Talk:The Blood

message: the reason i became a punk is an objective record ... and a paradigm that should be visible ... not hidden by fools ...
when encyclopedia-fools simply-desribe the impact of marx's communist manifesto as the reason for tragic ethnic cleansing in russia, and eastern europe, and do not too make a powerful observation on the development of humankind's thrust for modern futurity ... 
or encyclopedia-fools describe nietzschean works as the fundamental ideolgy behind nazi genocide and not an aesthetic ridicule of one dimensional thought ...
then knowledge is in the hands of mediocre-morons who have no passion no will power and no vision ... knowledge is the hands of those who are safely tucked away in the bedlam of their doldrumatic life ...
:The world of imperfection at its greatest. Anyhow this is wikipedia where everyone has the right to edit whatever subject they choose. Theres no qualification to edit everyones opinions are equally ignored as we only accept information from reliable sources. When an individual has more than the customary passing interest but a distinct tie to the subject it becomes hard to let go of the words. Please refrain from further personal attacks whether specific or generic.
:In your case Cardinal as a member(founder) of the band you have a conflict of interest, which you need to realise will make other editors scrutinise your edits with a degree caution, when they consider WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:V or even WP:NOT. When you add to the article things like your quote about seeing The Who in concert and its inspiration to you, this needs to be sourced from a third party like "Rollingstone Magazine", "Sun newspapers", or some other publication before it can be included.  Some of this information your better placing on your own webpage and let  third party editors find and add to the article. or just drop a note here and ask for another editor to include. That said you can also create your own account and user page where such quotes are acceptiable. Gnangarra 13:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Cardinal's Response

message: Since starting this Wikipedia entry last year (2005) I am proud to say we now have contributions from 
lead singer of the band, the Cardinal, who was able to clarify and submit additional
points as a source of info. Many thanks. 
It is a shame, however, to see the Blood article suffering (like so many others)
from wanton vandalism by editors, some even claiming to be moderators.
Like 'Spylab' for instance, who doesnt actually seem to know anything at all about
this band. How people can waste all thier time just trying to deface wikipedia
is beyone me. I have no choice but to apply for protection for the page.Saintgeorge
*Please do not make false accusations of vandalism. I have kept all information (and even searched out information to add) that is factual and actually about the band. The content that I deleted had absolutely nothing to do with the band. It was uncited opinion that violated the Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view guidelines. Wikipedia articles are not for band members (or anyone for that matter) to treat as a personal blog to express their philosophical beliefs about various subjects. Spylab 13:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Blood - Wikipedia Entry

message: I made these recent edits: deleted content that was blatantly opinionated, improved the writing style, added relevant links, and deleted a list of uncited quotes. There is no precedent for having a long list of quotes by and about a band. The list that was in this article offered no context or reason why they are relevant, and some of the quotes appeared to be song lyrics, not quotes from articles or books.Spylab 14:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cardinal - you might want to read WP:BLP.  I realize this isn't actually a biography page, but it is inappropriate in general to edit pages on yourself.  It's not a problem if you are just correcting errors, but it is a problem if you are adding significant amounts of content, as you appear to have done here.  We can agree that true "objectivity" is impossible, but nevertheless, significant subjectivity problems are unavoidable when people edit entries about themselves.  We would not want the Donald Rumsfeld or Tony Blair pages to be made up mostly of edits by those subjects.  Wikipedia is not the place to advertise your band, to write your autobiography, or to tell the complete story of what you think makes this band important.  It is an encyclopedia; what is appropriate here is the addition of documented material from reliable sources.--csloat 00:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I think you're right that there's an abstract discussion to be had about the question of "neutrality," but in terms of Wikipedia standards and policies, that debate is not relevant.  The policy here regarding neutrality is spelled out at WP:NPOV and it ought to be clear.  Neutrality does not mean that positions cannot be represented - but it does mean that they should be represented fairly as the positions of particular individuals or groups rather than as the opinions of wikipedia.  I don't think you're going to be able to make a strong case to change that approach here, even though many encyclopedias, including the indispensible Encyclopédie, do not adhere to such an approach.  The revolutionary thing about Wikipedia is its free content license, however; if you have a particular project in mind that is influenced by Wikipedia, you are free to pursue that project on your own utilizing Wikipedia content within the terms of the license.--csloat 20:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You know, I think you might all get a leg up if someone in the media, writing about Wikipedia (or the Blood), wrote about this. Recursive, I know, but then you might be able to include the abstract of this very discussion on the Blood's page, because it would be from a secondary/journalistic source. Given the contents would be included in the article, we could, for example, write on what the Cardinal has been arguing about, and document it as a matter of fact and note its significance. That is, if the article included the contents of the discussion. I think it would be very interesting. Food for thought. -Bordello (66.91.56.142 22:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: My recent edits

message: can someone explain to me why someone keeps putting the seifeld episode at the top of the blood article ... it does not seem very professional ... i really dont understand ... -unsigned by The Cardinal
*Because that is Wikipedia policy. Whenever ther are articles with similar titles, there has to be See Also links to the other articles or disambiguation pages. Also, please use your Wikipedia account and sign your comments. Spylab 13:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: not very professional

message: Please read these policies conflict of interest, wikipedia is not, and no original research. I have removed the unsourced infomation and quote. The reason for this is that wikipedia is not a crystal ball, the quote was removed as its original reasearch.  I inivite you to create an account but please be aware of Wikipedia policies. All content must be from a verifiable source. Gnangarra 01:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  An invitation to the annon IP 

message: i think we are/were a punk band who had one trak on an oi compilation album which does no define us as an oi band ... i would like to change this ... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The cardinal of the blood (talk • contribs) 12:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: re opening titile punl/oi

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on The Blood. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080731120915/http://www.garry-bushell.co.uk/oi/index.asp to http://www.garry-bushell.co.uk/oi/index.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110606125710/http://www.cherryred.co.uk/books/indiehits/b.htm to http://www.cherryred.co.uk/books/indiehits/b.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080731120915/http://www.garry-bushell.co.uk/oi/index.asp to http://www.garry-bushell.co.uk/oi/index.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:25, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified