| Revision as of 07:47, 24 November 2006 editPeacekpr (talk | contribs)78 edits Bias, Undue Weight & Sensationalism← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 22:13, 16 February 2024 edit undoSkinny McGee (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,608 editsm broken anchor fixed | ||
| (163 intermediate revisions by 25 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|blp=yes|listas=Midnight Syndicate| | |||
| {| class="messagebox standard-talk" | |||
| {{WikiProject Biography | |||
| |- | |||
| |musician-priority=Low | |||
| |musician-work-group=yes | |||
| }} | |||
| {{WikiProject United States|importance=Low|OH=yes|OH-importance=}} | |||
| }} | |||
| ==Untitled== | |||
| | style="text-align: center" | | |||
| '''Discussion Archives: ] ... ] ... ] ... ] ... ]... | |||
| This article was nominated for ''''']''''' on date of nomination05. | |||
| ''']''' | |||
| The result of the discussion was keep. <!-- please do not add bolding to keep here: this breaks many places where it is already specified --> | |||
| An archived record of this discussion can be found ]. | |||
| |} | |||
| ==Suggested changes== | |||
| *] - This page was extremely long, so the older parts of the discussion have been archived. Please visit the archive for more information on this ongoing debate. | |||
| I am barred from editing this article due to an unfortunate decision by the Arbitration Committee. However, I am welcome to make suggestions on the talk page, so here I go – | |||
| == RFC == | |||
| * ] suggested that the band’s logo would be more appropriate in the infobox and the image currently there could be moved into the body of the article as it’s indicative of the image the band has created for itself. I’ve uploaded the logo if anyone would like to replace the image in the infobox. Moving the band photo to the body will be somewhat more difficult. To quote J Milburn, someone needs to “write a sourced section (just a couple of lines, and it needn't have its own heading) about the imagery, and stick this image inline next to it.” | |||
| Request for comment: editors, please summarize the dispute for visitors. ''']''' 03:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * An editor recently deleted the image of “The 13th Hour” CD cover from the discography section. Since no explanation was given for this in the edit description, I can only assume it was inadvertent. If someone could put it back in, that would be great. Here is the way the image was in the article before - Image:13th_hour_cd_cover.jpg|thumb|right|''The 13th Hour'' album cover | |||
| I would greatly appreciate it if someone could help me out with this. Thanks! - ] 18:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| === Version 1 (stresses current membership) === | |||
| :I don't do much with images myself, but to help move this forward, with regard to your first point, why don't you post here a draft of "the sourced section about the image" for neutral editors to review. With regard to your second point, leave a message on the talkpage of the person who made the edit you think was inadvertent. Unless they give a reason that things should stay as they are now, we'll make the change. How's that? ] 18:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| '''Opening discussion for .''' | |||
| ::Thanks for getting back to me so quickly. As far as incorporating the current infobox image into the body of the article, I'll try to put something together for others to review. Also, I posted a message on ] talk page as you suggested to find out why the album cover was deleted from the discography section. - ] 19:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::One possible solution is if you created a draft version in your user space and then linked to it from here to request comment and input. Just to be sure the gesture doesn't get misconstrued, be sure to add a template disclaimer to state that your draft version is not an actual Misplaced Pages article. Best wishes. ]<sup>'']''</sup> 15:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| A reply to this is on my talk page but here's a copy... Per the music guidelines, the CD cover belongs on the album's page, not the band page. I noticed another editor previously removed the other albums you had there, and that last one was probably just an oversight as it was further down the page. I am looking into templates to do some album pages when I have a few moments. ] 19:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I have neither the time nor the resources to get into it with ], so I will be brief. This article was subject to another editing battle back in February and March of this year. After going back and forth with several versions, the editors (including ]) seemed to arrive at a mutually agreeable version of events. This current problem began when IP address ] started trying to list a link to a defamatory site as a valid reference for this article. I am just trying to retain the article in the form that was previously agreed upon. | |||
| :Per ] ''"'''Significance'''. Non-free content contributes significantly to an article (e.g., it identifies the subject of an article, or '''illustrates specific, relevant points or sections in the text''')"'' As a result, the album cover in the discography section is OK here. ] 19:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I invite you to review the comments on this discussion page. As I have stated before, I believe ] is the same individual who posts as ], ], and IP address ] and that she has an agenda to promote Joseph Vargo and minimize Midnight Syndicate. Who knows, it might be Joseph Vargo himself. He does not have a Misplaced Pages article of his own, so he may be trying to use the Midnight Syndicate article to promote himself. ] 15:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Um. Or at least it ''would'' be OK if this section had something in it more than just the title of the album. ] 19:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I believe there's a specific policy about non-free album covers, though, that says that they should only be used to illustrate the article about the specific album rather than the group as a whole. If anyone is in doubt I can try to find a link. ] 19:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I was under the impression from what RKLawton said that if, in addition to my other assignment, I worked on brief descriptions of the albums to be included in the article then we could add the album covers. However, you don't seem to share that view, Newyorkbrad, so perhaps it would be helpful if you could find that link. Thanks, ] 20:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I have placed the logo in the infobox- I wasn't sure whether to put it in the place of the bands title, as is the case with stylised notation of the band name, or whether to place it in as an image. I stuck it in as an image, but feel free to change that if you do not agree. As for the matter of album covers- sticking the cover of every album they have ever done into a table or alongside a list would not be acceptable, but album covers for albums discussed in the text (especially if the cover itself is mentioned) would be fine, so long as a decent fair use rationale was placed on the image page. Take a look at our featured articles- ], for instance, contains a couple of album covers for the more significant albums, which are discussed in the text, and some to show the controversy surrounding the particular covers. On the other hand, something like to ], for instance, would be unacceptable. ] 12:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''Con:''' I don't believe this is an agreed upon issue. It never was. ] cleaned up the article in February 2006 and actually included Vargo's credits. MarcusPan wrote: "after teaming up with Monolith Graphics Joseph Vargo which included the highly acclaimed ''Born of the Night'' and ''Realm of Shadows''. This made Midnight Syndicate the standard for the Halloween and Haunted Attraction industries." Thereafter ] and ] and ] removed those credits and began adding promotional text. New users have also posted. has removed spam posted by user ] and ]. ] and ] both removed rants by ] and ] that were made against Vargo. ] then posted a comment to ] admitting he was Edward Douglas and requested the credits to Vargo be removed altogether. His comments were stricken. And ] just today changed the heading for this discussion section from "'Stresses current membership and upcoming projects"' placed there by ] to "previously agreed upon." ] is obviously trying to slant this vote. Warning: LEAVE the headings as NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW! for a real discussion to take place. Also, Vargo's credits in no way minimize those of the rest of the group. You are completely wrong on that account. No one here is from his company. And ] has been inactive for over a year, after removing an article on Vargo, so he obviously does not want a Wiki page. Finally, I removed the link to that site you, ], call defamatory. But it does present some VERY good research and all of it can be verified by other sources, which I included in my article. ] 17:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == album titles (album) format == | |||
| :Dear SkinnyMcGee, please look at questions below. I am really questioning the 1994 reference on the Retrospective cd. What songs were released in 1994? The first MS album was released in 1997. I also added more specifics. Maybe you will be happy that they are more specific so as not to take away or minimize anything that you previously had concerns with. ] 08:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I noticed on other band pages that the wiki links for album titles are pipelined with the word ''album'' in perens after the title... title of album (album)|title... like so. I was thinking that this should be the format used here as well. It's only used on one or two albums so far. ] 04:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| === Version 2 (stresses band history) === | |||
| == Arbitration motion regarding ] == | |||
| '''Opening discussion for ''' | |||
| Per a <span class="plainlinks"></span> at ]: | |||
| :'''Actual history vs. slanted and misleading version:''' It is referenced that Douglas and Vargo joined up first in 1997, then Gavin came on board several months later, ''after'' work had already begun on ''Born of the Night.'' It is very notable that Vargo (a famous gothic artist and exec producer of ''Born of the Night'') was the main influence for the change in Midnight Syndicate's focus from a 7-person eclectic musical project to an exclusively Halloween horror-themed band. | |||
| <blockquote>The remedies (1 and 2) ordered by this Committee in ] are suspended for a period of 90 days. During this period, the editors who were previously restricted by these remedies may edit without topic restriction. However, they are instructed to comply with all applicable Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines in their editing, particularly those discussed in the original arbitration decision. Each of these editors is also instructed to edit these articles from only a single account. | |||
| ::References: Plain Dealer article 1998, Ohio Online interview 1998, . , Paragon magazine interview 2003, writing credits and band photo showing Vargo on ''Born of the Night'' and writing credits on ''Realm of Shadows'' copyrighted works by Vargo including ''Born of the Night'' as published works from 1992 to present. | |||
| During the 90-day trial period, should any of the previously restricted editors engage in edit-warring, POV editing, or other misconduct on the articles in question, any uninvolved administrator may reinstate the topic ban against that editor or impose another appropriate sanction. Unless the misconduct is blatant, a warning to the editor should first be given. | |||
| :In '''''' of the article I have attempted to write an accurate history including the previously omitted and very notable contributions by Vargo. Likewise, I think it is important that the fact that Vargo left the line up in 2000/2001 should be mentioned so as not to confuse anyone into thinking he is still an active member, yet that keeps being removed as well. It is in NO way disparaging to any current band member, and yet ] even has issue with that! | |||
| As the end of the 90-day period approaches, a request for permanent termination or modification of the remedies may be submitted for consideration by this Committee.</blockquote> | |||
| :It is only around 2003 (when Vargo created another band Nox Arcana) that Midnight Syndicate began to alter their own history in order to discredit Vargo and reduce his role to something like merely a cover artist. This matter of history-rewriting seems to have escalated through 2005 with the release of MS's ''13th Hour'' cd which has a storyline that seems to be a very similar copy of the earlier ''Darklore Manor'' cd by Vargo/Nox Arcana in 2003. This is evident not only in the text but in the imagery. | |||
| ::References: albums and band sites, or and any MS interview post-2003. | |||
| ''On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ] <sup>]</sup> 18:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)''' | |||
| :Midnight Syndicate is obviously not happy about the , but the fact is that it remains. It is pretty obvious that Vargo or his supporters felt the need to create that site in order to defend him in some way from a stream of false PR by the current members of the group, and possibly to stake claim to creative works that MS might be infringing on. That seems to be the focus of the website. | |||
| ]''' | |||
| :In the past and in multiple reverted versions (presumably written by the band) every single edit is the same... They attempt to confuse the reader with statements that make it appear as though Vargo had a minimal role (or none at all), they have consistently reverted with no helpful edits, and promote ONLY what they want to promote. Other cases of such include... | |||
| == External links modified == | |||
| :'''music genres:''' The musical genres are constantly being reverted to genres that do not exist (and did not exist in 1997). What is horrorbilly? It does not exist. ] is a music genre. Also the same for humor-pop vs ]. Indeed the description of "dark" instrumental does not describe the music on the first self-titled album (I assume that only Edward Douglas describes it as such, in an attempt to relate it to the decidedly different focus he and Vargo took in 1998). The 1997 album was described as: ''"With everything from rockabilly to pop, ''Midnight Syndicate'' is all over the map---most of the vocals are so hokey, they’re laughable. But with ''Born of the Night'', they concentrated on exploring a Gothic theme---specifically, a haunted castle."'' (Scene Magazine, October 14, 1999) | |||
| Hello fellow Wikipedians, | |||
| :'''published film credits:''' and were added to the list of films, yet Skinny and others keep removing them. They are happy to leave film credits for films ''not-yet-made,'' and plenty of other publishing credits for games, ect, yet not these two films. Why is that? Is it not something they wish to ''promote'' like their other allliances? | |||
| I have just modified 4 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes: | |||
| :'''Chronology and Encyclopedic list of sources vs. Promotional ordering:''' SkinnyMcGee and others also continue to rearrange a chronology of press clippings and interviews in such a way as to present the most flattering press coverage first, instead of simply listing the sources in an ''ENCYCLOPEDIC and chronological order such that it relates to the items in the article.'' This continued preference for posting thier press coverage (especially with no edits made to the page to warrant a new resource) just reeks of self-promotion! | |||
| *Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927050002/http://www.midnightsyndicate.com/paragonintvwms1006.htm to http://www.midnightsyndicate.com/paragonintvwms1006.htm | |||
| ::See User contribs for: SkinnyMcGee, Indigo1032, Pumpkinhead5, Plooa, Star 525, Midsyndicate, Lizstjames, and about a half-dozen unsigned IPs that point to Chardon, OH servers. | |||
| *Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.midnightsyndicate.com/news.htm | |||
| *Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.originsgamefair.com/awards/2001/list-of-winners | |||
| *Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ennie-awards.com/blog/2012-nominees/ | |||
| When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. | |||
| :I believe '''''' is very well organized, fair to both the current and past members, and is much more accurate and concise than any version of this article previously attempted. The users who constantly revert this article to the promo/press release are claiming vandalism, but it is not vandalism for me to re-write this to present an accurate history in a well organized manner. I rest my case, for now. ] 09:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}} | |||
| ::User ] a new user (oddly since ] "has no time") continues to add promotions while this discussion is ongoing. I still believe the historical aspects and organization using subheads and chronology need to be accurate and have merged the two versions. ] 18:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 00:55, 11 June 2017 (UTC) | |||
| I was thinking... maybe this article should be formatted like ]. I noticed they have a middle section for past band member, who also seems to be at odds with his former mates. Discussion could move into how to best summarize the dispute between MS and Vargo, which has been mentioned in two or three interviews, so there's plenty of resources for verifiability. I also noticed that the timeline for PATD is chronologically ordered from oldest to newest in descending order. That does appear to be the norm for other entries on other band pages. | |||
| == External links modified == | |||
| :Dear SkinnyMcGee, I am willing to discuss each section of this article to come to a compromise with you. But you have not given one single inch, nor have you given any good reasons for why you have removed all of my contributions to this article. Your reverts to an incorrect, biased and misleading history will just not fly. Again, I ask you why you are so intent on discredting Vargo and yet you will credit a voice-effects person who was not even a member of the band. Why are you so intent on only promoting upcoming film credits and removing other published work? Why are you so insistent upon having one section formatted chronologically, while the other is haphazard and missing references? I have included YOUR contributions such as the most recent awards, the theme park kudos, and other promotional items, but you have made NO attempt to compromise on the edits I have made. That is NOT working toward a resolution. Also, I am a fan of both MS and Vargo's new band. I will concede that you might be a fan rather than a band member if you will stop making the same accusation of me. If you'd like, I can email you privately and we can share IDs or you can write me a letter by mail. That should alleviate your concerns. ] 15:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Hello fellow Wikipedians, | |||
| ::Hello, ]. I just wanted to let you know that I see what you've been posting here. However, I would like to hold off on making any changes in the article until we get some more feedback from outside. So far, the only person to respond, ], seems to prefer the version I keep reverting to. Based on your various edits to the article and what you have posted here, I don't think we would have any success hacking it out ourselves. Your most recent edits certainly seem aimed at discrediting/defaming the band and promoting Joseph Vargo and his defamatory site. ] 18:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I have just modified 6 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review ]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes: | |||
| Your only edits are to discredit Vargo and remove all my references, then add misleading content. Also, if you really want to "hold off" then stop making additional edits! You are the one continuing to edit my contributions and calling them reverts. If you really want to revert than do so, do not revert then add more self-promotion and call it "previously agreed upon." How about answering my other questions? This is for you and I to discuss. Don't chicken out now. I want you to justify your actions. ] 22:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090221022533/http://www.goear.com/listen.php?v=5811b41 to http://www.goear.com/listen.php?v=5811b41 | |||
| *Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110215064119/http://www.hauntedattraction.com/the-magazine/issues/haunted-attraction-magazine-issue-44-2/ to http://www.hauntedattraction.com/the-magazine/issues/haunted-attraction-magazine-issue-44-2/ | |||
| *Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050117183008/http://clevescene.com/issues/1999-10-14/music/soundbites.html to http://www.clevescene.com/issues/1999-10-14/music/soundbites.html | |||
| *Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726081247/http://www.midnightsyndicate.com/archives.htm to http://www.midnightsyndicate.com/archives.htm | |||
| *Added {{tlx|dead link}} tag to http://www.mediafire.com/view/?ph3p1r2hwan858g | |||
| *Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060810185052/http://originsgames.com/awards to http://www.originsgames.com/awards | |||
| *Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121115200615/http://www.darkerprojects.com/byronchronicles.php to http://www.darkerprojects.com/byronchronicles.php | |||
| When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. | |||
| :It was suggested to me to "take a few days off." I am glad I did. I was definitely getting pissed about this article. Now, with a clear head, I have some suggestions. First, I agree that ] stop and take a breather, and stop adding more content if you are sincere about wanting to hold this for other editors to read. In fact, you ought to revert WAY back before you added anything new if you are sincere. I think you are just instigating further additions from Oroboros that you probably don't want. ] I know you tried for a neutral article and probably just got frustrated that nothing of yours was kept and all of it was just being reverted by Skinny, but you just added more fuel to the fire too. '''Compromise...''' that means that each side gives a little. ], you are going to have to make some compromises if you are sincere, and so far I see only Oroboros making an effort to do that by accepting your content as well as his own. I suggest allowing for the organization of Formation, Focus and Continuing... all that is very neat, does not do any harm, and it makes it easier to read. It also helps to define past, middle and present time. I also have to agree with the proper crediting of Vargo. If you don't mention anything from 1998 to 2001 then the article is not complete, and he was very obviously a big influence for Edward Douglas changing from doing pop style to goth style music. I think it is also important to mention the order in which they teamed up. Considering the current dispute, it is very misleading to say that Gavin Goszka joined in 1998 and not mention that Vargo and Douglas teamed up earlier. I don't see how giving credit to him would minimize the other members, as was suggested by Skinny. They seem to have lots of awards and films and things going on so how could it minimize them? ] perhaps, if you can let go of the interviews section that seems to bother Skinny and leave the interviews as he seems to prefer them (2006 backwards to 1998), then we can all finish this. As for the section on the dispute between the band members. That is a notable bit of history isn't it? After reading the ] article and this new section, I would have to side with leave it in. But maybe trim it down a bit to something like: "After Vargo started another band in 2003 a rift occurred between the current members of Midnight Syndicate and their former producer. Each side claimed having done original work and as yet the matter is unresolved." You can footnote the references to The Perch but as a compromise to Skinny leave out the Legion website. In keeping with that, I'd also be careful about crediting any particlar member with the Wizards of the Coast thing. That does appear to be something to Vargo's credit as well, but if it is even partly in dispute here then just leave it at: "The band released an official D&D album in (whatever year)..." As for music genres, I have never heard of horrorbilly or humor pop, but if "dark" absolutely must precede "instrumental" to make Skinny happy, then just let it be, or perhaps use "somber." Who cares? But use the more concise version, not all that stuff about "like all their later releases" because frankly, I have heard that 1997 album and it is not dark and not anything like the other albums. Well, I guess that's about all I have for suggestions. So, I hope all can agree? I have a book to write, so I can't spend much more time here as I'd like. If I get a "yay" from you both in a day or two, I'd be happy to do some rough outline of how this could work. It seems no one else really cares about this article enough to comment on it. ] 02:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}} | |||
| ::Since I firmly believe that you and ] are one and the same, I don't think it would be helpful for you to put together a rough outline. You paint a pretty picture here, but given your editing history on the article I don't think you're going to be much help. - ] 15:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 07:43, 20 December 2017 (UTC) | |||
| Skinny. I hope didn't screw this up. Something happened when I clicked on the date. I got an error that the page was unavailable, then it popped up. Anyway, all I did was revert, I think. ~ | |||
| Skinny, man. I thought for sure you had more brains than that. ''Me thinkest thou doth protest too much.'' Anyway, I just have a few more suggestions. (1.) to say the MP3 thing was "huge" is a gross overstatement . Not only is it no longer verifiable (I'll just take your word), it was for what? during Halloween 2001? Is that days or like a week? It's not like they made the Billboard charts, so don't make it into more than it is. (2.) You really are getting a bit redundant (ad nauseum) saying that Douglas and Gozka wrote most of or all of the music, blah blah blah. I'm sure that's just someone's ego getting in the way. But if you feel better to go that extra mile, then you should credit everyone for their efforts, just to be fair. We want to be fair, right? Or, as it sort of just interupts the paragraph, we could do without the entire thing. We could make a list instead. But, do you think it's really neccessary? (3.) Continuing reads way to much like the band's press releases,almost word-for-word to the one that they currently have circulating. I think it's enough to just list the films. (Notice how I didn't put those other two in there, though I don't see what wrong with that). Also, since there's nothing on just when we will see these new films, I just think we need to cool it on that until they are actually in the theater. OK. I think we are close. Still needs some tweeking but we are almost there. ] 21:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Oh, sorry, one more thing. Where you said that the band was approached by Wizards of the Coast in 2001... I don't see a reference for that. But they did release a cd in 2003, so I just cleaned that up a bit. Again, I will remind you to give equal credit if giving credit at all, most especially considering the trouble that is brewing. We must keep this a fair and level playing ground if we are to avoid any more nastiness. Thanks. Really good job overall. ] 21:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| === Outside comments === | |||
| I earlier made a comment that ] may not be the user's first account, and she has reaffirmed my suspiciouns with her recent comments. I am also dismayed that ] has tried to revert the article to her version as soon as the page protection was lifted, and has once again resorted to calling other editors vandals in her edit summaries. ] 19:49, 1 November 2006(UTC) | |||
| : A p.s. for you ]. I think you need a little dose of the NPOV pill. Here you are slamming on Oroboros and me and ignoring all the damned little sock puppets poking around from the opposition's side. I think your vaccine shot for adminitis is wearing off. You might need a booster. ] 03:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I called no one a vandal. And I added content, not reverted. And Dionyseus, this is my only account, otherwise I too would come up with other names such as SkinnyMcGee, Defender99, etc. Give me a break. Also, per SkinnyMcGee, the Born of the Night and the Realms of Shadows cds were indeed marketed at Universal Studios as "official soundtracks for Halloween Horror Nights." The oher cds are played but are not given that title. Also, this article is just getting more and more elaborate. My version was concise and factual. I did not resort to such blatant promotional tactics as the others. I am simply stating what is verifiable. ] 22:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Hey Skinny... maybe you can answer this. Out of the Darkness has ONE previously unreleased track, right? Not four? The best I can make out from the titles is that the majority of songs are just remixed from the earliest 3 albums, two seem to be retitled, and onlt one is new. Also, what do you have against Vargo's influence on the ''Born of the Night'' album? It just seems to me that you are very keen on promoting the band but only insofar as it pertains to anything and everything other than Vargo (and the 2 films I added). What gives? Seriously. Why are you and Defender99 and others so resistant to my organizing the timeline? I have taken away nothing, but I did make things more concise and you cannot argue the grammar and headings, nor the full accounting of credits. I really do prefer the chronological view as it appears in other similar articles. No other band jumps back and forth through time like this one. So please, answer that. Also, you said that the credit for HHN's "official soundtracks" was wrong. Where did you get that info? I was at the park in FLA in 2000 and that was how it was being advertised. ] 01:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I reviewed the disk and the four new tracks are very clearly indicated. They are "Return of the Apparition", "Scenes from 'The Dead Matter'", "Prisoner of Time", and "Theme to 'Journey into Dementia'". - ] 15:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| "Return of the Apparition" is just a remix of "Apparition" from ''Born of the Night''. "Theme to Journey into Dementia" is a remix of "Journey into Dementia" from the 1997 album. "Scenes from The Dead Matter" isn't really a song or even a melody. As far as I can tell, "Prisoner of Time" is the only NEW song. Furthermore none of this was released prior to 1997. Where does MS get 1994 from? ] 22:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ], I thought we were getting close. I mean Skinny made some improvement, but then he sort of backtracked and made some sort of inuendo. I was just giving equal credit. Here's the thing... if we give special mention for something, and don't play fair, then it is misleading. So, to say that Douglas and Goska wrote all the music is not being fair to Vargo and others who also wrote some songs. I'm just trying to be fair. Why are you suddenly like "this isn't a vargo article." My gosh, he was mentioned ONCE and you like freaked out. I don't get you guys. At the risk of being banned I am reverting and calling the feds.] 21:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Just to clarify, I stated Douglas and Goszka wrote almost all the music. That is true. Vargo did not write any music. He is credited as a lyricist and vocalist. - ] 22:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Vargo wrote musical arrangements, per his website and Gozka's comments in two interviews. And he was the producer, so he directed everything. Where are you getting your information Skinny? I'd like to check that out. Also, you have reverted like 5 times today. ] 22:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| OK. I removed the offending sentences. Like I suggested to Skinny, it didn't work, but I was just trying to be an advocate for fair treatment. Look it over, it barely mentions Vargo. Is that OK now? ] 22:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I see that we can't yet compromise. Let's try again. It is redundant to say 1) that Douglas and Goszka are composers, then 2) they "write all the music except.... " It's also very disruptive to insert that right in the middle of the train of thought. I think that if you mention other songwriters' credits like Tim Blue who was never an actual band member, then it is only fair to reinsert Vargo's songwrites for co-writing the songs and for narrations, theme and storyline which he wrote alone. You mention another person who was not even a band member and yet you minimize Vargo's song writes by maximizing others. I really think we can reach a happy medium here. I really do. Just remove the sentence. You already state that D&G are composers. That says it all. Also what problem do you have with my edit "Born of the Night was the band's first critically acclaimed gothic horror soundtrack, and it provided the mold for the rest of the albums to come and indeed set the bar for other Halloween music." That's a pretty great line if I say so myself. It's true and it's rather flattering. As for you Dionyseus... this article is about Midnight Syndicate, yes, but this band has gone through many changes through it's history, and if we are to be fair, we must acknowledge that fact and give proper credit to past and present. It is important to not mislead people. I trust you will agree. ], I really think we can get this cleaned up and have a nice article ready on Monday. I'll see you tomorrow and see what you can come up with in the meantime. Please try to make some improvements before I return to show we are trying to get somewhere. OK?] 00:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Actually, I think we're making some progress and I think there's been compromise on both sides. In light of this new spirit of cooperation, I wanted to let you know I would spend some time on the article and make some changes. I'll post something on Sunday for everyone to review. - ] 01:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Skinny. Your version just reeks of promotion. You have to remove that Continuing section, or the film section. But pick ONE and tone it down. ] 22:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == A modest proposal == | |||
| A good part of the dispute here seems to focus on the role of Joseph Vargo. Based on the information I see in some versions he looks notable enough for his own Misplaced Pages page. So how about this compromise: | |||
| *Start a biography for Vargo. | |||
| *Make the Midnight Syndicate bigger and include more sections so that readers can reference both the current lineup and the group's history. | |||
| *Use line citations! | |||
| Take a look at some of Misplaced Pages's featured music articles. ], ], ], ] - that's what you should be striving for. I'm going to be blunt here, so forgive me if this offends, but neither disputed version of this article is much good. If band members really edit this page then how about uploading some album covers and audio samples? Quote published reviews instead of liner notes. If former band members (or friends of former band members) edit here, then get out the scrapbook and cite some historical stuff. Some of you probably own rare archival material such as photographs from performances and early promotional flyers. Digitize and upload! The dispute at this page makes very little sense to me - it's like squabbling over crumbs while the loaf turns to mold on the table. I don't much care whether this band was better four years ago, but I'd be more likely to read it and maybe buy some releases if it made the ] list. Heck, I'm pretty sure I've listened to a lot of Midnight Syndicate while I was gaming. Go make this article better. ''']''' 03:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I think that proposal was already made but using ] as reference. I agree that the others you mention are way better. I think it would be a fine idea for this article. Ororboros gave a very good summary of how best to organize the page and even started sections as you reference in the MM and other articles. But it would likely cause even more disruption at this point. Can you honestly see Skinny and friends not reverting the "controversial" section on an hourly basis? And to add an article on Vargo would mean we would have two entries to squabble over until this settles down. Looking back at last year it appears a Vargo article was removed because it was attacked. I think that if the band (or friends) would compromise and actually give credit for work performed--and not just to their friends--and not word things in such a way as to minimize other work or present a slanted version of history, the article could be cleaned up. Then we could look at making it great. The other option, as stated earlier is just to remove all the bloated statements (even MM doesn't have such puffy-chested boasts and his albums went Platinum). Just list the members roles (composer, engineer, producer, etc) and be done with. I would like to see the other credits listed here for film--the two horror films mentioned above are work they did and should be credited for, just as the games are credited--and they did not write scores for those games. And tone down what the band has posted for future projects. (ie: Warner-bros "based" means that SnapKick rents a stage on the WB lot, not that WB is producing or releasing). That is a marketing ploy and quite obviously misleading. On the other hand, the band actually did have cds being sold for several years in displays that said "official soundtracks for Halloween Horror Nights." Why Skinny said that wasn't true is beyond me. That fact was here for a long time. I see many instances of self-promotion that have been disallowed in other articles, yet for some reason are allowed to continue here. I would be interested to see what you, Durova, would edit in/out of this article yourself. Would you be willing to take some time and do some edits to open the door and show us how you would treat this fairly? As for photos, I don't have a clue about how to upload but I'll read about it. Would we be trampling on copyrights or need permission from the band? Thanks for taking time to suggest this.] 14:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Durova, I began a search of all related artcicles this morning after your proposal. Since you had mentioned citing reviews (something we haven't yet referenced), my first stop was Amazon. I found this link posted after reviews for the latest ''Out of the Darkness'' cd. . It seems that Wiki is not the only forum where history is being changed, and maybe Vargo has a point in his references to other press avenues being given alternate info. I just found this very curious. If we commence on this, it will have to be handled very carefully. We ought to reference both old and new press material and decide between plain fact and promotional double-speak. ] 15:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :You know, until I read this most recent post by GuardianZ, I was feeling pretty good about our progress. I have been working diligently since last night on a revised article. I have been very careful to try to come up with a version we can both agree on. Based on what you've just posted, I don't even know if that's possible. To say I'm disheartened would be an understatement. But I will forge ahead and get something up today. - ] 16:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'd have a couple of problems trying to edit here. First is that I'm an administrator and my volunteer hours are spread pretty thin. Second, with my peculiar knowledge of music I could probably contribute more to ] and ] than to this article. I can make a few comments, though. Articles don't get deleted because of vandalism - and in the rare case where that might happen the article ought to be recreated. I thought one of the main bones of contention was a disagreement over how much space this page ought to devote to someone who's no longer in the group. If that's the problem then a summary here that links to a bio article ought to solve the problem. On another matter, discussion boards aren't suitable for citation at Misplaced Pages. Per ] Misplaced Pages really can't do investigative reporting. This article might present contradictory evidence in a neutral manner, but unless some music journalist has published a study of Midnight Syndicate's history then this article can't attempt to draw conclusions. Most of all, what the editors here ought to do to make their positions robust is to use line citations. Article text that's unreferenced is much more open to challenge than article text that quotes or paraphrases a reliable source. Best wishes, ''']''' 02:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==New Look== | |||
| So, I've made some changes, but not too many. I thought we were pretty close to a starting point yesterday, so I didn't mess with the content too much. I figured we could get something to agree on and go from there. I added the box and a few CD covers to spice it up a bit. I did my best to take all recent comments into account in deciding what to keep and what to discard. - ] 16:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I should point out that this article is intentionally bland. I just want to stop all these edits. We can add more once we have a starting point. - ] 17:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| The text content is not all that different and needs work, but Wiki editing is a non-stop process. Bland is not what to strive for. Facts and good grammar, concise and accurate information is what is needed. It is still reading like a press release for the films and is missing the other film work. I think saying that Douglas and Goszka are composers is enough. That bit about writing music just comes off sounding redundant. I also wonder how you got permission for the images so quickly. Sorry bout that Amazon thing but I just found that and was like wow, so I thought it best to mention in case we cover the controversy thing like the MM articles and others. Good job on the layout though. ] 05:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Skinny. I guess I have a problem with "the standard" because it is based on what the band states prior to the Haunted Attraction article, and is not a true fact. I am sure that the article used a good deal of content from the band's own PR and that statement is not exclusive to that publication. Popular is true, but haunted attractions use music from many different groups (Dee Snyder, Iron Maiden, Ozzy, Nox Arcana, Blue Oyster Cult...) I think "standard" implies that only Midnight Syndicate music is used. I agree that the band makes it very publicized that their music is used, but it is not the only music being played. Also, my edits previously brought the 2 paragraphs relating to the ''13th Hour'' together, as the info was separated before by the other album. ] 21:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Also, I moved mention of future music in theme parks to ending paragraph that also gives kudos to tv and film use. (Read before you edit it again). It clunked up the first paragraph, and seemed just tossed in, out of chronological order. Also, the ''Born of the Night'' and ''Realm of Shadows'' cds were listed as "official soundtracks," in 1999 and 2000 so I didn't want to confuse the issue. I am thinking of adding footnotes for the paragraphs, but only if you are going to contest the statements. Frankly, I think footnoting is somewhat visually disruptive to the reading process, but if it is required, I will do so. It would also mean reorganizing the Print References into a numbered and chronological order, as ref tags are counted from top to bottom on the page. ] 23:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| OK. Footnotes it is then. I might recommend doing the same for your references, but make sure to remove the duplicate instances if you do. I would also compare the earlier quotes with the newer ones to get a good idea of what is reliable per ] ] 05:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| According to several sources, this statement is not true, and is only self-promotional in nature: "Unable to gain the support of a major record label or distributor initially..." According to many sources, Monolith Graphics was the label and financial supporter for Midnight Syndicate. There is no indication that Midnight Syndicate was ever on anyother label and certainly no indication that it stated this prior to 2003. I think that your reluctancy to credit Vargo for his work and then promote Edward Douglas for "distribution" is really lame. This site is not a promotional platform for your business. It is also not your personal platform for smearing the name of a former business partner (which you seem VERY intent on doing). The article is about a band, how they formed, their influences, line-up, and line-up changes as appropriate, what albums were successful and why, things like that. Maybe even a trivia section. It is not about your business, how you do business, what your complaints are about your former business partner, etc. I suggest you take that problem of yours elsewhere. ] 05:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I’m curious how you could possible object to that. Many, many sources indicate that Edward Douglas contacted every distributor he could think of and no one was interested. Douglas then started making cold calls and built his own distribution network. I certainly think it’s valid to include that the CDs that have become so successful in the $4.2 billion Halloween retail industry are self-distributed. I know Joseph Vargo doesn’t like to hear it, but Midnight Syndicate and Entity Productions, Inc. are highly respected in the industry. Finally, Monolith Graphics was never the label. - ] 19:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| The statement that "Edward Douglas contacted every distributor he could think of and no one was interested. Douglas then started making cold calls and built his own distribution network." is in his words and is not verifiable. It sounds like Original Research coming from you. If so, that is not allowable per Wiki guidelines. It is also stated that Monolith Graphics completely financed the band from 1998 to 2000, so they would be the label. (Read what the definition of a record label or publisher is). Also, how do you explain the Monolith logo on the cds? According to Vargo (who I believe, given the huge amount of evidence presented on his site) Monolith Graphics was indeed the label in the traditional sense (paying for production, doing promotion, etc), and that Entity was along for the ride or at best given a leg-up by Monolith and only became sucessful much later, then after Vargo left they began making false statements and misleading the industry, as has been shown on the Legion of the Night website. I have no doubt that it is continuing, and that your actions on this Wiki are part of that effort. Maybe it is Edward Douglas who does not want to admit that he had a lot of help, and was (and still is) greatly influenced by his past business partner. No matter what is going on now, however, the FACT remains that Vargo was a member of the band and that he DID do the things for which I footnoted, and they ARE relevant... It is MUCH more relevant and important in this venue as to what made a cd popular, the number of times a song was re-released, band influences and so forth—much moreso than how cds are sold or by whom they were sold. If there were no Born of the Night cds to sell this would not even be an issue. I seriously doubt anyone would even know of this band if it were not for that album. This is not a business article. It is about an entertainment group, and your business focus seems to be to deprive a former and valuable member of this group his due credit while making a boast about how great a businessman Edward Douglas is. If he is such a great businessman, then he must have put all of his energy into that and less into the music. That's what it seems to me after reading your comments (and after listening to the latest cd). ] 02:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Line Citations == | |||
| Per ] suggestion to use line citations, I have do this in support of my statements and other statements made previously in this article. For some reason they keep getting removed and the article is being reverted. I don't believe that anyone doing the reverts is actually checking the footnotes. It was brought up by ] who keeps removing the notes, that the content promotes Vargo, yet they are the same references used previously. Plus, Vargo was in th band at the time. So, why should he not be mentioned? Many items have just been footnoted to support specific statements, and most are about albums, not people, and one quotes Douglas, not Vargo. Also, the mention of album kudos such as which album "established MS's sound" does not mention Vargo. It simply states what Douglas had stated earlier. I don't know why Skinny has a problem with this. Frankly, I don't know why he has a problem with the previous statement that all the songs on the 2nd and 3rd albums take their names from Vargo paintings. That's an interesting bit of fact that has been stated in several earlier interviews. Goszka states that he used Vargo's artwork as reference when writing some of the music. That information does not harm this article, it does not detract from any of the work that Douglas and Goszka have done, and it's interesting and shows what influence that member had on the rest of the group. I think Skinny is just really biased against Vargo. I have tried to also footnote newer items (such as Skinny's claim that Douglas started his oun "distribution network in 1999" but can find no reliable sources... most are contradicted by older sources, and that one in particular is very highly contested by Vargo's website and also doesn't jive with the other company credits on the Born of the Night cd packaging. As for the rundown of re-released music on the ''Out of the Darkness'' cd, I had a hell of a time figuring that out. I think it's very important to make it clear that there is only one track from 1994 (though it is listed in the copyrights as 1996). I am assuming that it was written in 1994 otherwise why would the band put 1994 in the title. In any case, it's really interesting how many times other songs were re-released. Some appear 3 or 4 times depending on the release format. One other bit of info bugs me, but I left it for now... the first paragraph states that Douglas founded MS in 1996, but in all of the other sources, it states 1997. One source states 1991 as a time when Douglas met the guys in the first line-up, but that is contradicted later by several other sources. I suppose one could argue that he "founded" something a year earlier than when they became active as a musical group. Anyway, it's a bit questionable. Skinny, I really do suggest you back up your statements with footnotes. I'm not crazy about it, but I think this article needs it. Like, I said though, you need to make sure your references aren't contradicted by other references. That is why I adhered to only the earlier sources, as I believe that those were at least created with some degree of fairness before the band members were at odds with one another. ] 17:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Skinny, I added your new print reference as a line citation. It's really not much different than what all the other PR is saying but it does support that Douglas branched out in 2001, not 1999 as you previously stated. That also fits with Vargo leaving in 2000/2001. But you are still not supporting your reverting of my additions, and I am losing patience. As you can see, I am TRYING to be fair but you are making it very difficult for me to hold my tongue. You have been warned about being civil and I am trying my best to also adhere to that rule. ] 03:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I have been removing your footnotes because I find them completely unnecessary. The footnoting is so sporadic that it’s very distracting (e.g., footnoting Cedar Point, but not Busch Gardens or Thorpe Park). And anyway, the article as it currently reads is just so innocuous that we don’t need them. You’re still promoting Joseph Vargo with everything you do and you are trying to nit-pick this article to pieces and discredit Midnight Syndicate in the process. I will do what I can to keep that from happening. That includes deleting any reference to defamatory sites run by Joseph Vargo. I’ve left the link to the Dark Realms Magazine interview in, even though it’s Joseph Vargo’s magazine and thus it is of questionable neutrality in terms of this article. - ] 19:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I will just reiterate: '''The footnoted information does not harm this article, it does not detract or discredit anyone, and it's interesting and shows what influence that one member (Vargo) had on the rest of the group. I think Skinny is just really biased against Vargo.''' My footnoting barely even mentioned him. Most of the notes refer to albums, songs, a quote from Edward Douglas, a radio interview that mainly features Edward Douglas, and events or focus (yes, that bit influenced by Vargo) that lead to the band's success, all of which you, Skinny, called into question. Therfore since you question it, I footnoted it! First you call my edits rediculous and untrue, then when I place footnotes to prove my points, you edit them out and claim they are "unneccessary." You're amazingly hypocritical! You seem fixated on trying to remove ANYTHING on Vargo but you will play up something really insignificant like a graphic designer that no one ever heard of or some award that the band nominated itself for, or who distributed cds or who supposedly made phone calls, or who the label may have been. I just think it's rather suspicious how what you are doing here mirrors exactly what Vargo claims that Edward Douglas was trying to do elsewhere in the Press and in the haunted industry. Very interesting indeed! As for Dark Realms, it's totally reliable. In fact, that's probably the ''only'' time Edward Douglas ever told the truth. I imagine Vargo must've been sitting there in the same room being interviewed TOGETHER, (as in the radio interview you keep removing reference to). I don't see but maybe one short story or two by Vargo in Dark Realms, plus advertising, but that's it. The rest of the magazine is all written by other writers and features lots of bands and artists. My guess is his company finances it like he did albums for Midnight Syndicate, but in any case, I'd believe Dark Realms before I'd bank on anything coming from Edward Douglas' mouth, certainly after how he has changed his tune from old interviews to new. ] 02:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Well, it's been busy around here. But it's like taking one step forward and two back. I like the new look and have added a few citations of my own. Skinny is wrong on the label info. It plainly shows Monolith Graphics on the ''Born of the Night'' cd, and that was a title applied to Vargo's product line from 1992 to present. I have one of his 1992 calendars called ''Born of the Night'' and his company has published one every year since. Check Amazon.com if anything else. Skinny, why can't you just admit the truth? It would really be much better to admit to the truth than to keep trying to make things up or bury the facts with obscuration and deceptive editing. You're just making it look even worse for this band. PS. off-topic ] was on Letterman last night. I wonder how their lawsuit is going? ] 07:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Yeah, well. Skinny seems to be confused about the term defamation. He seems to view any promotion of a past band member as defamation. Likewise he seems to think that just because that person is defending his rights on a public website that it constitutes defamation. Rather, I think that the actions that Skinny and MS have taken are defamatory. To make a FALSE statement that is harmful is defamatory. To make a TRUE statement is NOT defamatory, even if it is not favorable. To say, for example, that "OJ Simpson is a murderer" would be defamatory. To say that "OJ Simpson was tried for murdering his wife, found 'not guilty', yet is still widely believed to be guilty." is not defamatory. All of the statements made in the editing I have done to this article are TRUE. The facts and statements in regard to the dispute that Oroboros posted (and which I further edited and cited) are TRUE. The citations are valid. If Midnight Syndicate does not like the truth being published, that's just too bad. Perhaps they should not have defamed Vargo to begin with, and tried so hard to hide the truth. Skinny, my advice, if you will take it, is to accept the reality of the situation. The band is in the public eye and some of the members have done some things that may be regrettable but are true just the same. There are many bands on Wiki that have done worse, drugs, sex tapes, ect. I wouldn't lose too much sleep over this. ] 03:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Corrected inaccuracies per Skinny's ref to Akron Journal. The news article plainly states that the year was 2001. Taking into consideration the label issue, I thought it best to simply credit both companies (Monolith Graphics and Entity Productions). According to the cd booklet both company logos and addresses are listed, Monolith being first. Skinny, please be more careful about making deceptive edits in the future. ] 23:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :What 'ref to Akron Journal'? I have no idea what you're talking about. - ] 23:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I guess it's the "Star Beacon Journal" that you added reference to. I thought it was Akron. In any case, It states in speaking of ''Born of the Night'' sales... "It was really overwhelming," Douglas says of the response. Then the writier states: "Encouraged by "Born of the Night" sales, Douglas and Goszka produced and released three more Halloween CDs.. It was a part-time venture for both men... Douglas went full time in 2001 and Gavin recently joined him." You added the reference. I am just citing it. You really should remember what you say, "Skinny." ] 23:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I guess I was just confused because the fact that Ed Douglas quit his other job in 2001 and started doing Midnight Syndicate full time has nothing to do with the distribution. I enjoy the fact that you are quoting the article out of order and thus changing the meaning to suit your own purpose. After discussing how the success of Born of the Night was overwhelming, the article goes immediately to say "Nevertheless, its creators couldn't convince record labels or distributors of this fresh genres economic potential.... Goszka and Douglas decided to build their own distribution network." Then it talks about how Douglas made cold calls across the country and ''then'' it states "It was a part-time venture for both men." To summarize, while working part time at another job, Douglas built a national distribution network for Midnight Syndicate's CDs. - ] 23:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| How are you coming up with "the fact that Ed Douglas quit his other job in 2001." (sounds like you are getting this from personal experience). And as for "Nevertheless, its creators couldn't convince record labels or distributors of this fresh genres economic potential." Show me a reference where Edward Douglas or the other creators (Vargo and Goszka) approached other major labels and that they rejected him. If you can produce a rejection letter, for example, from a major record label, or any piece of verifiable evidence, I will accept it. An interview with yourself is not verifiable. ] | |||
| :That's what you said when you quoted the article. "Douglas went full time in 2001" - implying that he must have quit some other job. I think you're trying to deflect attention from the real issue: You rearraged the reference to suit your needs. If you feel you can use the article as a reference, then I don't understand why I should have to provide outside evidence when correcting your misstatements. | |||
| Nooooo. I only paraphrased the article and placed the part that you wroye into consecutive order. YOU, Skinny, are the one who likes to reconstruct things to be misleading (just like Edward is). I am only editing them to be clearer and not deceptive. ] 18:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC). | |||
| :On another note, while I've suspected it for quite some time, I'm pleased to finally have proof that you (]) and ] are the same person. You have just completed two edits here under the same IP address that GuardianZ used to revert the article on November 11th. If you smell a rat, as you state in your edit summary, I think it's probably you. You have no intention of elevating this Misplaced Pages article. Every edit you have made serves either to promote Joseph Vargo or to discredit or diminish Midnight Syndicate's accomplishments. This is remarkably similar to the tactic Joseph Vargo himself has used on the sites you reference. That's obvious to anyone who reviews your edit history. - ] 01:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| No. I have only edited under my own login. And I might point out that while you and GuardianZ were banned I was still able to edit. Therefore I do not have the same IP. You might also know that thousands of people can have the same IP. It is not just one per person, you know. But, you and all your other login names were blocked, which proves that you are Edward Douglas. I suspect that Pumkinhead is Mr. Gozska, or it is just you logging back in on a different computer. Really pathetic. In any case, how is what I have written belittling your accomplishments? Did Vargo finance the Born of the Night and Realm of Shadows cds? Answer: YES. Did he promote and distribute them through Monolith Graphics (before Entity Productions). YES. Did he conceive, write, narrate, arrange, direct the album. YES. Did he introduce the band to his audience and clients. YES. (I was among those at The Realm art gallery. I came from Pittsburgh. So I was there well before I got put on the MS mailing list). Did you then claim that Vargo never produced your albums? YES. Did you then rerelease the Born of the Night album and remove all of Vargo's writing. YES. Ditto for Realm of Shadows. You used two exact phrases to me at a convention last year that you typed in different entires above, so I know you to be Edward Douglas. It is you who have consistently tried to discredit and diminish Mr. Vargo. I have clearly stated only VERIFIABLE FACTS in my editing. You are just making things up! You have not ONCE cited or verified anything you edited. I was trying to compromise and allow you some room to add your self-promotional crap, but you are only here to promote yourself and to dimish the work that Vargo did in forming this band. I will not allow you to do that. I will allow a fair amount of self-promotion, but NOT at the expense of discrediting another person. I will be letting Mr. Vargo know what your groupie promotion person told me and some others at the Horrorfind convention. ] 04:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :You're wrong on every account, so I'm not going to waste my time arguing with you anymore. I'm not Edward Douglas, but I'm flattered that you think I am since I'm a huge fan of his music. - ] 15:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Oh, well if you're NOT Edward Douglas but you are a "huge" fan of "his" music, then I think you are a little too POV to be editing here. This is about a band, and that involves more that ONE person. It also involves everything else about their public lives. Stop reverting. If you want to edit what I have written, fine. But you are just reverting and removing everything, and that is not how this works. I intend to add some writing about Gavin too. (But got all caught up in this crap with you, Skinny.) Though I can't find very much on Gavin. He seems to prefer keeping a low profile. So far, all I do know is he like ghost hunting and has another musical side project too. But Edward doesn't say what it is. Hmmm. Wonder why he didn't mention more about that. Probably the same reason he downplays Vargo's roles. ] 18:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ], I have welcomed your added promotional content and only moved it to be in order of when the event happened, but you chose to make it misleading and to use it to demean Mr. Vargo. You are doing exactly what you or this Edward Douglas has been accused of elsewhere. I think you need a reality check. So far you have made no significant contributions to this article. Your only agenda is to hide the name of Vargo and to spin an entirely different history. How that benefits anyone, I don't know, but it just feels wrong to sit by and let it happen. ] 04:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Cleaning up and restating purpose == | |||
| 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. ] 15:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)" | |||
| *"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. ]" | |||
| *"Excellent editing GZ. ] 21:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)" | |||
| Then all that excellent editing and citing got trashed and the band's promoter started blasting away with adverts and links between the band's other pals in business. A bit later some facts were altered, first subtly, then more obviously. And I think it is very obvious that this current line up wants nothing posted about past band member, Vargo. It's one thing to downplay Vargo's roles, but it's a whole other thing to actually change the facts to credit someone else with his work, which is what's been happening. | |||
| Reasons for editing: To present the actual history of this band... the truth, not the promotional propaganda that has been residing here since sockpuppets have decided to begin discrediting a former member because he started another band and is now "competition" as ] says. Anyway, all of my edits have been cited. Again, given the fact that current band members seem to be involved in some sort of revisionist history, any sources used should be weighed against older source material (pre-2001 preferrably) and it should be taken into consideration who the speaker is. Is it the band providing the info and are all members present during the interview? Did a magazine simply reprint a band's press release or did the writer actually do a bit of research? Can what the band tells us ''now'' be verified or is it contradiced by an earlier source, such as interviews conducted prior to the band's breakup (pre-2000) info from cd booklets, photos, letters, or even the 1998 radio interview that ] keeps wanting to remove. It should be noted that the previously mentioned forum on Amazon.com shows that we should beware of any revisionist history. No, it may not be a good resource for article reference, but it does show that something fishy is going on and that I am not the only one to see it. | |||
| I might also add that I was banned for a day for getting frustrated and reverting from ] reverts of my edits. We both got banned actually. And while all that happened I noticed that he was trying to make it seem as if me and Oroboros are one. Well, I haven't been able to edit until now, and I see has, so maybe that will prove that we aren't the same. I think ] does protest too much! Each time he is called on a point or asked to verify something, he changes the subject or throws accusations. | |||
| Now, I intend to replace all of the verifiable info, all the credits past and present, and leave out the dispute section (sorry Oroboros, but you kinda knew that was more than Skinny could take). BUT, if ] cannot abide by that, then I say leave the dispute in. It is history and it certainly is verifiable (just read this talk page for all the proof you need.) Whew! ] 12:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :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 ] (] on this talk page on November 18 at 23:47 and November 19 at 01:26 and ] 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). - ] 15:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::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. ] 19:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Skinny, you reverted and you never even noticed that I removed the link to that Legion site but still you rv my edits. ] while you are reporting me, go ahead and report Skinny and all of his supected sockpuppets (there's a lot). I see that you are also under investigation for being unfair and biased. It appears you certainly have trouble being neutral here. I suspect that you and Skinny know one another and are assisting each other in this. My edits are valid and will stand. I was editing here long before you Skinny (unless you would like to fess up to your earlier names). ] 20:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :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. ] 20:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Oroboros_1 indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry == | |||
| It has been confirmed that ] and ] are the same person, and Oroboros_1 has been indefinitely blocked. GuardianZ has been blocked for 3 days for sockpuppetry. ] 23:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Suspected sock puppets of Skinny McGee == | |||
| ''']''' Just thought you should know that an investigation has been requested into ] as well as a dozen or more IPs, all of which point to Chardon, Ohio. ] 11:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Bias, Undue Weight & Sensationalism == | |||
| 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 ]. 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.'' | |||
| *''Misplaced Pages 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. ] 07:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 22:13, 16 February 2024
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Untitled
Discussion Archives: 1 ... 2 ... 3 ... 4 ... 5... 6
Suggested changes
I am barred from editing this article due to an unfortunate decision by the Arbitration Committee. However, I am welcome to make suggestions on the talk page, so here I go –
- J Milburn suggested that the band’s logo would be more appropriate in the infobox and the image currently there could be moved into the body of the article as it’s indicative of the image the band has created for itself. I’ve uploaded the logo here if anyone would like to replace the image in the infobox. Moving the band photo to the body will be somewhat more difficult. To quote J Milburn, someone needs to “write a sourced section (just a couple of lines, and it needn't have its own heading) about the imagery, and stick this image inline next to it.”
- An editor recently deleted the image of “The 13th Hour” CD cover from the discography section. Since no explanation was given for this in the edit description, I can only assume it was inadvertent. If someone could put it back in, that would be great. Here is the way the image was in the article before - Image:13th_hour_cd_cover.jpg|thumb|right|The 13th Hour album cover
I would greatly appreciate it if someone could help me out with this. Thanks! - Skinny McGee 18:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- I don't do much with images myself, but to help move this forward, with regard to your first point, why don't you post here a draft of "the sourced section about the image" for neutral editors to review. With regard to your second point, leave a message on the talkpage of the person who made the edit you think was inadvertent. Unless they give a reason that things should stay as they are now, we'll make the change. How's that? Newyorkbrad 18:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for getting back to me so quickly. As far as incorporating the current infobox image into the body of the article, I'll try to put something together for others to review. Also, I posted a message on Ebonyskye's talk page as you suggested to find out why the album cover was deleted from the discography section. - Skinny McGee 19:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- One possible solution is if you created a draft version in your user space and then linked to it from here to request comment and input. Just to be sure the gesture doesn't get misconstrued, be sure to add a template disclaimer to state that your draft version is not an actual Misplaced Pages article. Best wishes. Durova 15:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
A reply to this is on my talk page but here's a copy... Per the music guidelines, the CD cover belongs on the album's page, not the band page. I noticed another editor previously removed the other albums you had there, and that last one was probably just an oversight as it was further down the page. I am looking into templates to do some album pages when I have a few moments. Ebonyskye 19:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Per WP:FUC "Significance. Non-free content contributes significantly to an article (e.g., it identifies the subject of an article, or illustrates specific, relevant points or sections in the text)" As a result, the album cover in the discography section is OK here. Rklawton 19:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Um. Or at least it would be OK if this section had something in it more than just the title of the album. Rklawton 19:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- I believe there's a specific policy about non-free album covers, though, that says that they should only be used to illustrate the article about the specific album rather than the group as a whole. If anyone is in doubt I can try to find a link. Newyorkbrad 19:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- I was under the impression from what RKLawton said that if, in addition to my other assignment, I worked on brief descriptions of the albums to be included in the article then we could add the album covers. However, you don't seem to share that view, Newyorkbrad, so perhaps it would be helpful if you could find that link. Thanks, Skinny McGee 20:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- I believe there's a specific policy about non-free album covers, though, that says that they should only be used to illustrate the article about the specific album rather than the group as a whole. If anyone is in doubt I can try to find a link. Newyorkbrad 19:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Um. Or at least it would be OK if this section had something in it more than just the title of the album. Rklawton 19:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I have placed the logo in the infobox- I wasn't sure whether to put it in the place of the bands title, as is the case with stylised notation of the band name, or whether to place it in as an image. I stuck it in as an image, but feel free to change that if you do not agree. As for the matter of album covers- sticking the cover of every album they have ever done into a table or alongside a list would not be acceptable, but album covers for albums discussed in the text (especially if the cover itself is mentioned) would be fine, so long as a decent fair use rationale was placed on the image page. Take a look at our featured articles- Slayer, for instance, contains a couple of album covers for the more significant albums, which are discussed in the text, and some to show the controversy surrounding the particular covers. On the other hand, something like this edit to Black Tape For A Blue Girl, for instance, would be unacceptable. J Milburn 12:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
album titles (album) format
I noticed on other band pages that the wiki links for album titles are pipelined with the word album in perens after the title... title of album (album)|title... like so. I was thinking that this should be the format used here as well. It's only used on one or two albums so far. Ebonyskye 04:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Arbitration motion regarding Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Midnight Syndicate
Per a motion at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification:
The remedies (1 and 2) ordered by this Committee in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Midnight Syndicate are suspended for a period of 90 days. During this period, the editors who were previously restricted by these remedies may edit without topic restriction. However, they are instructed to comply with all applicable Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines in their editing, particularly those discussed in the original arbitration decision. Each of these editors is also instructed to edit these articles from only a single account.
During the 90-day trial period, should any of the previously restricted editors engage in edit-warring, POV editing, or other misconduct on the articles in question, any uninvolved administrator may reinstate the topic ban against that editor or impose another appropriate sanction. Unless the misconduct is blatant, a warning to the editor should first be given.
As the end of the 90-day period approaches, a request for permanent termination or modification of the remedies may be submitted for consideration by this Committee.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety 18:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)'
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Midnight Syndicate. 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/20070927050002/http://www.midnightsyndicate.com/paragonintvwms1006.htm to http://www.midnightsyndicate.com/paragonintvwms1006.htm
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.midnightsyndicate.com/news.htm
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.originsgamefair.com/awards/2001/list-of-winners
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ennie-awards.com/blog/2012-nominees/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:55, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Midnight Syndicate. 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/20090221022533/http://www.goear.com/listen.php?v=5811b41 to http://www.goear.com/listen.php?v=5811b41
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110215064119/http://www.hauntedattraction.com/the-magazine/issues/haunted-attraction-magazine-issue-44-2/ to http://www.hauntedattraction.com/the-magazine/issues/haunted-attraction-magazine-issue-44-2/
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050117183008/http://clevescene.com/issues/1999-10-14/music/soundbites.html to http://www.clevescene.com/issues/1999-10-14/music/soundbites.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726081247/http://www.midnightsyndicate.com/archives.htm to http://www.midnightsyndicate.com/archives.htm
- Added
{{dead link}}tag to http://www.mediafire.com/view/?ph3p1r2hwan858g - Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060810185052/http://originsgames.com/awards to http://www.originsgames.com/awards
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121115200615/http://www.darkerprojects.com/byronchronicles.php to http://www.darkerprojects.com/byronchronicles.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:43, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Categories:- Biography articles of living people
- Start-Class biography articles
- Start-Class biography (musicians) articles
- Low-importance biography (musicians) articles
- Musicians work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- Start-Class United States articles
- Low-importance United States articles
- Start-Class United States articles of Low-importance
- Start-Class Ohio articles
- Unknown-importance Ohio articles
- WikiProject Ohio articles
- WikiProject United States articles