Jump to content

Talk:Sound of Contact/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Proposed Deletion (Resolved, 28 April 2013)

Comments for agreeing with deletion

  • This is not a vote or an AfD. Simply put the issue pertains to the fact the article is a copyright violation. To remove the possibility of deletion, someone needs to rewrite the article or the material needs to donate the material for use in Wikipedia. It is just as simple as that. reddogsix (talk) 17:49, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
  • From my perspective, the article should be deleted and/or completely re-written because of the following:
- copyright infringement
- there is overwhelming evidence that it has been written with total conflict of interest (see the wording used in the barrage of comments supporting "keep" below)
Has notability of this band been established according to Wikipedia standards? The alleged band members commenting below seem to think this Wikipedia article is meant to promote and advertise their band. Of course, that's not the purpose of Wikipedia. Also: not so sure the "votes" below aren't from the same person who re-logs in as a new IP and has created sock accounts to appear as someone different. The whole thing is fishy. Does that warrant the article being deleted? Maybe. Perhaps an administrator or more experienced editor than I can weigh in and give an opinion based on policy? Winkelvi (talk) 17:52, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Have just removed all "References" placed in article. From what I could tell, none of them met Wikipedia's reference requirements. Appropriate tags have been added. Winkelvi (talk) 19:20, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments for contesting deletion

  • This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because the band supports the use of the bio content and it doesn't violate any copyrights anyway, Seems someone is simply abusing the community aspects of Wikipedia for their own vendetta. This is not good for WIkipedia or its readers.
  • This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because... (your reason here) --66.87.116.246 (talk) 17:03, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
  • To whom it may concern. There is no copyright infringement, it is the band members themselves that have made it. Kindly let this page be, so S.O.C fans have a detailed history of this epic band. Sincerely, A die hard prog rock fan
  • This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because... what has the band in question actually infinged upon? How can the band infringe on its own copyright? Sound of Contact is indeed a modern multi-national progressive rock band. It's members are indeed who they say they are. The biographical information is correct, and is taken mainly from current Sound of Contact press releases and the band's website. That someone is trying to get this page deleted is either silly, or petty, or both.--Steven Davies-Morris, Systems Theory, California.Sdavmor (talk) 17:08, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
  • This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because... It is a REAL PAGE about a REAL BAND with REAL INFORMATION it's not fake nor is it misinformation so why are you trying to delete it? DO NOT DELETE THIS PAGE! Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.131.140.248 (talk) 17:16, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
  • This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because... It is a REAL PAGE about a REAL BAND with REAL INFORMATION it's not fake nor is it misinformation so why are you trying to delete it? DO NOT DELETE THIS PAGE! Thanks!
  • This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because... It is a REAL PAGE about a REAL BAND with REAL INFORMATION it's not fake nor is it misinformation so why are you trying to delete it? DO NOT DELETE THIS PAGE! Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.241.148.27 (talk) 17:25, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
  • This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because they are not only legitimate, but legitimately talented. One of the members is Phil Collins' son! Please, let the world know about this talented band. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.97.185.49 (talk) 17:26, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
  • This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because... itis an active page by an active existing Progressive Rock band. Someone is trying to force the deletion of this page.
  • This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because... (your reason here) --68.190.103.9 (talk) 17:36, 28 April 2013 (UTC)this is an original band touring in europe at the moment and with their 1st album being released in June. To delete this page is wrong. The group Sound Of Contact, is here to stay and grow and grow.... Sincerely, Bruce Carroll
  • This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because... this article is written in unbiased and non-promotional language, and should conform to any Wikipedia requirements. There is no reason it should be deleted. Additionally, the band has given permission to use any and all content. --Carter336 (talk) 15:45, 28 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winkelvi (talk • contribs)
  • This being a legitimate band with prolific members, and gaining popularity almost daily, there should be no criteria that this entry should be deleted. There are many fans and otherwise following these musicians and as a musical follower of said band and members, it should not be continually deleted. Leave alone what is not broken! Cheers Dave, Simon, John and Matt! Leah Hurst~Lywood "Progque"
  • This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because: I know one of the band members...SOC is a real band and this entry in no way infringes on anyone copyright.
  • This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because... (your reason here)
  • This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because... (your reason here) --74.186.89.2 (talk) 17:56, 28 April 2013 (UTC)I know Mr. Kerzner who is a very talented artist and owner of a very successful music related business
  • This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because... (your reason here) --184.147.181.28 (talk) 17:57, 28 April 2013 (UTC)It is a REAL PAGE about a REAL BAND with REAL INFORMATION it's not fake nor is it misinformation so why are you trying to delete it? DO NOT DELETE THIS PAGE! Thanks
  • This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because... This is legitimate info a bout a group of artists and all material is approved by those artists...The image is of the artists and approved by the photographer..
  • This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because... (your reason here) --92.4.165.196 (talk) 18:03, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
  • This is legitimate and correct information written by the band themselves. It should not be deleted
  • This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because... The article IS NOT a copyright violation. The source material IS NOT COPYRIGHTED. --174.98.93.11 (talk) 18:07, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
  • This page should not be speedy (sic) deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because the band has attested for the open copyright status of the text that was quoted by the original author of this page. I have contacted them to suggest that they place a CC attribution on the source page to confirm that this is the case. The photograph that was used has been deleted, and I have dontated one of my own photographs to Wikimedia Commons and linked it into this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrGoon (talk • contribs) 19:12, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
  • This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because... (your reason here) As a friend of Dave Kerzner, the co-producer and keyboardist for Sound of Contact, I know there are ZERO copyright issues. It is sad to see that someone wants to erase viable and accurate content from the web. --99.101.53.223 (talk) 21:04, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Resolution: Reversion to Old Version, Prior to Carter336 Edits

I am the original editor of this page as well as several other band-related pages. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the original version of the page, so if there are requests to have this page deleted I would rather it simply be reverted to its old version prior to any edits by Carter336. I know Carter336 is Dave Kerzner, member of the band. The only issue, in my opinion, is that nothing is cited. He may actually be the most accurate source of information in regards to this band, but references are crucial to editing this page without trouble. If you are going to edit, Carter336, please cite your sources. Use the reference tags. Unfortunately, unless something is published elsewhere, you can't make that claim on Wikipedia. Forum posts aren't reliable sources of information, so you'll have to rely on official publications. Also, you can't be copying and pasting directly from other websites. You need to paraphrase. I have edited this page to its state prior to any copyright infringement. There is no reason to delete the entry entirely. Vuzor (talk) 21:19, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

What concerns me is that a lot of assumptions are stated as if they are fact like "I know Carter336 is Dave Kerzner". Nope. I am Dave Kerzner and I have on Wikipedia name and one only. It's Sonic Squids. It's not a company name. It is a nick name for this community and you will find that I have my own unique logged IP and no one else even remotely associated with these articles has anything near my IP. That's certainly not because I am savvy with that stuff either. I have no clue. I am just a music artist in England at the moment (check my IP) and we're about to embark on our world tour. Myself and the people in the band are well established. Google any of the names Simon Collins, Dave Kerzner, John Wesley (who was removed from the article yet it is documented that he is part of the current touring line up and accurate important relevant information. - Sonic Squids — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonic Squids (talk • contribs) 01:53, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I apologize. It was wrong of me to make such an assumption, but based on his access to various photographs of you in studio, claiming them to be his own, in addition to his extensive edits of your personal page, I assumed it was you making those edits. In fact, Carter336 created your Wikipedia page, and in the very first version of the page had already posted the various photographs and completed the entire biography with even such private information as your parents' names. He later removed those names. On the ProgressiveEars forum, you mentioned you would check out the Sound of Contact page, and when I discovered it had been edited extensively, I assumed it was you, considering how much he apparently knows about you. Again, my apologies. Vuzor (talk) 13:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

To clarify: The reversion took place at 21:14, 28 April 2013‎. Since then, an extensive, collaborative rewrite of the entire article has taken place, being completed as of 09:45, 1 May 2013‎ by three Wikipedia editors. As of this moment (10:46, 1 May 2013), the article is at a stage where everything on the page is well-sourced, accurate, and presented in a suitable fashion for Wikipedia. None of the concerns and issues discussed above are relevant to this page now. This particular statement is here for closure to the above incident, as over the past three days the page has been rebuilt from scratch and, in my opinion, now meets Wikipedia's article standards. I am quite pleased with the result. Thank you to editors, Winkelvi and Spanglej. We can focus on making additions to the page now rather than subtractions. Please abide by Wikipedia's editing guidelines when editing, including the following three:

1. WP:Verify - Verifiability: "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.[1] When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view."
2. WP:Original - No Original Research: "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented."
3. WP:POV - Neutral Point of View: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it."

Thank you. Vuzor (talk) 10:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Lack of Information Available

Unfortunately, as this band is quite new, there is very little information to contribute. Aside from a small writeup on the band's history, there won't be much to contribute for at least a small while. It seems fair, though, as many other bands have fairly small pages as well. There are few adequate sources available at the moment. In regards to the original research tag, nothing on the page is original research. Everything is cited. In addition, there is no non-free material on the page. I'm not sure what the tags are for at the top of the page currently, though I will wait for someone else to remove them. Vuzor (talk) 22:22, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

The reference you included seems to be from a reliable source. As the band develops and does more, there will be more information available on them from secondary sources. We just need to make sure the article doesn't become a fan page and full of copyright violations (as before). Wikipedia isn't about promoting the subjects of its articles, it's still an encyclopedia and the articles therein need to reflect that. Thanks for your work, Vuzor. Winkelvi (talk) 23:50, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Place of Origin

Dave Kerzner's edits to this page indicate the band originated in Miami, Florida, USA, but much of the initial work seems to have been done in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, where Simon Collins was based. In addition, it seems the actual band members did not begin to collaborate as a group until they were in Vancouver. I would consider the band to have been formed in Vancouver, as a result, unless there is contrary evidence to that. Kerzner was certainly based in Florida, but Collins was not. Where the band first began to work as a unit should be its place of origin. Vuzor (talk) 00:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

All right. An update to this situation. It appears the band began recording at Sonic Reality's studios in Miami. I will edit the page accordingly. Vuzor (talk) 00:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Use of Official Website Material/Information

I would like to contribute to the history section of the page and certainly have been planning to do so. I suppose it's not possible to do anything with only the official website biography and Kerzner's own blog, is there? If there's a way to contribute using such sources, I will try to do so. If not, I'll wait. Let me know. Thanks. Vuzor (talk) 02:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I suppose, considering the blog was removed as a reference, it isn't quite possible. What do you think constitutes an acceptable source for the band's history? Also, I noticed you placed this in the article: "♙". What exactly is it? Vuzor (talk) 02:27, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I didn't place it there and have idea what it is. I'll take a look at it and see if it can be removed, though. In regard to what's acceptable for references: it's not what I think is acceptable, but what policy says is acceptable. Personal blogs are definitely not considered an acceptable source. For more information on referencing, see this: WP:REF. Winkelvi (talk) 02:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Indeed. That's what I intended to mean when I asked that question. Thank you for the referencing resource. In regards to that stray tag in the members section of the Sound of Contact page, it seems you were adding it back to the page unwittingly. Cheers. Vuzor (talk) 02:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi guys. Dave here. Yeah I wouldn't expect you could use my blog as any credible reference. It's factual but it's a blog and from my point of view meant for entertainment and reading. The web site however is meant as a source for press to use when doing write ups on the band. This page in particular is straight up designed for articles, news items etc. http://www.soundofcontact.com/press/ It perhaps needs some wording added to the page source so that it is clear that it is intended to be used freely as accurate representation of facts about the band should media be interested in writing about it. Because of that you will see the band bio repeated in various forms in relationship to articles coming out about the band from other parties. If you need to wait to see it that way as opposed to from the horse's mouth then I guess that's what you have to do. This also I would think is a credible resource: http://insideoutmusic.com/release.aspx?IdRelease=1480 as is this from a prominent magazine: http://www.progrockmag.com/news/sound-of-contact-premiere-dimensionaut-teaser/ and this: http://www.progrockmag.com/tag/sound-of-contact/ and this: http://www.progrockmag.com/news/sound-of-contact-sign-with-insideout/ and this: http://www.genesis-news.com/c-Simon-Collins-Sound-Of-Contact-Tour-dates-2013-s524.html and this: http://www.genesis-news.com/news-Simon-Collins-Sound-Of-Contact-World-Tour-2013-n333.html and this (just Googling here which anyone can do): http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=91400 and this: http://www.prog-sphere.com/2013/04/02/simon-collins-sound-of-contact-live-2013/ and this: http://rockfileradioofficial.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/simon-collins-sound-of-contact-announce.html and this: http://www.yesfans.com/showthread.php?73676-New-Band-Sound-of-Contact-with-Simon-Collins and that was just info from the first 2 pages searching for Sound of Contact and Simon Collins. If you want to search my name Dave Kerzner or John Wesley you will find hundreds - maybe even thousands of articles (yes we're that old and have been doing this for that long). So many third party resources already available and it is only going to increase so... is it really that hard to find information to form a thorough article about the band? It's just some Googling away it seems. Anyway, you work that out if you so wish or someone will... I don't know. But, hopefully that was helpful information. Now, I will officially go back to work. I keep getting notifications in my inbox and I will have to resist the temptation of curiosity simply because I am super busy doing what the actual article is supposed to be about ironically. Thanks for your time reading this. I hope you can work it all out so it's fair, unbiased and most of all accurate. --Sonic Squids (talk) 08:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


Hi Dave. Thank you for the links. We've actually already used some of those links as sources, including the Prog Rock Magazine article. Unfortunately, it appears fan sites aren't deemed credible sources. The Yes fansite, the Genesis fansite, and any other fansites don't appear to be usable, as frustrating as that is. Otherwise, my job would be a lot easier editing these pages. It is difficult to find sources, and as I have stated we are looking forward to the publication of the various articles about the band in the coming weeks. The reason we can't use a lot of the resources you've provided (or that we've found on Google in our attempt to find usable information) is because Wikipedia follows these guidelines:
1. WP:Verify - Verifiability: "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.[1] When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view."
2. WP:Original - No Original Research: "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented."
3. WP:POV - Neutral Point of View: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it."
Unfortunately, anything that was published by the band or the record label doesn't appear to be usable, as by default you guys are assumed to have an interest in your success (it's unfair, but Wikipedia treats it as black-and-white). In addition, you can't add information based on your own experiences. It has to be set in stone, published somewhere by someone not affiliated with you. That means nothing from Sonic Reality, nothing on blogs, nothing on the official web pages of any entity affiliated with you guys business-wise or personally. That's the difficulty of trying to edit the page. Every page deserves to be great, and yours for certain, but there's not much we can do with what we have right now. Sorry, Dave. We're really trying, and I specifically care about these pages. Sorry for the hassle. Vuzor (talk) 12:27, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Just to respond to a few points here. First up, all this would be much better placed on the article talk page so that other editors can see how conversations are developing. A COI banner has gone up but there is no mention of why on the talk page, as their should be. Also Winkelvi wrote: "You don't have any rights to what is said about your band in Wikipedia, and you don't have any right to change or add to the article. " The actual person Simon Collins has every right to request inaccuracies to be changed or deleted from the article about him. WP:BLP very much respects the right of the article's subject to have correct information posted and privacy maintained. This is best done through directly emailing the Wikipedia Foundation, not editing the article. See WP:OTRS. The band also have every right to comment on the content about them and this is best done on the article talk page. Band members directly editing may be taken as a conflict of interest. Editors are encouraged to assume good faith and work from there. Span (talk) 12:23, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Factual information from the band's official site and agencies are absolutely fine. promotional material is not. WP uses primary material all the time, we just have to be careful to stay neutral with it. blogs don't fly. Span (talk) 12:33, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Frankly, I'm not sure why the COI banner has gone up. I haven't seen Dave edit the band's page at all, nor have I seen him edit Simon Collins' page. The only actual text, at the top of the Sound of Contact page is directly from a third-party source which was deemed credible. There's nothing else that can be disputed; the same can be said about the Collins page. Vuzor (talk) 12:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
All right, so we can clarify that the official biography page can be used? There has been an ongoing debate about that, and in fact the references to the official page were removed by Winkelvi, so I assumed there was something wrong with them. To clarify: it is all right to use the official Sound of Contact web page as a source of information? In regards to Kerzner's own page, is the use of his Sonic Reality website as a source acceptable on the condition that the information be factual and not promotional material? Vuzor (talk) 12:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Studying some of the problems with Carter336's edits, it's clear the article used adjectives that really didn't have a place in the article and that could have been seen as puffery; i.e. "Sound of Contact is a unique..." In addition, the entire page took its text directly from the official page, a simple copy-and-paste job. If one can paraphrase portions of it adequately enough in conjunction with the use of other biographical sources, I assume that would be fair. A response would be appreciated, thanks. Vuzor (talk) 12:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Puffery and promotion isn't good. But official sites are fine, with the provisos given in the link. I'd also add that it's (very) often not clear to the subjects of articles why they shouldn't edit or spin articles about them. The subjects can (understandably) feel powerless and frustrated, feeling locked out of contributing to the most accessed webpage about their lives. Just something to bear in mind with new editors. Span (talk) 16:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Good advice and thoughts. Thank you for stating it. Winkelvi (talk) 17:27, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, let's take note of the references on the Coldplay and Imagine Dragons pages, for example. Most of those references are from the BBC, Billboard Magazine, MTV, CNN, etc. Basic information about these bands are sourced directly from their official website, but the majority of it is taken from third-party sources. I'm sorry, Dave, but it's a patient process and will take time. As you guys become more prominent, more people will want to edit, and you'll see a lot more progress. More sources will become available too. I will do what I can to provide a very basic writeup about your history so that it isn't entirely blank. Vuzor (talk) 21:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

If someone could please review the tags at the top and determine whether they can be removed, that would be great. I have written the history section and feel the tags no longer apply to the article. I suppose there was a bit of a misunderstanding, and that there is a grey area to using the official pages. If you could review the tags and the Sound of Contact page itself, it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Vuzor (talk) 23:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Requesting a (Copyright-Free) Image For the Band's Profile

There is one way the band itself can contribute to this page, and that is by releasing a free image of themselves for use in the public domain. If not the band, then someone with complete ownership of an image of the band may also provide one for this page. Please upload the photograph to the Wikipedia Commons. If there are any hurdles the band must go through to release the image aside from identifying it during the uploading process as their own work, it would be greatly appreciated if someone could link to the correct set of instructions. Be sure the image is copyright-free and that you aren't uploading someone else's image without their consent; i.e. an image taken by a photography agency (which would technically not be your own photograph). Vuzor (talk) 15:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

To Wikipedia editors: if there is a formal process for one party to upload the image on behalf of another (for example, if the photography agency has verbally given consent to upload the image to the Wikipedia Commons but must state explicitly this agreement), please post those instructions here; if not, please also clarify. I think this will ultimately be the case if the band wishes to contribute an image, unless someone with full ownership of a photo of the band uploads an appropriate image. Thanks. Vuzor (talk) 15:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
A Commons uploading wizard is linked here. The process all made a lot easier if the uploader is the actual author of the work and the file is from an original work (rather than a copy from a website, publication etc). By uploading an image to the Commons you are releasing it into the public domain for anyone's use. Best wishes Span (talk) 15:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Jonathan Schang's Role as a Touring Member

Previously, Jonathan Schang was listed by the band as a touring member. Their official promotional material for the tour, however, no longer features him. He has seemingly been replaced by Ronen Gordon. Though not a source to be used in this article, their band Facebook page also fails to mention Jonathan Schang as a touring member for the upcoming 2013 Dimensionaut tour. I wonder if Schang should be removed from the list of touring members both on this page (Sound of Contact) and on the Dimensionaut page. Thanks. Vuzor (talk) 15:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Vuzor. You're a good guy. Jonathan was just part of the first gig in Montreal when we opened for Marillion. He's not doing the current tour with us in Europe. That would be Ronen Gordon. Jonathan is touring Europe at the same time with his band District 97 and actually in Zoetermeer his band plays on the same stage with us which will be fun. We're all friends. The thing is that 2nd drummer slot is sort of a wild card position because Simon is actually the drummer of Sound of Contact. It's just that, like his father Phil, he wants to come out front and sing live instead of singing from behind the kit. So we have to have a second drummer like Chester Thompson was for Genesis. This is a hired position and would depend on who is available for what we're doing. At the moment that person is Ronen. It could stay that way or could change. It will be that way for this tour though and most likely more. Hope that helps. Back to rehearsals! --Sonic Squids (talk) 17:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Edits

Just edited the article to remove overlinking, undue weight to other bands, repetition/redundancy of album name, moved references. We have to be careful the article doesn't read like an advertisement and still looks like an encyclopedia article. Naming the album over and over and over again was total overkill. Plugging other bands: same deal. Winkelvi (talk) 20:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Winkelvi. Thank you for your work. There were some edits I don't necessarily agree with, though there were others that made sense. As a result, I have taken the best from both versions and spliced them together into one. I also revised some of the wording. Please let me know your opinion of it. Thanks. Vuzor (talk) 22:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
My opinion is reflected in the changes I just made. The opening paragraph had too much detail. Read WP:LEAD for more. Also, the band is made up of several members, but it's still a singular group, therefore, "is" should be used (Sound of Contact IS), not "are". I also think the article is over referenced. The same references are used many times over and there are references placed mid-sentence. This is also not appropriate. See WP:INCITE for specifics on what's good and what isn't when it comes to referencing. Winkelvi (talk) 23:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
The referencing looks ok to me. I suppose the mid sentence refs are there to show that only half the line is cited. Also, as the article was up for deletion two days ago, it's unsurprising that there should be lots of refs to support the case for keeping the page. Span (talk) 23:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
For Vuzor in regard to your edit summary about using is/are: examples of 'is' used in the lead paragraph of articles on bands: Chicago (band), Boston (band), Aerosmith, Bachman–Turner Overdrive. There are hundreds more, I'm sure. In the case of the name including a plural (The Beach Boys, The Rolling Stones, The Eagles), 'are' is used appropriately. So, as you can see, your argument isn't correct in that all the other articles will need to be changed. This band name is a singular, not a plural and should reflect the appropriate usage of the verb "to be". As far as the referencing: I still don't think it's okay. It's obtrusive for the reader to skim through and past all the interruptions posed by mid-sentence placed citations. And it makes for a nightmare in editing to wade through and past and around where the references are currently placed. Have you read the article on referencing that talks about inline cites and where they should be placed? Winkelvi (talk) 00:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
As far as double space between sentences: it's a common and accepted typing style to add two spaces. There's nothing wrong with two spaces. Sorry you don't like two spaces, but I'm not going to change 45 years of typing experience to satisfy one editor. If you have questions about what's acceptable in Wikipedia for spacing, check with the WP:MOS. Winkelvi (talk) 00:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough. I didn't mean for you to take offense; I thought it might have had something to do with the software you were using, which I thought was adding an extra space after each sentence. If you recall, there was an odd symbol you left behind in one of your revisions, which prompted me to think you may have been doing it unintentionally. I am also aware singular nouns should be referred to in single tense, though many of the pages I was using as models for this page used "are." I wanted to remain consistent, though you've shown that there are also pages that use "is" rather than "are." I think this needs to be addressed to Wikipedia editors en masse, as so many pages have it wrong. Anyway, thank you for your help. The page is looking better with each passing day. Vuzor (talk) 09:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Oxford Dictionaries say there both versions - 'is' and 'are' may be chosen for all collective nouns. [1] [2] [3]. The thing needed is consistency. According to Oxford, 'police' is the only collective noun that has a specific rule. Span (talk) 11:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Notable?

Are bands even notable if they haven't debuted yet? Simply south...... eating shoes for just 7 years 20:04, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

The band released their debut album on May 20, 2013. Vuzor (talk) 00:27, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

WikiProjects Article?

The band's album page, Dimensionaut, has been categorized as a WikiProjects article. Perhaps this one should be as well? Vuzor (talk) 00:27, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Rewording

Some of the sections have been rewritten a bit to make things a little more to the point and less wordy. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 02:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Tour Delay

The "Bring The Prog Back" tour has been delayed due to work visa complications, according to the band's official site. Some of the article information has been reworded to reflect this new information. Vuzor (talk) 04:09, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Removed what didn't happen and what's supposed to happen. This is precisely why I fought against this content being put into the article months ago. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and it's not a tabloid or music festival listing service. Let's stick with what's real, keep content encyclopedic, and cease advertising in advance. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 04:50, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I didn't see your edit there. I was in the midst of editing it myself. I, however, suppose we'll need to reach consensus on such a significant change to the article, though. The information is concrete, though. There is nothing hypothetical about these events and WP:CRYSTAL does not apply since the statements document the development of the tour; they do not predict the tour or assert that things "will occur." These events were scheduled, the postponement occurred, and the announcements were made. These things all happened and were documented. History can not be unwritten. What you're proposing is to remove everything that did, in fact, occur. The section consists entirely of facts -- they document part of the band's history. The development of a film, an album or a television series will frequently have delays and obstacles to overcome. That does not mean those obstacles should not be documented. Many articles have sections on their subject's development history. Most articles describe the development stages of the topic they discuss. This is all information that should be included in the article. Frankly, filtering that out and only including information about the 2014 tour (when that information is announced) is less encyclopaedic than noting all of the information that came before it. An article should be transparent, and including only concrete evidence of a tour's occurrence is in fact masking a lot of the information that happened and that has been documented. If you are aiming for an encyclopaedic article, as we all are, then you should want this information to remain in the article. The announcements were made -- they happened. One can't rewrite history and say the delay didn't happen or that only successful touring events can be documented. The band sold the tickets and then postponed the tour. That's as real an incident as any other. Vuzor (talk) 04:56, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
If you would like to dispute this and make such a drastic change to the article, then we should ask for others to offer their opinions before any action is taken. Vuzor (talk) 05:05, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, it is not a band promotion magazine, it is not a tabloid. The tour was supposed to take place, it didn't. We are not newspaper journalists. We don't report news, we write what has happened. Future tour plans are not encyclopedic. Especially if it ends up not happening. Per WP:BRD you shouldn't have replaced the tour that never took place information without discussion. Even so, it falls under WP:CRYSTAL and isn't appropriate to be included in the article. You are edit warring again after stating previously that you would stop doing so at Sound of Contact related articles. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 14:03, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
I do believe you've missed the point. We certainly do not predict the future, and we report what has happened. The tour was announced. As an event itself, this occurred. Dates were scheduled and tickets were sold. Arrangements were made for August and September, and announcements were made regarding the tour's postponement. Each of these individual events took place. What you propose is to filter out this information and only write about the outcome of the tour rather than its development. The development of a tour or a product is part of its history. As such, this kind of information is nearly always included in articles.
For example, the Resident Evil 4 article contains a large section on scrapped versions of the game.[4] The entire section, spanning five large paragraphs, details failed attempts at developing the game. As I have said already, this information is part of the topic's history and should remain. The tour was delayed -- that's a part of the tour's history and the band's history. It is in no way a hypothetical that the band delayed the tour and set a new date. It actually happened -- historically, that particular event already occurred. There are many movies whose release dates are pushed back; the act of pushing the release date back is historical in itself. That information is always described on Wikipedia. That information does not "predict the future," but rather describes the act of delaying the release date. This scenario is the exact same. Literally any film article will contain a development section detailing replaced crew members, missed deadlines, complications, and delayed release dates. The same applies to articles pertaining to any other scheduled event such as the release of a TV series, game, album, concert, television special. These things are simply a part of their history and are standard to be included in articles.
I am not edit warring. After I updated the information regarding the tour, you removed it. Your actions suggest you wish to edit war, but that is not my intention. If you wished to remove everything I had just written, you should have sought consensus. You deleted information that had just been added to the page mere moments prior.
If you wish to pursue this, then others' opinions must be sought. Vuzor (talk) 17:49, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, you are edit warring through reverts you shouldn't be making. Not only here, but now also at Dimensionaut. BRD is the standard, you aren't adhering to it. You pledged to stop reverting at Dimensionaut and SoC related articles and you are back the same old, same old behavior. Your edit warring is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Such behavior is simply not acceptible. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 18:07, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
I am not editing warring. If you would like to pursue this matter, I invite you to in the most diplomatic fashion. I don't understand what "point" I would be trying to make, and I don't see your need to accuse me of something such as that. That is not a diplomatic way to reach a conclusion. I have explained my case in regards to why this information is important. If this is a matter you would like to pursue, let's ask for another opinion. Vuzor (talk) 18:14, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
As far as I understand, why you would edit the Dimensionaut page after we opened the discussion on that very issue here is quite questionable. You have accused me of "edit warring" on that page, though in truth the discussion on that topic was already open here. If it is unresolved, I don't see why you would take it upon yourself to edit the other page without consensus either. Let's resolve this issue here, and whatever conclusion we reach will apply to the other page as well. Don't get ahead of yourself. Removing the same material from the other page after this discussion had been opened is asinine. Vuzor (talk) 18:25, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
This debate truly boils down to whether a topic's development history should be included in its Wikipedia article. Vuzor (talk) 18:30, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
It really doesn't. That the tour was cancelled can be included in the article, all the reasons why are irrelevant. Adding a statement that it has been postponed to April 2014 is going against WP:CRYSTAL, saying it has been postponed without adding a date is appropriate. What you propose and what is currently there is not acceptable content-wise per WP:MOS and WP:CRYSTAL. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 00:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Section on Promotion has been re-written in regard to the Prog tour in order to eliminate the possibility of using WP:CRYSTAL. Extraneous and irrelevant detail has also been removed as well as references that are no longer relevant and no longer support the corrections surrounding the tour cancellation. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 01:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Fair compromise. The content in question, including information about the initial plans for the tour and subsequent cancellation remain intact. The removal of this content was not necessary, and indeed this discussion is in regards to the tour's history and, by extension, the band's history. I am glad you have had a change of opinion; rewording it is fine, removing it without consensus is not. I have read the discussion at [5] and am glad you have decided not to insist on removing information without consensus immediately after the new content has been written. I have always been open to reaching consensus on changes, and if you can gather the support of others for the removal of information, that is fine. Remember our discussion in July: the easiest way to work cooperatively is to seek consensus for the removal of information, not addition.
This is good of you to cooperate. As I have said, if you feel strongly enough something that it should be removed, then I invite you to ask others for their opinions. If others agree with you that the content in question should be removed (and if it truly deserves to be removed, others will most definitely agree), then consensus can be reached on the removal of content. This is a more productive method of resolving a content dispute than simply removing new content and having other users approve of every new addition to the articles. Vuzor (talk) 02:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
To correct you on a few points, though: the tour has not been cancelled, it has been delayed. The band's statement itself declares that the tour has been pushed back until Spring 2014. They have tentatively scheduled their tour once more; tentative dates should be mentioned and do not go against WP:CRYSTAL. To assert that something "will" happen violates WP:CRYSTAL, but to say something has been scheduled for that date does not. Vuzor (talk) 02:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
It's a fine line. The wording and content currently does not cross that fine line. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 03:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree. I appreciate what we've settled on. On a more personal note, I'm not trying to antagonize you if that's how you feel, honestly. I am simply interested in the development of this and other articles. I believe it would be much more productive, however, if we sought consensus when removing content rather than when trying to make additions to each page. Removing content users have put time and effort into working on will frequently generate disagreement (when one user believes the new information belongs and the other does not), and more often than not, editors will want a valid justification for the removal of such content. It's a lose-lose situation, especially when it is, as you say, a fine line. When the additions to the page are in the interest of the article (and not vandalism), one would think that information would contribute to the article's development. That said, not every new addition belongs, but it would have to be the opinion of multiple users that the new content does not belong -- as a collective, Wikipedia's editors decide whether or not information is acceptable; we all have different opinions, and the common opinion is what forms the basis of acceptability on content. If the majority do not believe the content should be removed, then that content belongs on Wikipedia. If they feel it should be removed, you'll have basis to remove the content.
If you feel there's something that does not belong, I encourage you to check with other editors on whether the information should be removed. If you have concrete support from other members of the community, there won't be a dispute. That's what consensus does. One of the administrators described content disputes as common ("run-of-the-mill"), which implies editors often express differences in what they feel should belong in various articles. If multiple editors feel something should be removed, chances are it should be removed. If it's debatable, then there really isn't as much basis to remove something. Consensus will always provide a concrete decision as to whether something should be removed; if multiple users feel that way, it speaks for itself. Otherwise, the new information really only adds to the article. I'd like us to try that next time if we ever encounter such a scenario. I think we can work things out a lot more easily this way. I want us to work things out cooperatively and I'm glad we've reached a compromise here. Vuzor (talk) 03:30, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

For whatever reason, you seem to feel the need and authority to make rules for how editing should occur on pages you are interested in. The accepted Wikipedia standard for editing all articles is the proper use of WP:BRD. I'll stick with that. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 14:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Oddly enough, your removal of content that already existed in the previous "consensus" version of the page (about the tour) was the Bold step in WP:BRD, so why you would be offended by a reversion of that is beyond me. Removing a portion of the article that had been in place for months is a bold move. In the end, that content remained, though we never actually agreed to a resolution prior to your last edit. Thus, consensus had not been reached. I've compromised with you because I don't see a need to push this any further, though if we wanted to adhere to WP:BRD without leeway, I would ask for the opinions of other editors to keep Edit ID:572149586. I don't "feel the need and authority to make rules for how editing should occur," I'm offering a resolution. Again, your asinine assumptions are only meant to provoke others. You've not only attacked me but other editors as well in the past. You don't seem capable of working with others; the reason this dispute isn't continuing is because I'm letting you have your way despite the changes being very arguable. You edited the page before an agreement was made. If I wanted to fully flesh out the Discuss stage, I would ask for the opinions of others. Don't be so sure that we have actually followed WP:BRD here. You fought over the Revert stage (thus starting an edit war), and then proceeded to edit the page again without an agreement from the rest of the editors involved. I accepted the fact that you edited before an agreement was made even when it went against WP:BRD. Threatening me with edit war notices is not negotiating in good faith, nor is it in line with the spirit of WP:BRD. I had every right to revert your bold removal of stable content from the article.
If you've read WP:BRD, you'll notice this:
Discuss
Adhere to Wikiquette and civility guidelines: The easiest way to intensify this cycle and make it unbreakable is to be uncivil. Try to lead by example and keep your partner in the same mindset.
Do not accept "Policy" , "consensus", or "procedure" as valid reasons for a revert: These sometimes get worn in on consensus-based wikis. You are disagreeing, that is okay. Do not back off immediately, BUT:
Listen very carefully: You are trying to get the full and considered views of those who care enough to disagree with your edit. If you do not listen and do not try to find consensus, you are wasting everyone's time. You should not accept, "It's policy, live with it."
Listening to others and working out an agreement cooperatively is as important as sticking to the book. If you reject the ideas of others, you are wasting everyone's time. If you want to follow WP:BRD, you should familiarize yourself with it first. Vuzor (talk) 15:05, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

As I do with the majority of your talk page comments (read:novellas), I am enlisting and invoking WP:TLDR. Have a nice day. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 15:31, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Do not forget two of Wikipedia's five pillars: WP:CIVIL and WP:IAR.
From WP:UIAR:
If there's a better way to do something than what the rules say, do it the better way.
That appears to be what we have done. That said, if you're going to follow WP:BRD, do it in a civil fashion and don't throw edit warnings around when others are trying to discuss a resolution. You made a bold removal, that removal was reverted. Your next step should not have been to tack on a bunch of edit warnings to my talk page for the purpose of creating a "trail" as you put it. That's not WP:BRD, that's WP:BAIT. Listening to others is an important part of editing on Wikipedia. It's not good that you've ignored that key point. Vuzor (talk) 15:49, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Your continual lecturing is truly tedious and boring. I'm sure you will now cite AGF and CIVIL, but I really don't care. Please move on. Again, have a nice day (and please walk away from the horse that's now stinking and becoming a fly-farm). -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 17:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Archive 1
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sound_of_Contact/Archive_1&oldid=609476987"