Talk:Midnight Syndicate/Archive 4

message: This discussion has become really long. I started a new chapter just for ease. Prior to re-editing this article today, I will quote other editors from the past who made comments as to my editing previously...
*"I guess all we can do is present as many sides of the story as we can find reputable sources for. Friday 15:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.  First, quoting comments on a edit war I wasn't even involved in doesn't really seem fair.  Second, I'm sure you and Oroboros 1 are the same because you both have posted under the same IP address 68.9.37.233 (Oroboros 1 on this talk page on November 18 at 23:47 and November 19 at 01:26 and GuardianZ editing the article on November 10 /11 (edits as GuardianZ on the 10th at 05:21 and then as the IP address on the 11th at 08:15 stating “my references re-added)).  You can 'talk' to each other as much as you want, but it won't change that fact.  Third, you claim to only be adding verifiable data, but then write that Douglas built his distribution network in 2001 (conveniently after Vargo and Midnight Syndicate parted ways).  I already explained early on this page that you were quoting the article out of order to make your own point.  Fourth, you are the only people who have ever accused Ed Douglas of anything, so this whole thing is very transparent to me.  I have not hidden the name of Vargo - I have given him credit for what he did as listed in the CD booklet.  There is no spin to my version - it's about as 'just the facts' as you can get.  Finally, I would also invite people to read this talk page to see how you lie to suit your own needs and switch the topic when someone calls you on it (for an example, please see edits to this page on November 19th). - Skinny McGee 15:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We can request a checkuser to be done, an administrator checks to see if they are editing from the same IP, and if they are they would both be indefinitely banned for suckpuppetry.  I'll file a report and see what comes up.  Dionyseus 19:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm under investigation?  Where?  As for this article it is clear that both you and Oroboros_1 (probably both the same person) have been trying to push a Joseph Vargo promo.  As for Skinny I don't know him, I just agree with his view that you and Oroboros_1 have some kind of grudge against the Midnight Syndicate band and are pushing a Vargo promo.   Dionyseus 20:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleaning up and restating purpose 

message: It has been confirmed that User:Oroboros_1 and User:GuardianZ are the same person, and Oroboros_1 has been indefinitely blocked.    GuardianZ has been blocked for 3 days for sockpuppetry.     Dionyseus 23:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oroboros_1 indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry 

message: Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Skinny_McGee Just thought you should know that an investigation has been requested into SkinnyMcGee as well as a dozen or more IPs, all of which point to Chardon, Ohio. Peacekpr 11:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And a look at Defender99's edit history shows that the user only made one edit.  User:Skinny_McGee explains who Defender99 is in the talkpage:  Dionyseus 21:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suspected sock puppets of Skinny McGee 

message: This is something I posted on my own talk page. I thought it would provide some helpful guidelines for this article so I'm putting it here. The passages are quoted from Wiki policy on NPOV: Bias, Undue Weight, and Sensationalism. I think the editors need to take this into consideration:
*A bias could, for example, lead one to accept or not-accept the truth of a claim, not because of the strength of the claim itself, but because it does or does not correspond to one's own preconceived ideas. 
*Sensationalism, which is bias in favor of the exceptional over the ordinary. This includes the practice whereby exceptional news may be overemphasized, distorted or fabricated to boost commercial ratings.  
*We sometimes give an alternative formulation of the non-bias policy: assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert opinions themselves. There is a difference between facts and opinions. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute. 
*NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each.
*Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well.
*Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.
I think Oroboros tried and went overboard, but GuardianZ did present a fairly-weighted article. Problem was that McGee felt compelled to shift that weight unto Edward Douglas by inserting more claims (mostly unverified) which in appearance lessened the credentials of Joseph Vargo. Again, you are stuck on the promotional thing, but the article is not supposed to be a band promotion. It is supposed to be a factual article about a band; that includes ALL members. I think McGee has introduced a lot of sensationalism into the content, and that GuardianZ and Oroboros were trying to counter that with some of their own. I think the editors need to reduce the sensationism and stick to facts that will not be in dispute. I also intend to write up a list of facts from the material provided by all the parties. Maybe I'll quote parts of the current and past articles to show what I think is sensationalistic and what is factual and verifiable. Maybe then we can make peace. Peacekpr 07:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all it has already been proven that Oroboros_1 is GuardianZ's sockpuppet.  .  As for the "facts" you speak of, I don't think interviews conducted by Midnight Syndicate's main rivals can count as facts.  Dionyseus 07:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Furthermore, Joseph Vargo and his band Nox Arcana have been determined to be not notable enough to be included in Wikipedia.  Please see the AfD page for Joseph Vargo and Nox Arcana Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Joseph_Vargo.  Dionyseus 08:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

text: False, in the AfD it was determined that Joseph Vargo and his band Nox Arcana are not notable enough to be included in Wikipedia, and only then was the discussion on that AfD blanked due to a request.  The discussion you linked to is the talk page of User:Blooferlady who has admitted to be Christine Filipak, Joseph Vargo's partner, webmaster, and business manager.   Despite your claim to the contrary, there's nothing in her discussion page in which it is determined that Joseph Vargo is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia.  Dionyseus 01:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

text: My point is that you continue to state falsehoods.  You earlier accused me of making a false report of sockpuppet, I have proven your claim to be false.   .  You then made the claim that I quickly rushed to report Oroboros_1's IP after GuardianZ was blocked, this is of course obviously false as the only reason they were both blocked was due to the report of sockpuppetry I posted an hour before the blocks.  Now you claim that in User:Blooferlady's talkpage it is determined that Joseph Vargo is notable, yet again you make a completely baseless and false claim and then try to get out of it by asking what it has to do with the Midnight Syndicate article.  Dionyseus 02:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry you don't approve of my archiving skills - I just followed the instructions.  I didn't want to archive anything, but as the page was ridiculously long I didn't think I had a choice.  I left the whole discussion of the different versions and the request for comment.  I did link to the archive at the top of the page, so anyone can go and look at it.  If I "hid a link back" as you indicate, I'll fix it if I'm able, but I don't know what you're talking about.  As I said before, I just followed the instructions.  I called it inactive because that's what I was told to do (and it was inactive - we weren't discussing those sections anymore).  Nothing deceptive about it. - Skinny McGee 22:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know how to archive, but I agree with SkinnyMcGee that User:Peacekpr is taking things out of context here.  If SkinnyMcgee was really trying to hide the previous discussions, he would not have included a link at the top of the page to the archive.  Dionyseus 23:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd like to point out that despite Peacekpr's claim that I enjoy causing strife, I've only been involved in two unofficial mediation cases in attempt to resolve content disputes, and in the arbitration case I was cleared of all charges and the filer, User:Danielpi, was blocked for a week by the arbitrators for discourtesy and personal attacks.    Dionyseus 05:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias, Undue Weight & Sensationalism