leading encyclopedias.  Regards, Durova 13:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  For Rfc, can older portions of this talk page be archived? I am unsure if I have the ability to do that but have noticed it on user talk pages. (I'm a bit afraid to "move" this before I know what will happen). Then perhaps we can start a new discussion on a clean page (my following proposal included, and perhaps a few comments from previous users.). Clean slate, as attempted earlier. (I would have to look for my original Rfc and change the link to the newer section). No need to defend Wiki. I like it as a resource and there's some very informative articles here. But so many people take everything they read to heart and most of what is written on the internet these days (esp. in the entertainment field) is just so much slush and egomania. Oroboros 1 13:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would vote not to remove the earlier discussion.  I think it's useful to see the entire history of an article.  And, by the way, I agree with Dionyseus  that this isn’t Oroboros 1's first account.  I’m suspicious that this is the same person who has edited this article as Blooferlady, GuardianZ, and IP address 24.252.247.68 and that she is saying she's new here to cover her true motivations.  (In addition, I’ve found snippets of discussions that indicate Blooferlady was involved in some very contentious debate over an article about Joseph Vargo that has since been deleted, as has the deletion discussion.) As someone who is actually very new to Wikipedia and just learning how to find her way around, I would never know how to do all the things she has done. Skinny McGee 17:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Uh, "Skinny McGee" is it? I see no other contributions by you except to this talk. I am not Blooferlady (who history shows did not attempt to hide her real identity) nor Oroboros and I always sign my comments. I instead suspect "Skinny McGee" is one of the band members or one of the unsigned, and is spoofing votes here. I think I made my position clear. GuardianZ 07:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protection