Talk:Nash the Slash

message: This RFC pertains to the ongoing dispute (see article history) about whether the article should or should not give the artist's real name. 
The user who introduced the current uncertainty did so only after being advised that the "Jeff Plewman" name could only be removed if it were factually wrong (and after this RfC was launched); prior to that, his own edits and e-mails on the subject clearly stated that the name was correct but Wikipedia's use of it was a personal inconvenience for Nash. 
The following question has been posted to Wikipedia:Requests for comment: Does the subject of an article (or the president of his fan club) have the right to insist that Wikipedia cannot give his real name, if his real name is already publicly available on other websites? Nobody's claiming that the information is wrong; the claim is that the artist doesn't want it publicized (even though it already has been elsewhere). 
My points are as follows:
# The information is already out there, and nobody disputed its accuracy until after I made clear that Wikipedia would only remove it on factual grounds. Previously, the user's own words communicated the exact opposite position of what he chooses to communicate now. 
# The subject of a Wikipedia article does not have the right to dictate what Wikipedia can or cannot write about him unless the information is objectively false.
Comments? Bearcat 17:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: RFC summary

message: Does Nash the Slash make a cameo appearance in the music video for Robert Plant's song Burning Down One Side (from Plant's debut solo record Pictures at Eleven)?
71.168.140.243 (talk) 18:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Robert Plant music video cameo?

message: Nice addition to the article; thanks to Tabercil for contributing it. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 21:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the compliment. I'd taken one at an earlier concert (which can be seen here) but chose not to upload it as it's not too flattering. I also took a bunch of photos of him before that concert without his bandages but I won't be putting them up... at least not while Nash is still alive.  Tabercil (talk) 00:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo 

message: That photo alone gives me the utter creeps, even if he has a million of them, and perusing Flickr, that's true. Brrrr. Just a comment, not trying to make any changes, I'm just gonna avoid this article. --leahtwosaints (talk) 06:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Realizing this is against WP policy 

message: I couldn't find a source that said he was signed by Virgin.  What is the source that says so? Dlabtot (talk) 04:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: His album "Children of the Night" was released in Canada on Virgin, and in England on Dindisc.  Prior to the album's release Nash discussed his new contract with Virgin in a radio interview (which I have on tape), where he praised Virgin for signing up several Canadian artists to release their records in England and Canada (Martha and the Muffins being another).  Dindisc wasn't mentioned at that point, and I wonder if Nash realized the UK releases were going to come out on Dindisc instead of Virgin!  The Canadian label actually lists 3 names: Virgin, Dindisc and Cut-throat, but Dindisc did not really exist as a company in Canada, it was just part of Virgin, and used Virgin's catalogue numbering (unlike in the UK where they were separate). --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I didn't ask for an argument, I asked for a source. I'll ask again: Do you have a reliable, published source that states that he was signed by Virgin? If not, the assertion that he was must be removed from this article, as per WP:V. Dlabtot (talk) 16:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

text:  Just so you understand, I'm not disputing that fact that the DinDisc label was distributed by Virgin.  In other words, an artist who had a contract with DinDisc, would have their records distributed by Virgin.  That's not the same thing as having a contract with Virgin. Dlabtot (talk) 17:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well since he was signed by the Canadian arm of the combined company (whether it says "Dindisc" or "VIrgin" on the contract is something only the people involved would be able to verify), and since he said "Virgin" in interviews in 1980, I'm thinking the contract was with Virgin Canada.  You are right that the infobox instructions say "label" refers to the company the artist was contracted with, rather than the name on the record label itself, and that makes sense because companies often license rights to other companies, and the latter are not really the artist's label.  So since there is a dispute over this, I'll agree to its being omitted from the infobox.  Now I see you have also removed mention of the actual names that appeared on the label from the body of the article, and I'm mystified about that, because it has nothing to do with contracts.  Can we have that bit restored, since it's a matter of record? (ha ha, sorry) --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

text: That's not the way I read the website note, but I believe the details have been removed, so I don't think we can reference it in the article.  From what I recall, Nash did not say Virgin still owned the album (and probably never owned it exclusively, since the Cut-Throat logo's appearance suggests Cut-Throat co-owned it, and that label is still active, and presumably owned entirely by Nash), but rather, that other companies that had nothing to do with the labels involved (not only the three that appear on the label, but also distributor Polygram, AND still more companies which bought out those companies over the years)* claimed to have inherited the rights through cross-company acquisitions, and some went as far as to claim 100% ownership, which Nash regarded as bogus.  I never saw him claim his edition is a "pirate", but did state he was unable to resolve the co-ownership disputes, and after concluding it was impossible to do so, issued his own edition, leaving to the other companies (rather than him) to issue legal challenges, if they felt so inclined (which presumably never happened)*.  If anyone thinks they can find citations to put this in the article, it would be welcome, but we need to get the facts right because of the legal implications, and I don't know if that can be done, or if Nash's own version of the story (being the view from one side)* could be considered reliable. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 22:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

text: * these bits expanded --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 07:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Virgin Records

message: This should be listed in the works section, as I remember seeing it on Nash's site and wishing to buy it myself. Couldn't afford it and it was a limited run item, thus no current listing for it on his site. And I've checked the Wayback Machine - it looks like their most recent page is late 2007. Tabercil (talk) 12:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If it were ever avaliable, it should be available now.  Maybe it was a planned forthcoming release?  Or a "wish list" item on a fansite?  I would like to see such a release, but there would be a lot of copyright work involved, and if it had happened, it would surely have been a big event, and would not have disappeareared in under a year. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 16:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This was issued last year and was a limited edition of 100. Poppet34 (talk) 20:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There is now a section for vidoes in the Cut-throat Records article.  If anyone has full information about this release (films included / label / cat # would be nice, but not mandatory), please feel free to update. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 07:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Not-So-Silent Film Collection (2008) 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant 
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Nash the Slash in concert.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: FTA, I read "Images of Nash the Slash are featured in a variety of murals painted by artist Jungle Ling in Toronto. These images are located in the Leslieville district, next to a TD Bank at Queen St. East and Logan Avenue".   I went looking in google street view, but did not find the mural anywhere (i.e., it's gone).  Somebody please update any mural locations; I'd love to see them if they're still there. 24.78.190.118 (talk) 02:29, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are the mural locations still accurate?