Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Oroboros 1 (talk | contribs) at 04:45, 20 November 2006 (word). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)

Regarding the RfC, it would help if you set up a section on this talk page to summarize the dispute. Both sides can summarize their positions (this talk page isn't semi-protected). If this is a good faith effort to improve the article, then thank you. Sometimes disputes happen while both sides act in good faith. There's also Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation, although both sides must agree to participate in order for mediation to happen. In defense of Misplaced Pages, browse some of the featured content such as Pericles and compare it against other leading encyclopedias. Regards, Durova 13:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

For Rfc, can older portions of this talk page be archived? I am unsure if I have the ability to do that but have noticed it on user talk pages. (I'm a bit afraid to "move" this before I know what will happen). Then perhaps we can start a new discussion on a clean page (my following proposal included, and perhaps a few comments from previous users.). Clean slate, as attempted earlier. (I would have to look for my original Rfc and change the link to the newer section). No need to defend Wiki. I like it as a resource and there's some very informative articles here. But so many people take everything they read to heart and most of what is written on the internet these days (esp. in the entertainment field) is just so much slush and egomania. Oroboros 1 13:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I would vote not to remove the earlier discussion. I think it's useful to see the entire history of an article. And, by the way, I agree with Dionyseus that this isn’t Oroboros 1's first account. I’m suspicious that this is the same person who has edited this article as Blooferlady, GuardianZ, and IP address 24.252.247.68 and that she is saying she's new here to cover her true motivations. (In addition, I’ve found snippets of discussions that indicate Blooferlady was involved in some very contentious debate over an article about Joseph Vargo that has since been deleted, as has the deletion discussion.) As someone who is actually very new to Misplaced Pages and just learning how to find her way around, I would never know how to do all the things she has done. Skinny McGee 17:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Uh, "Skinny McGee" is it? I see no other contributions by you except to this talk. I am not Blooferlady (who history shows did not attempt to hide her real identity) nor Oroboros and I always sign my comments. I instead suspect "Skinny McGee" is one of the band members or one of the unsigned, and is spoofing votes here. I think I made my position clear. GuardianZ 07:51, 27 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)

I vote to keep the protected version. Changes made by Oroboros 1 are self-promotion for Joseph Vargo. Edits made to description of first, self-titled CD are inaccurate. All but one track was written or co-written by Edward Douglas. Oroboros 1 keeps trying to delete the word ‘dark’ from the description, but the CD contains several dark instrumental tracks, including “Druids,” “Theme to 'The Dead Matter',” “Darkfolk,” and “Enchanted Nursery.” These were clearly significant pieces in that three of them appeared on the next CD, “Born of the Night”.

Based on my research, Joseph Vargo was certainly present when the band streamlined their style, but he was not the driving force behind it. As I understand it, Douglas was interested in doing a Halloween CD and thought Vargo could be of assistance with the ‘look’ of the CD. However, as there is no way to prove either version of events, we should just leave that section as it currently exists (listing Vargo’s credits as they appear on the album).

Next, why does anyone care if Vargo got in touch with Wizards of the Coast two years before the "Dungeons & Dragons" CD was released? To somehow promote his own upcoming fantasy-themed CD? Douglas established a relationship with Wizards through gaming conventions and that’s how the “Dungeons & Dragons” CD came about.

I vote to only list movies Midnight Syndicate is scoring, not movies that licensed a particular pre-existing track for use in their films. That list would be extremely long and not particularly helpful – what really matters is how Midnight Syndicate designs sound specifically for a film.

As far as reorganizing the references at the bottom, I have no objection to that. However, it would seem to make more sense to list the most recent items first, as they are presumably the most relevant. Finally, after reviewing legionofthenight.com it is clear to me that this site was designed so that Joseph Vargo could make Edward Douglas look like a cheater, discredit the band, and play up Vargo's perceived importance in the success of the band. Many of the sections of the legionofthenight site seem to contain edited versions of what happened. There is clearly an edit in the radio interview referenced. The site should not be considered a valid reference. Skinny McGee 17:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I also vote to keep the current protected version, I agree with Skinny McGee's points. One thing I noticed in User:Oroboros_1's version is that she claims that their 2006 album is titled "Out of the Darkness", when in fact it is "(Retrospective: 1994-1999)," as can be clearly seen at for example Amazon.com. Also, User:Oroboros_1's version has Tony Demci's name spelled incorrectly with an "i" instead of a "y". The rest of User:Oroboros_1's version seems to be promoting Joseph Vargo. Dionyseus 18:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I vote to accept votes from older Wiki users only and not new users who only signed in to stack the votes (ie: Skinny McGee) and who have never made any other contribution to Wiki. As for making mention of Vargo in the article, I think that NOT mentioning him does an injustice. It is the current members trying to erase a large portion of their history, and now that they are being taken to task on it, they are using Wiki to somehow lend credence to a false and deceptive history, and trying to take credit for Vargo's work, as per the Legion site. Again, I suggest admins or more experienced editors limit voting counts to well-traveled Wiki users who do not show a biased toward this subject. Still, I will cast my vote for Oroboros' version (sans the external ref links, but maybe placed as footnotes), for what it's worth. I don't expect MY vote to count. I know I am too emotional by this point, but to count a user who obviously just signed in to stack a vote? C'mon. Duh!

Based on the Radio Interview (in Douglas' own voice), as well as earlier press, it WAS indeed Vargo who created the Halloween music concept. The entire Radio Interview is posted, but there were sections copied to make other points on different pages. Even so the whole interview is posted. How would Skinny know whether or not it is edited anyway. Unless... SkinnyMcGee is Edward Douglas?

Oh, and since we're quoting from Amazon.com, check this: It was this first collaboration with gothic-fantasy artist Joseph Vargo that garnered Midnight Syndicate an underground following throughout the United States and abroad. That quote has been up on Amazon for years. Vargo is also listed on the AMG page for Born of the Night.

And what's the diff between the current "Out of the Darkness" description and Oroboro's; Answer: MS wants people to think Out of the Darkness is a "true retrospective," (PS. Dionyseus, The title IS "Out of the Darkness"... it is only subtitiled "a retrospective") but it contains nothing of their other past albums. See this review: Legends. "Vampire's Kiss" is Vargo's version of the song from Born of the Night and was not "previously unreleased." It was on the Born of the Night album (see Amazon), and was re-arranged from Douglas' song called "Theme to The Dead Matter". This is truly a case of misrepresentation by the band, and the press who is likely reading the band's PR. Also see comments above by that same Legends editor User:MarcusPan: 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.

Note that User:MarcusPan has made some serious contributions to Wiki music pages. I would count his vote for this version which is not much different than the version he voted on. To reiterate: I firmly believe that Midnight Syndicate is using Wiki to lend credence to a false and deceptive history. I am more than disillusioned by Wiki to allow such to continue, when it's plainly and painfully obvious. GuardianZ 08:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected

I'll try unprotection since everyone seems to be civil here. Best wishes, Durova 21:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I worked on this and I really think this is a keeper. Here's my reasons for changes and re-organization:

1. Some musical styles are not defined (ie do not exist) such as horrorbilly and humor-pop. Removed adjectives like "dark" and movie-style" as that is not the commonly held opinion for the music recorded on this first album (which also does not include Vargo or Goszka). I opted instead for a wiki for dark humor, which is evident in the lyrical content of one or two songs (ie: Forklift Death).

2. It is referenced in older press articles that Douglas and Vargo joined up first, then Gavin came on board several months later, after work had already begun on Born of the Night. Douglas states this was the case in several interviews (one linked to from the Midnight Syndicate site, and one from this article) that pre-date the references given later in this article. I believe this is a very important bit of history and should be acurately stated, and not changed so as to make it appear as if Vargo was "brought in" later after the album was written, as was presented in previous versions of this article that have been altered. He was according to Edward Douglas, "Joseph Vargo was more than just the artist for the first two discs. He was integrally involved with the production of Born of the Night from its inception to its completion." (Paragon Magazine 2003). Likewise, I think it is important that the fact that Vargo left the line up in 2000 (Dark Realms Magazine 2001) should be mentioned so as not to confuse anyone into thinking he is still an active member.

3. As to the statement: "Together he and Edward Douglas would write most of the music on the Midnight Syndicate discs to come." As it reads now, I believe it is obvious that Douglas and Goszka write their own music. The statement was unneccessary and came across as bluster in previous versions.

4. I cannot find a reference for this statement and exactly what album(s) are being refered to: "Their music began appearing in mainstream television programs like Barbara Walters 10 Most Fascinating People of 2002 and Monday Night Football." So, I'm not sure where that should be placed. I'm not arguing that it may be true, but I just don't know what album(s) get that credit. I opted for placement when the 2002 album is mentioned.

5. As for the part that reads: "In 2001, the band was approached by Wizards of the Coast to design the first official soundtrack to the classic roleplaying game Dungeons & Dragons." Firstly, it was 2003 in an earlier version of this aticle, then 2002, then "sometime after Vampyre...." This statement is simply not referenced anywhere except by the band in one or two interviews, and even that varies and, because it has been shown to be at least partly in question I chose to simply omit this statement altogether. Suffice to say that the band released an album for D&D and leave it at that. This should also put to rest the previous disagreement on exactly who contacted whom first.

5: Moved Continuing from film and used that subhead for 2001 and forward. It previously restated what was already listed under film credits, was redundant and promotional in nature, and it just works better after 2001 (as in "continuing, going forward, the part after changing focus and well after formation, ect.).

6. Interviews that were previously under External Links were given a sublisitng. The sites are not exclusive to this band, so they should be in a separate list, much like "see also" is used on other pages.

7. Actual published film credits: IMDB and Tempe

Oroboros 1 06:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Oroboros 1 /GuardianZ appears to be the only person who has any issue with the way this article has stood for months. Last weekend, she changed the article and then very politely reverted to the previous version to await comment. Despite the fact that the only comments she received were to keep the existing version, she decided to go ahead and make changes anyway. That doesn’t seem to be in keeping with the attitude she’s trying to project. While she asserts that Midnight Syndicate is “using Wiki”, it appears she is the one who has an agenda here. She seems to be trying to minimize what the band has accomplished while also promoting Joseph Vargo.

As far as the changes, I have reverted most of the article to how it appeared before. I did leave the External Links section as Oroboros 1 suggested, just adding the link to AMG back in and re-ordering them so the most recent references are listed first. Once again, as stated before, listing all movies using Midnight Syndicate music would be overly long. Just listing movies for which Midnight Syndicate is writing original scores is more significant anyway. Thirdly, the article currently indicates that Joseph Vargo and Midnight Syndicate parted ways after “Realm of Shadows”. To say that Vargo left the band is to misrepresent what actually happened as I understand that it was by mutual agreement.

By the way and just to clarify, "Out of the Darkness" is a retrospective disk that covers only the first three releases ("Midnight Syndicate", "Born of the Night", and "Realm of Shadows"), not the entire catalog. Skinny McGee 16:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Skinny McGee you need to provide more reliable research for your changes. So far you just appear to want to omit Vargo, while I am at least attempting to give fair credit across the board and show an accurate history of the formation of the band. The formation, then the change in focus is very relevant to the current band info and it is also important that the references follow the same timeline. You keep removing film credits too. Why? And, what are you now nitpicking if Vargo left or it was mutual. What is your agenda? Nowhere in any reference does it say anything like that. It simply is. How would you prefer this article to read? I know, like the first press release that was posted here, right? You have absolutely no ground to keep reverting back to old promotional text. I asked for a protection of this page because I wanted the edit war to stop. That was all.Oroboros 1 23:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

One more thing Skinny McGee regarding your comment: "To say that Vargo left the band is to misrepresent what actually happened as I understand that it was by mutual agreement." Just exactly who did you get your information from? I am using several interviews, including Edward Douglas' own words that stated that Vargo left to write a book called the Dark Tower or something. Of course, I COULD just put what Vargo gives as the real reason for leaving the band. But I know you will find fault with that. You are the one trying to misrepresent facts. I am trying to be neutral and to give a neutral voice to this. You are NOT helping. Oroboros 1 23:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, the link you added for AMG does not show anything. And the only comments that this article received from actual Wiki users was to hold pending the vandalism of unsigned users. Prior to this, it received votes to keep the more truthful version of history per Marcus Pan and others, all of which was very obviously reverted by Edward Douglas a few months back. He signed his own edits as well as his website admin and customer service agent. If you can prove the changes you keep making are NOT promotional, and are indeed FACT, I will concede, but you cannot. At least give MY version of neutrality a few weeks to see if anyone can add to it. Don't just keep reverting every day. Oroboros 1 23:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

RFC

Request for comment: editors, please summarize the dispute for visitors. Durova 03:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Version 1 (stresses current membership)

Opening discussion for this version.

I have neither the time nor the resources to get into it with Oroboros 1, 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 GuardianZ) seemed to arrive at a mutually agreeable version of events. This current problem began when IP address 24.252.247.68 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.

I invite you to review the comments on this discussion page. As I have stated before, I believe Oroboros 1 is the same individual who posts as GuardianZ, Blooferlady, and IP address 24.252.247.68 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. Skinny McGee 15:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Con: I don't believe this is an agreed upon issue. It never was. MarcusPan 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 User:152.163.100.70 and User:64.12.116.202 and User:69.177.28.38 removed those credits and began adding promotional text. New users have also posted. has removed spam posted by user User: 67.140.91.39 and Star525. Friday and GaurdianZ both removed rants by User:205.139.10.130 and User:69.177.28.38 that were made against Vargo. User:MidSyndicate then posted a comment to User:Friday admitting he was Edward Douglas and requested the credits to Vargo be removed altogether. His comments were stricken. And SkinnyMcGee just today changed the heading for this discussion section from "'Stresses current membership and upcoming projects"' placed there by Durova to "previously agreed upon." SkinnyMcGee 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 Blooferlady 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, SkinnyMcGee, 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. Oroboros 1 17:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

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. Oroboros 1 08:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Version 2 (stresses band history)

Opening discussion for this version

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.

References: Plain Dealer article 1998, Ohio Online interview 1998, WERE 1998 Radio Interview with Douglas, Goszka and Vargo. Dark Realms Magazine interview 2001, 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.

In my version 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 User:SkinnyMcGee even has issue with that!

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 this page and any MS interview post-2003. Dark Realms Magazine: article on Darklore Manor (2004)

Midnight Syndicate is obviously not happy about the Legion of the Night website, 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...

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. Rock-a-Billy is a music genre. Also the same for humor-pop vs dark humor. 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)

published film credits: Demons at the Door and Dead and Rotting 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?

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!

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.

I believe my version 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. Oroboros 1 09:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

User Defender99 a new user (oddly since SkinnyMcGee "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. Oroboros 1 18:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking... maybe this article should be formatted like Panic! at the Disco. 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.

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. Oroboros 1 15:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Oroboros 1. 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, Dionyseus, 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. Skinny McGee 18:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

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. Oroboros 1 22:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

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 SkinnyMcGee 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. Oroboros 1 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. SkinnyMcGee, 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? Oroboros 1 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 Panic! at the disco 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. GuardianZ 02:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Since I firmly believe that you and Oroboros 1 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. - Skinny McGee 15:53, 4 November 2006 (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. GuardianZ 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. GuardianZ 21:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Outside comments

I earlier made a comment that User:Oroboros 1 may not be the user's first account, and she has reaffirmed my suspiciouns with her recent comments. I am also dismayed that User:Oroboros 1 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. Dionyseus 19:49, 1 November 2006(UTC)

A p.s. for you Dionyseus. 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. GuardianZ 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. Oroboros 1 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. Oroboros 1 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'". - Skinny McGee 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? 68.9.37.233 22:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Dionyseus, 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.GuardianZ 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. - Skinny McGee 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. 68.9.37.233 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? GuardianZ 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. Skinny, 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?GuardianZ 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. - Skinny McGee 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. 68.9.37.233 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. Sex Pistols, Genesis (band), Marilyn Manson (band), Nirvana (band) - 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 good article list. Heck, I'm pretty sure I've listened to a lot of Midnight Syndicate while I was gaming. Go make this article better. Durova 03:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that proposal was already made but using Panic! at the disco 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.GuardianZ 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. GuardianZ 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. - Skinny McGee 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 Josquin Des Prez and Cannonball Adderley 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 WP:NOR 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, Durova 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. - Skinny McGee 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. - Skinny McGee 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. GuardianZ 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. GuardianZ 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. GuardianZ 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 WP:RS GuardianZ 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. GuardianZ 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. - Skinny McGee 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). GuardianZ 02:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Line Citations

Per Durova's 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 Skinny 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. GuardianZ 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. GuardianZ 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. - Skinny McGee 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. GuardianZ 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 Panic at the Disco was on Letterman last night. I wonder how their lawsuit is going? Oroboros 1 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. GuardianZ 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. Oroboros 1 23:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

What 'ref to Akron Journal'? I have no idea what you're talking about. - Skinny McGee 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." Oroboros_1 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. - Skinny McGee 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. Oroboros_1

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. Oroboros 1 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 (Oroboros_1) and Guardianz 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. - Skinny McGee 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. Oroboros 1 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. - Skinny McGee 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. Oroboros 1 18:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Skinny McGee, 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. Oroboros 1 04:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)