Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:34, 26 October 2006

Changes and a vote for section removal

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 Misplaced Pages:Vanity_guidelines and Misplaced Pages:Autobiography. It contains vanity and PR about future project plans, but nothing encyclopedic. GuardianZ 03:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion

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)

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)

Well, the reverted version is more factual in terms of formation. A lot of bands have AMG status. All a band has to do is send AMG a cd. The AMG listing means nothing. It's no different than a cd baby listing. Notoriety has nothing to do with the fact that the other post announcing plans for events was being used as self-promotion. Besides, this band is not that notable. You should have waited the 5 days. But if this band keeps up with the blatant self-promo, it should be AFD (again). I think they have had enough chances already. GuardianZ 06:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, Misplaced Pages:No original research and Misplaced Pages: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)

Prod removed twice prior to voting

Well, the Prod tag was removed again within a 24hour period, with no discussion observed. I am making one last attempt to re-edit this to adhere to Wiki guidelnes. If the band's sales manager continues to post their self-promotion and autobiography here, I will seek the assistance of a senior editor. Any editors reading this, my research is noted in the section on Further Research. The External Links are provided by the band.GuardianZ 09:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

This is not eligible for the prod tag: 1) Prod had previously been removed; 2) as article previously survived Afd, use of the prod tag is not allowed. You should note that the removal of a prod tag does not require any discussion or explanation.

I have looked at the material you just added to the article, and frankly it is just as promotional as the material you are complaining about. I also do not understand why you removed the reference I added or changed the subheadings. As you are new here, please try to learn about procedure. -- JJay 13:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Possible Vandalism

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)

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)

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)

JJay, This seems to be escalating. Midnight Syndicate reverted back again to the older self-promo (isn't that more than 2 or 3 today?). At least they admit it. I'm not touching it again today. Ed Douglas cites competition with the producer of Born of the Night as the reason for why he doesn't want a complete history of the band listed. (I might note that Midnight Syndicate just announced on their website that the Born of the Night and Realm of Shadows albums are now "out of print" due to a "third party"). Douglas does seem to like that press release and awful lot, though, as he keeps dumping all the other references. I think this just proves that this is just a vanity article after all and a major bit of revisionist history. Note the added links to movie pages, for movies not even made yet. Why did he even remove the other films? Seems to me that Douglas is just whining about his former band mate and trying to claim he didn't do anything, while promoting his other projects. See the other discussion and my reply.

This should be reverted obviously, as it reads at this moment it's not only self-promotional but leaves out a huge chunk of the band's history. History is history, fact is fact, this revisionist version of it is not truthful. Where'd all the history go? 1998 to 2005 and nothing in between? Maybe if that's the case, it should be deleted as per the minimum band-listing requirements. Pan

Creative director?

I'm able to find plenty of sources for Vargo as executive producer, but what about "creative director"? That seems like an unusual role to even exist in a band. Can anyone provide sources for this? Friday (talk) 23:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

That's how Vargo was listed on the official band bio page from 1998 and 1999, circulated with review copies of the cds, of which I still own. Do you need to see a copy? I can't upload to wiki but I could attempt to email a copy. It's rather beaten up but legible. Here's what it states... GuardianZ 00:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

JOSEPH VARGO (CREATIVE DIRECTOR / ARTIST / VOICES)

As creative director, Joseph conceptualized Born of the Night to reflect the dark and gothic mood of his artwork. He designed and created original artwork specifically for the CD and also performed narrations on several tracks. His haunting images of fantasy, science fiction, and horror have appeared in several publications including Spectrum III, Carpe Noctem, and Dark Visions. Joseph's lithographs and printwear are distributed internationally through his company Monolith Graphics.

Nothing on the bio says producer (not for Douglas or Goszka either), but Vargo is credited as executive producer on the cd booklet itself. Then it says "All music produced by Midnight Syndicate" and the band photo shows all 3 members with their names below the photo. I assume that the title of Creative Director would be an all encompassing title, and seems to include more than just art and voices, since those credits are listed separately. I believe this is appropriate even if it is unusual. After all the musical concept is pretty unusual, as it involves a kind of illustrated story. Why do you think the other band member has an issue with this?GuardianZ 00:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

It's a truly long story. There's about 4 or so sides of this story out there. I know one, I'm getting the other when I interview Midnight Syndicate soon and give them a forum to speak. Pan 14:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Bizarre. I guess all we can do is present as many sides of the story as we can find reputable sources for. Friday (talk) 15:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Cleaning up more self-promo stuff and more revisionist history

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)

Excellent editing GZ. Pan 21:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Cleaning up more self-promo

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)

More Vandalism

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)

Further Research

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) (previously forgot to sign)

Disputing NPOV (New Issue OCT 2006)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Revertng vandalism (again). This time by Indigo1032 and have posted a notice on their talk page. Oroboros 1 01:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with listing links that are true references. I just don't think that links like the letters posted on a site run by a Midnight Syndicate competitor is really verifiable reference. Maybe if they were actually posted by Wizards of the Coast. It is obvious there are some different opinions about this band. I have listed what I find to be the most honest & reliable. Plooa

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)

Plooa and all the other unsigned vandals, You are only proving the earlier accusations of this band and it's friends attempting to change history. Wiki is not a place for opinions (as you stated) but an Encyclopedia as it were, with valid references on any given subject. If you could please show something more in line with your "opinion" as to the actual formation of this band, dates, places, credited members (and NOT just what the current line-up wants to tell the press) then I would be happy to give you the floor. So far, all you have done is reiterate what is plainly and clearly disputed by documentation, photos, letters and even an audio segment (all of which you keep removing, in addition to certain film credits) that what the current band members are currently propagating are not the facts, nor are they the entire facts. Nothing you have presented, not even a front page promotional blurb on a haunted house backs up your arguement. This article is about a band, past and present. It is not about promoting the band. It is about history, plain and simple. If some of that history is undesirable by a band member, but it is fact and made public, then it is warranted. Oroboros 1 23:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's begin anew with a clean slate. All disputed sections have been removed. If the band can refrain from posting their own biography, and if verifiable sources (by a reliable and unbiased third party) can be found (*NOT interviews, which in this particular case, are NOT verifiable due to the fact that it is information provided by the band itself for promotional purposes) then perhaps a good and informative article will eventually come of this. For now, the ONLY encyclopedic and verifiable information that this article contains is the band discography and the summary. If, on the other hand, the band continues to post information that is unverifiable, I recommend removing the article for once and for all. This has been a truly enlightening experience. Oroboros 1 00:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

I have looked at the article and I don't see what the problem is. I agree with the removal of the tags, they appeared to me to be disruptive and unnecessary. Also, please refrain from calling editors "vandals," you should comment on their edits rather than resorting to namecalling, and calling actions "vandalism" unless it is obvious, in this case I don't see any vandalism going on. Dionyseus 22:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

Semi-protection

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)

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 Misplaced Pages, for example in his first edit he placed a POV-Check tag to the article. Five days later he posted a report at Misplaced Pages:Abuse Reports. A day later he posted a request to have the page protected. Four days later he posted a report at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Media, art and literature. The same day he posted a report at Misplaced Pages: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)

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)

New proposal for edits to semi-protected page.

I have created a proposed article... You'll note I created one then reverted back to current. Please see this version for my proposed edits. Now I know the band does not like the links to "References for Formation and Development" and I do not propose they be left there, maybe the Radio Interview can go into "Online Interviews". Those links are for anyone wishing to compare the changes in Formation to those of the previous articles that the band assumably kept reverting to. However, I believe the Formation section I edited is a more historically accurate account of things. I also changed the other "References" to "Print References / Press Coverage" as all of this is indeed in the context of a personal Interview and not a researched article, and I have listed them in chronological order (previously they were mixed and sorted out of order). Ditto with the albums and the film credits (films also reduced to a list which is less of an advertisement than the press release type of verbage that was posted before). Ditto for the "External Links" that previously all linked to Interviews; I labeled them "Online Interviews". They cannot be entirely counted upon as verifiable given that the sources are the band itself, and yet they are not websites expressly about the band (they cover many topics), so they might deserve thier own category. Frankly, it might be consider too promtional, but since I did not put them there to begin with, I did not remove them. Well, that's my 2 cents. Oroboros 1 10:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)