Talk:Dimensionaut

Review

I'd like to request a review of this music album page before it is posted as an actual article. If someone could take a quick look and see if it is suitable at the moment, that would be appreciated. If it still requires work, please also let me know. Thank you. Vuzor (talk) 22:32, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: I have an album cover which I will upload to the article page after the article has been moved. Vuzor (talk) 22:43, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment #1: The "Reception" section is too top heavy with positive reviews, making it appear POV. As was stated on your talk page, the unbalance of the "Reviews" section (many more positive reviews than negative) is a violation of the Wikipedia definition of NPOV. The definitiin of NPOV was posted on your talk page earlier today, "The first sentence in the article on NPOV states, 'Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources'."

Comment #2: You have content in the article that appears to be plagiarized as it is too close to copyrighted material. For example, in the "Concept" section, you have written: "Dimensionaut is a concept album. Its plot follows a dimensional, time and space traveler, "Dimo," as he ventures on a mission to transcend human experience". That is nearly identical to, "Dimensionaut is effectively the story of dimensional time and space traveller called “Dimo” who is on a mission to expand the boundaries of the human experience." The latter was published on May 20, 2013 in the article "Contact – Dimensionaut" By Pete Collins at the website "Renowned for Sound" found here: [1]. Now I'm forced to wonder how much more of the article is a copy of published and copyrighted sources. Use of or even very close representation of copyrighted material in Wikipedia is forbidden. It is unacceptable to use copyrighted content taken from web sites or printed sources. The content so closely matching the copyrighted material needs to be changed immediately, even though it is just in your user space, as it is already viewable when an online search for "Dimensionaut" is performed. From the Wikipedia article "Copyright Violations":

"...copying material without the permission of the copyright holder from sources that are not public domain or compatibly licensed (unless it's a brief quotation used in accordance with Wikipedia's non-free content policy and guideline) is likely to be a copyright violation. Even inserting text copied with some changes can be a copyright violation if there's substantial linguistic similarity in creative language or structure (this can also raise problems of plagiarism). Such a situation should be treated seriously, as copyright violations not only harm Wikipedia's redistributability, but also create legal issues."

If there is anything else in this article you have copied and changed only slightly, you will need to remedy that immediately. It would be best if you did it now rather than another editor start checking every word, phrase, and sentence in the article and then find anything else violates Wikipedia's policy on copyright violations.

Winkelvi (talk) 23:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll do what you ask, but as you have had a fair amount of input into these articles already, I would like to hear another opinion afterward. Hopefully you can respect that. Vuzor (talk) 23:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

The copyright violations need to be taken care of immediately. Winkelvi (talk) 23:15, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Already done. Can you respect my request to have another user review the page? Span has already given his opinion of the Reception section. I would appreciate if somebody else could judge it as well. I have already devoted three sentences to the negative review. That's practically 35% of the section. Vuzor (talk) 23:21, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Don't really understand what you mean by "respect my request to have another user review the page". How could I possibly stop anyone from reviewing the page? Winkelvi (talk) 00:26, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

"The 'Reception' section is too top heavy with positive reviews, making it appear POV'. I think positive reviews make the article seem like most other WP articles. Vuzor, it's good you've added a few others and it would be necessary if you were going for GA, but their absence is not enough to suggest the article shouldn't go live. As I've said before elsewhere, WP articles don't follow an 'already perfected' model. They are works in progress that we add to and improve along the way. If there is copyright vios, then they do need clearing up. It's good that the article has reviews from some big music magazines. The more mainstream coverage you can get, the more the 'notability' question is covered, if you want to bring the article live. If the copyright question is addressed, I can't see why the article shouldn't stand. It seem fine to me. 'If there is anything else in this article you have copied and changed only slightly, you will need to remedy that immediately'. Wikielvi, it seems you are issuing ultimatums and insisting there is COI. I haven't seen any evidence of this. By the way, I'm a she.Span (talk) 20:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Since you started your comments with quoting me, it seems like you are more interested in criticizing me than actually giving usable comments about the article-to-be, Span. It's almost as if you would rather tell me I'm wrong than give positive feedback. And that's troubling. (but since you have started out by commenting about me, you've opened the door for me to comment about you)

As far as the copyright vio goes: Vuzor copied and pasted something he found on the internet and only slightly changed what he copied and pasted. It makes me wonder why he did it, why he thought it was okay to do it, and why he thought he could get away with it. More to be troubled about.

That you would just brush over a copyvio - something Wikipedia takes very, very seriously -- and make the strongest negative comment about the editor finding the copyvio rather than the copyvio itself....... that, too is very troubling.

Copyvios are a big deal. If you don't know it, you should. If you know it and are glossing over it, that's a reason to doubt your credibility and judgement in matters relating to editing. Something else to be troubled about. And to keep an eye on.

By the way, I'm a she, too.

-- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 00:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I didn't copy and paste anything. The part you cited, Winkelvi, was from the only description of the album's story at the time. I paraphrased it, although it perhaps too closely resembled the original. I did fix that, though, by rewording everything and expanding with other sources. More information is now available, so more can be added to provide a well-rounded overview of the concept. To be clear, I didn't "copy and paste" anything -- I typed everything out. The rest of it is my own wording. There is no copyvio issue here, and everything I quoted from the reviews is in quotations and clearly cited. There is no copyright issue; I don't appreciate my integrity being insulted, though I appreciate your concern and I have done as you have asked in regards to the one questionable portion of the text (the 'concept' section). I repeat, there is no copyvio issue. I typed everything out myself in my own words. No one's glossing over anything; Span reviewed the article. I don't understand why there needs to be such hostility. I don't see the need for any unsubstantiated accusations, especially in regards to anyone's credibility or whether the article contains any copyright issues. Please stop pointing fingers and worrying about the intentions of others; there are no villains here. The concept section was corrected four days ago. A review is helpful because it helps resolve such issues, and I'm glad we addressed it. We collaborated, we found the source of the issue, we fixed it.

If the article is good to go live, I'll post it now. Thanks, Span. Vuzor (talk) 07:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Winkelvi, I didn't brush over copyright. I mentioned it twice. I was responding to your comments. As a new editor, I thought you might be interested in WP norms and customs. I think you are riding Vuzor too hard. Comments like 'why he thought he could get away with it' are accusatory and show no good faith. Every editor is fully entitled to their opinion and take on matters, but this does come across as plainly hostile. The point of preparing an article in a sandbox and asking for reviews is so that issues can be flagged and addressed, as has been done. Ongoing hostility is damaging to the community. WP has over 22 million articles worldwide. We do what we can to nurture them, understanding that we can't control them - it's not in the nature of the model, which is founded on trust, openness and collaboration. Span (talk) 10:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Vuzor, you didn't copy and paste, but typed it out and paraphrased it? It's still the same thing which still made it a copyvio and I would hope you now understand the weight of copyright violations in Wikipedia. Trying to turn this into "I didn't hear that" gives me another reason to not trust your editing and motives. You most definitely did commit a copyright violation and you can bet I will be checking to see if it happens again. You may not have known what you were doing was a copyvio at the time, but you did after I pointed it out to you. Why not just admit you made a mistake? Trying to hide that error by saying "I didn't cut and paste" and directing attention back on me isn't the answer and sure doesn't restore that trust Spanglej thinks I should blindly hand you in the spirit of good faith. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 11:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Span, your comments started out by quoting me, not by addressing the article. That says you were more interested in me than giving constructive criticism to anything else on this talk page. Claiming I'm "hounding" (which you've disguised by saying "ongoing hostility" instead) is complete bullshit. If the nature of the model is founded on trust, then Vuzor has damaged that trust over and over with the "community". But please, do continue to enable him and send the message that he's justified and the victim here. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 11:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

space

In the Concept section, "space" is deceiving and instead leads to "intergalactic travel". This should be remedied as it ends up being WP:EGG and MOS:NOPIPE. "Space" is more poetic, but not accurate if intergalactic travel is what's really intended. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 13:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I had originally intended to link "space" to space travel, but that is a disambiguation page with links to several other articles. Intergalactic travel is probably the closest to the intended meaning as it is used by the band; the other possibility would be spacefaring, though there is no mention of spacecraft or astronautics anywhere in relation to the album. I will change "space" to "galaxies" for now. Vuzor (talk) 00:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The change made still goes against WP:EGG and MOS:NOPIPE. I have changed it to galaxy. As far as the details about how many songs from the album were done while on tour: those details are irrelevant to the album and should be in the article on the band, not in the article about the album. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 02:11, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks. Vuzor (talk) 05:23, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Carys Jones review

By expanding on Jones' comments regarding Omega Point, the article goes into great detail about that song alone. Would it not be fair to represent the entire review and acknowledge that most of the songs were "wonderful," "lovely," and "impressive"? It seems like a huge amount of weight is being placed on that one comment despite the review being very positive. The way it is represented in the article, it appears to be quite a negative/mixed review when, in fact, it's overwhelmingly positive.

"This album is wonderful in that it is truly experimental and the band have amazing talent as musicians. We feel as though they have a long future ahead of them and we would definitely recommend for you to try to catch this band live to fully grasp how good they and their songs sound live. An excellent effort from the band to produce a completely original album, full of so many interesting songs and experimentation that really works." 4/5 stars

http://www.entertainment-focus.com/music-review/dimensionaut-sound-of-contact-album-review/

I wanted to highlight the negative portion briefly and weight it equally with "Carys Jones gave this article a positive review" so that the sentence would be balanced and reflect the review accurately while also building on the perceived negative aspects of the album. By expanding on that one section, the article misrepresents the review. It makes the reviewer appear to be criticizing the band's songwriting ability when, in fact, most of the songs are interesting and experimental. I think the simplest solution would just be to revert the passage about Jones' review to what it was earlier today. I won't do anything for now, though. I'd like to hear your opinion and see if we can figure out what to do with that.

Vuzor (talk) 05:23, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

We've already talked about this. As it is, the section is still top heavy on positive reviews. By taking Jones' negative comments, you are bringing the section closer to real balance. If I had written the article, I would have included mentions of the other positive reviews, but wouldn't have gone into such detail on the specific comments. Remember the definition of NPOV? The negative Jones comments make it more on the NPOV side. For now, they need to stay. Let the review from the album project group happen and see what they have to say. One more thing: Don't forget that Wikipedia isn't supposed to be an advertisement for anything. So many positive reviews with direct quotes makes it look like an advertisement, in my opinion. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 05:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Oops. Edited as you were typing this. I was going to ask if the section I added would be appropriate. If not, you can undo it. Vuzor (talk) 05:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

It still misrepresents the intentions of the reviewer. The passage in the article implies she thinks the band's songwriting is below average and that they are merely writing lyrics to fit the melodies. I don't think this is the case at all. She calls several other songs "wonderful," "experimental," "impressive." This one comment is being skewed in a way that doesn't reflect the author's intentions. Neilson's review takes up about 25% of the section, and considering most of the reviews are highly positive, that's a good representation of the overall reception to the album. His review is also fairly baseless, as he claims to greatly dislike Phil Collins, clearly influencing his opinion of the album. It doesn't seem quite like a legitimate review upon reading it, but in fact an attack on Phil Collins. Vuzor (talk) 05:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

We aren't here to interpret the intentions of the reviewer. I added that the reviewer gave the album 4/5 stars, that should make the reviewer's feelings clear. If anyone has any questions, they can look at the reference link. You've already written too much direct-quote-wise that inflates the article to look like fan-cruft and advertisement to sell albums. What's more, Wikipedia isn't about giving reviews on albums. It's not a consumer go-to for reviews on products. Now that I think about it further, that's what the section looks like. As I said above, let it be for now and let those reviewing/assessing the article give their opinion(s). -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 05:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

My point is that the portion cited from Jones' review makes the band members seem as though their lyrics are filler when, generally, they are not; she implies they are well-written in her review. If we're going to keep that in, I think it would be fair to quote the review's concluding sentence in addition. The album has had an overwhelmingly positive reception thus far; the only negative review out of many has been the Neilson review. I'm fine with the article saying the album has received both positive and negative reviews; other articles don't exactly bring balance to their review section -- the Random Access Memories article, for example. I'm not sure how you would react to the sentence, "Random Access Memories received widespread critical acclaim upon its release."

I don't think that a positive review should be skewed to look like a negative review and that it should imply something the author never suggests. By isolating that one portion from her review, it appears she is being critical of the band's songwriting as a whole. I agree we can let others decide. Vuzor (talk) 06:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Like I said, we've talked about this before. Articles aren't ads for albums, books, or anything. They aren't fan magazines. I don't care that "the album has had an overwhelmingly positive reception", and as someone editing the article, you shouldn't either. Even mentioning this gives the impression you are editing in a POV manner and that you have a COI. Perhaps you're too close to the subject -- for whatever reason. And it doesn't matter what other articles you can find that look like this when it comes to reviews. Do you want the article to be a good article that sets the proper example of Wikipedia's manual of style or do you want it to be what it's not supposed to be? Your choice. Just know that if you make choices contrary to WP:MOS, I will be doing what I can to bring it back to where it's supposed to be. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 06:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Baseless accusations aren't necessary. I don't want to get into that again when there's nothing to suggest any truth to such hunches. I am editing to accurately reflect the article's subject matter -- descriptive text about its various aspects. I already said it's fine to say "the article has received both positive and negative reviews." The weight of the positive reviews to the negative reviews gives a clear indication of the overall perception to the album without the text stating it explicitly; I don't think it needs any changes as it stands right now. The negative quotations take up about 30% of the section. The weight of the section is fine, in my opinion.

I still don't know why you keep pulling that out of the bag whenever there's something you disagree about. No laundry lists, remember? The review section is fair; my only issue is that the Jones review is being manipulated to imply something she never suggests in her writing. That, to me, is not right at all. We should either balance it with additional quotations from her review or remove it. We should not be manipulating the text in such ways. If it were another negative quote, that would be fine, but I don't think Jones' words should be manipulated. It's not about the weight of the section, it's the misrepresentation of Jones' review that needs to be addressed. Vuzor (talk) 06:16, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

What bullshite. You cherry-picked through the other reviews and highlighted what spotlighted the band and their songwriting and the drumming and the instrumentals, etc. All positive. And much of it just too much. I already took out a lot of peacocking and puffery that you added (knowing that kind of thing doesn't belong). I found negative comments from a legitimate review and you balk? My initial reaction to the reviews section was to scrap most of the direct quotes because in actuality, there's too much of it. You can't have it both ways. No one can. It's not manipulation. It's a direct quote, exactly what the reviewer said. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 06:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

What is with your attitude? It has been very difficult to work with you, and I don't understand why you take everything so personally. Your suspicion about what I did is off base entirely, and your little asides are offensive (you know what I mean). I did not cherry pick. In the reviews, much of the focus is on the individual songs, and some don't provide scores but rather an overview of their thoughts on the album. All I did was take the general comments about the album and apply them to the article. The portion of the Jones review you quoted in isolation contradicts the actual message of the review, which is what I'm trying to get across to you (though you continually try to be antagonistic). The only negative review available ANYWHERE is the Neilson review, and even that is questionable if you read it -- much of it criticizes Phil Collins, who has nothing to do with the album. By including it, I am ignoring the fact it is not a legitimate review but rather an attack on the elder Collins. The basis of its criticism is that Simon Collins is Phil Collins' son, from which Neilson descends into a rant about how the band should not exist and that anything resembling Phil Collins' music is awful. It actually gives the section a negative tinge that it would otherwise not have. The section reflects the overall reception to the album, that's it. The Jones review needs to be addressed; let somebody else make that decision. Clearly, that has to be done whenever we disagree. Vuzor (talk) 06:47, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The article has now been reviewed. It received a C Class. The article recommended to look at and compare this one is found here:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_Earth&oldid=531439405#Reception You'll see that this article doesn't go on and on and include never-ending glowing reviews. Simple, basic, to the point. That's what this article needs. Will you get to it, or should I? -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 06:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

A C Class is fair enough. It's a new article. B-class articles are generally more extensive and have much more coverage. Many older album articles are still rated Start-class, so progress is already being made. Unless there is much more material to work with, I don't think it will exceed a C Class just because it's far too short. I disagree with your opinion that the article has "never-ending glowing reviews." Your hyperbole there is unnecessary when the positive to negative reviews are weighted quite accurately. Only one negative review exists, and even that is not a legitimate review (much of it is spent attacking Phil Collins). The review section is more than balanced with its inclusion; the section fairly depicts the album's reception and includes some of the more general comments from the reviews. "Never-ending glowing reviews" is quite a condescending thing to say. I have been cooperating with you and I was working with you, then you started pointing fingers again. We don't need that. Vuzor (talk) 06:47, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

More on reviews

After some thought, I have changed the "Reviews" section to "Critical reception" based on other similar music album articles. I have also pared down the direct quotes even further. The section now looks more balanced as far as the amount of content in comparison to the rest of the article. As I stated previously, peacocking and fan-like puffery has been removed, and I just changed a weasel word ("claimed") to a neutral and much less negative term ("stated"). Looking at and comparing other similar album articles, so many direct quotes were just padding and, in my estimation, promotion. Also in comparison with other similar articles, much less is said in the critical reception section than was originally included here. As it was, the reception section was much larger than every other section in the article -- which also caused the section to appear promotional. If readers want to see what reviewers had to say in more depth, they can look up the references and read for themselves. We aren't here to sell albums or act as free advertising. In the future, once the album and/or single(s) actually chart, we can include that information in the critical reception section as well. As it currently stands, however, doing a search through Billboard, UK charts, and other chart listings available on the web, I wasn't able to find anything on Sound of Contact, Dimensionaut, or the debut single. Nothing about the band even comes up in a search at the Billboard weekly top 200. That tells me that album isn't doing too well yet. Maybe it will in the future and we can include the information in the reception section. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 20:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Reverting all of it? Really? Looks like the start of an edit war to me. WP:UNDUE as well as comparison to other similar album articles most definitely addresses and refutes your edit summary, Spanglej. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 22:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

We do not have consensus on this. Consensus is required. It seems neither Vuzor or I agree with your perceptions on this. Span (talk) 23:34, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Editors who aren't getting their way and start edit warring love to use the excuse: "we need consensus in order to make changes". Never expected an experienced editor like you to use such a lame, bullshit excuse and engage in edit warring. Aren't you a part of the Wikipedia kindness campaign or olive branch society or something like that? So much for expectations and thinking too highly of someone based on their experience and user page trinkets. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 00:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Not a promotion tool

I have reverted the revert of Spanglej for the following reasons: the text written by Vuzor did not support Spaglej's assertion that the tour was a promotion and marketing move related to the album. The reference mentions nothing about promoting the album, rather, it talks of promoting the genre, prog rock. I also reverted because, as I stated in the first revert edit summary I provided, the article is about the album, not the band. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 11:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

The set list consists almost entirely of the album. They are headlining the tour, whereas they did not headline the InsideOut tour, playing only two songs in the latter concert set. It is inferred in the references that the upcoming tour is a promotion of the album. The tour has seemingly been titled "Bring the Prog Back" to promote the genre in conjunction with the album, but the concerts itself appear to focus primarily on Dimensionaut. The only band to appear in every show, considering they are headlining it, is Sound of Contact. This, to me, seems like a promotion of their album. Let me know your thoughts. I would recommend reverting it, and would like to hear your reasoning for its removal and subsequent classification of the InsideOut tour as the "Dimensionaut European Tour."

http://www.soundofcontact.com/tour-dates/

The band's website itself indicates that the May tour was the "InsideOut 20th Anniversary European Tour," while their current tour is labeled "“BRING THE PROG BACK” – NORTH AMERICAN TOUR." Other sources indicate the InsideOut tour was headlined by Spock's Beard, not Sound of Contact. Considering the hyphen between "Bring the Prog Back" and "North American Tour," it's apparent that this is their North American tour and that "Bring the Prog Back" is merely the title. One could easily suggest this to be closer to an actual album tour than the May European tour. The band has a penchant for mislabeling their tours, though, as their own posters give conflicting titles to the May tour; other third party sources label it the InsideOut Tour, headlined by Spock's Beard. The upcoming North American tour is the album tour, headlined by Sound of Contact. I don't think it should be labeled "Dimensionaut North American Tour" such as that is not its title, but it should be included in the article. When people go to see this show, they'll be seeing mostly Sound of Contact's material from Dimensionaut, followed by a progressive rock medley with guest performers. It's a Dimensionaut show. Vuzor (talk) 23:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

You're using synthesis and original research to come to a conclusion not supported by the band's own website. For that reason alone, the information about the tour does not belong in the article about the album. For another reason, the tour information does not belong in the article about the album because Wikipedia isn't here to promote bands, albums, or their tours. Which, as you stated here: "When people go to see this show, they'll be seeing mostly Sound of Contact's material from Dimensionaut, followed by a progressive rock medley with guest performers. It's a Dimensionaut show", seems to be the crux of why you want it in this article. One more reason is that the article is about the album, not the band. But, violating synth and original research along with no source to support your synth and original research is enough to keep it out. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 00:09, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Your second reason, "the tour information does not belong in the article about the album because Wikipedia isn't here to promote bands, albums, or their tours," does not apply to this instance. Wikipedia does not promote bands, albums, or tours, but this is not an issue of WP:POV. This is an issue of providing neutral information about the album's promotional tour in an article about the album. It is relevant information in regards to the promotion of the album.

Many featured articles regarding albums have a section about the corresponding tours and promotion. For instance, the Internationalist, Over the Rainbow, Romances, Remain in Light, and No Line on the Horizon article pages, to name a few featured album articles, have a section on "Promotion and Touring" or "Publicity." Information about tours to promote the album should be included in their respective album articles; this situation is no different.

If the explicit articulation and description of the "Bring the Prog Back" tour as the album's promotional tour is the only obstacle, then perhaps we can revisit this when that has been stated or addressed by any reviewers or third party sources when they become available. The description given appears to be explicit enough, stating explicitly in the source that "Sound of Contact plays their entire 73 minute “Dimensionaut” concept album from beginning to end," and that "at the end of the evening a variety of musicians from the show will come on stage for an all out “Bring The Prog Back” medley of timeless prog classics." The official promotional poster is a giant image of the album cover/artwork.

http://www.soundofcontact.com/sound-of-contact-announce-bring-the-prog-back-north-american-tour/

http://www.soundofcontact.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/SOC-Bring-The-Prog-Back-Tour-1000.jpg

If that isn't clear enough, so be it. One can argue it's clear enough, but if the only way it can be included in the article, as you suggest, is if it is stated "this tour promotes this album," I suppose I can't fight your assertion. Vuzor (talk) 02:16, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

As already stated, the "obstacle" is that there is nothing verifiable supporting your original research and use of synthesis to concoct the idea that the current tour revolves around the Dimensionaut album and therefore should be included in the Dimensionaut article. That's the long and short of it. And, once again, the article is an encyclopedia article, not a news story, not an advertisement or promotional article for the benefit of gaining concert-goers for Sound of Contact. The article needs to be written and edited as such. And currently, since the tour hasn't yet happened, everything is still speculation about the tour, the set list, even Sound of Contact's involvement. So, with that in mind as well, another good reason for this album article to contain absolutely nothing about Sound of Contact's upcoming tour as mentioned on the band's official website. A mention, I might add, that says nothing about the tour centering on the album, Dimensionaut as you claim is the master plan. How you, with no conflict of interest or personal contact with any of the band or their promoters or label would know that is the master plan is beyond me. Well, short of your use of original research and synthesis, that is. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 04:32, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Your argument is that because the tour has not happened yet information about it can not be included. That is quite farcical. In addition, the source clearly states the following:

"Sound of Contact are pleased to announce the “Bring The Prog Back” North American Tour in August and September of 2013 along with a host of hot progressive rock artists. On each date of the “Bring The Prog Back Tour”, Sound of Contact plays their entire 73 minute “Dimensionaut” concept album from beginning to end with Simon Collins on drums and vocals, Dave Kerzner on keys, Matt Dorsey on bass, Randy McStine on guitar and Ronen Gordon on drums."

The band itself announced the tour, not the record label nor any of the other bands involved. Clearly stated is that Sound of Contact will appear at every show, performing the entire album live at every show. The poster is of the album artwork. The headline/title of the official tour poster -- the largest text on the poster, featured at the top -- is "Sound of Contact Performs Their Sci-Fi Concept Album DIMENSIONAUT Live!" You must be truly kidding yourself to think this tour is not centered on the album. The insignias and trademarks on the bottom of the poster feature "SOC" to identify one of the organizers -- Sound of Contact. Also featured is Sonic Reality, which we by now know is the company of the band's co-founder.

This source, meanwhile, says the following: "Sound of Contact Plan Massive Prog Invasion of US!"

http://www.progrockmag.com/news/sound-of-contact-plan-massive-prog-invasion-of-us/

The only thing that can make this more obvious would be if the band specifically stated, as I have mentioned before, "this tour is centered on Dimensionaut." Everything published about the tour thus far suggests quite clearly that the tour revolves around the album. I do not understand your continued accusation of COI (and I refer to your hypocritical accusations of "laundry lists" in the past) -- clearly, the information on the page itself indicates the band organized the upcoming tour. This is not original research. It's blatantly placed in the official news release and poster itself. This tour is about the album, and I think it's obvious to everybody except you. Vuzor (talk) 05:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Have you even bothered to look at the articles I linked to concerning original research and synthesis?

It is your opinion that "everything suggests", but even so, suggesting isn't good enough. Synthesis, is not allowed. Original research, is not allowed. I can't say it any clearer. You need to move out of your "I didn't hear that" mode and just reconcile that this encyclopedia article about a Sound of Contact album isn't going to have original research and synthesis in it to suit your personal agenda (whatever that agenda is, but it's clear you have one). The tour is the tour and as is blatantly obvious, Sound of Contact isn't even saying it's about the album. Get over it, move on, stop with the personal attacks, quit being pointy and stop Wikilawyering. Maybe you should go edit an article that's not connected with Sound of Contact in some way. There are thousands and thousands of articles out there that could benefit from some clean-up and copy editing. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 05:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

You claim I'm editing "to suit your personal agenda (whatever that agenda is, but it's clear you have one)," then request that I "stop with the personal attacks"? That's an instance of hypocrisy right there. You've argued with multiple editors, reverted their edits, resorted to using fairly foul language in some cases, and accused me of WP:LAWYER? That is laughable, considering you've scrutinized everything I've said and regularly tried to turn it back on me by accusing me of "an agenda." That is a personal attack if I have ever seen one, and the same one you've used whenever you disagree with my edits. You have been confrontational this entire time, and your aggressive attitude towards other editors and editing in general has caused a lack of progress to be made. You insist on instigating edit wars even against more experienced editors, and clearly do not understand the concept of collaboration and teamwork. What does "the tour is the tour" even mean? Concert tours always have a purpose, and in this instance it relates to the album. Also, why insist that I edit something else? I'll edit what I want to edit, and you won't dictate that. If I didn't edit this, the page would not exist in the first place.

There are many other articles, so I'll turn it on you and ask why you don't worry about those considering you're well aware of them. All you've done is antagonize other editors here and make it difficult to make any progress on these pages, wasting everybody's time. Clearly, you have such a literal mind that unless the information is spoon fed to you, you can't use it. It's on the poster, it's in the article, it's in the third party article. You've been wrong before about the use of references, and unless someone else supports you on this, you're wrong again. You've made mistakes before; we've tried to work with you, and have tolerated your insistence on reverting certain items since we clearly are easier to work with and more compromising than you are. One must wonder why you misidentified the InsideOut 20th Anniversary Tour as the Dimensionaut European Tour on Template:Sound of contact, since it is far from it -- that's one instance of you being incorrect in regards to identifying the "purpose" of one of the band's tours. I must wonder -- do you have a personal agenda? In regards to this, Spanglej has reverted your edit once. I will revert it now. You'll need someone else to justify your opinion if you think the material doesn't belong, otherwise you'll only be continuing the edit war. Vuzor (talk) 06:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

More editors disagree with you than agree with you. We have been very patient with your edits, but this is ridiculous. You are editing against the consensus here. You are editing disruptively, and I don't see how you have any authority over me to threaten the way you have. You have been vile, impossible to work with. Two editors disagree with your stance. If someone else agrees with you, they will correct it; if not, it should stand. Your revisions are not productive, and serve only to antagonize those who try to contribute content to the page. If anything, you should be warned. As it stands, your revisions are actually a nuisance to those who are working on these pages. I don't condescend the way you have. If you want to do the right thing to sort this out, you will wait for another party to confirm your belief and we can make a decision in a civil manner. Vuzor (talk) 06:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

You have just threatened me with the three-revert rule on my talk page, Winkelvi. I count five reverts from you within the past twenty-four hours, reverting the edits of multiple editors. That's almost twice the violation. You've already broken the rule and tried to control the way the page is being edited, reverting not only my edits by Spanglej's. Your hypocrisy and authoritarian approach continue to amaze me. If I were to revert your edit myself, I would be breaking the three-edit rule, but considering you have consciously broken that rule and almost doubled it, I am reporting this; you had the presence of mind to have that link while reverting my edits and had already broken the rule; while we could have waited for a fourth user to make a decision (after all, two users disagreeing with you isn't enough) so you wouldn't have edited a fifth time, you edited anyway, consciously challenging the rule a fifth time just moments before you had the nerve to threaten me with a hypocritical three-revert warning. Vuzor (talk) 06:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I can't believe we are even having this conversation, Winkelvi. A band release an album and then immediately go on tour and you are disputing that the album and the tour are related. In no way are the details of a tour promotional puff. You'd be hard pressed to find an article about any major band or album that doesn't mention its tour. True Blue (Madonna album) (GA), I Am... Sasha Fierce (GA), Achtung Baby (FA), OK Computer (FA), Janet Jackson's Rhythm Nation 1814 (GA), (What's the Story) Morning Glory? (GA), Daydream (Mariah Carey album) (GA). I think you have somehow got hold of entirely the wrong end of the stick about Wikipedia editing. It's supposed to be collaborative, mutually supportive, fun and consensus-based. As the admin said on your page: " I don't see anywhere that you got consensus for this change." You wrote on my page "Edit warriors and those with battleground mentality LOVE to use the excuse: there's no consensus. That excuse is total bullshit." Consensus-based collaboration is not bullshit, the foundation of how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia:Consensus says "Consensus refers to the primary way decisions are made on Wikipedia, and it is accepted as the best method to achieve our goals". It's not a figment of my imagination. Civility and respect for other editors is also one of the five pillars of the community. Span (talk) 19:16, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't give a crap what you personally believe, look at the band's own website and you will see that the tour isn't for promoting the album. There are scores of other bands who will be performing, and there is nothing on their website that states it is an album promoting tour. NOTHING. Everything Vuzor has come up with to make that conclusion is based on assumption, original research, and synthesis. Those are the facts. Your personal opinion of me or anything else is irrellevant. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 00:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion and consensus building on disputed content

I am opening up this section for discussion on the disputed content being inserted repeatedly by Vuzor. Any questions you might have on how we got to this point can be answered in the section above "Not a promotional tool". I have requested that project members from WikiProject Albums also become involved in the discussion. If my request doesn't meet with any response within a few days, I will then open an Request for Comment. This is likely to take several days to get to the point of where discussion happens and consensus is built. Let me remind those who are in favor of the insertion of this disputed content that no move toward putting that content back in should occur while the process of discussion and consensus building are taking place.-- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 01:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Over the last few days, an editor has been attempting to put content in the article Dimensionaut about the band, Sound of Contact's upcoming tour. Because the tour isn't an album promotion tour, I don't see why the content should be in the album article, when it's already in the article on the band. Using what I view to be synthesis and original research with no reference to back up his viewpoint, the editor inserting the content continues to insist that the band's upcoming "Bring the Prog Back" tour is designed to be a promotion tour for their newly released album. Looking at Sound of Contact's own website (found here http://www.soundofcontact.com/tour-dates/]), you will see that there is nothing on their website that mentions anything about the tour being a tour to promote Dimensionaut. In fact, the very opposite seems true since there are scores of other bands that will be performing during this tour. If anything, the tour is designed to generate enthusiasm for the Progressive Rock genre (hence, the name of the tour). Simon Collins, member of Sound of Contact is quoted on the band's website in regard to the tour as stating, "We’re doing this tour with a lot of modern progressive rock bands carrying the torch forward into the future. It’s oddly poetic that we bookend the tour playing shows with some of the significant originators of the genre". Collins says nothing about the tour being promotional for their new album. In fact, there are all kinds of references on the web where you can find that the European tour they were on last month and into part of June was their promotional tour for the album. There is nothing anywhere online (that I can find) mentioning anything about this latest tour being designed to promote the album. Everything Vuzor uses as reasoning to call the tour an album promotion tour is his own use of synthesis and personal reasoning. You can see from where he derives his reasoning above in the section "Not a promotional tool". What's most important is that not once is he able to produce anything in the form of a reference that says the latest tour is for album promotion. He comes to that conclusion all on his own based on something said here, what someone else did over there, and how other bands operate and what is found in other album articles. Again, this tells me that there is synthesis and original research at play -- both of which are just not allowed. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 01:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I find it difficult to believe you could assert the May tour, in which they only appeared for approximately ten minutes, to be "their promotional tour for the album." The following source -- the record label's very own website -- said this: "Sound of Contact begins its touring schedule on March 24th in Montreal, Canada supporting Marillion on their Marillion Weekend Event. Then they’re joining Spock’s Beard and Beardfish in Europe in May for the Inside Out 20th Anniversary tour."[2] As cited here, the band only appeared for approximately ten minutes at each gig, playing only two songs from the album; that's hardly a promotional tour for an album.[3] This reviewer clearly states the tour was about Spock's Beard, and that Beardfish and Sound of Contact were support bands/opening acts: "If I have one criticism tonight it is having two support bands on. Yes its good exposure for the support bands but when a band like Spock’s Beard have eleven albums to compile a set list from I would have preferred a longer Spock’s Beard set and just the one support band."[4] It's baffling to see you try to assert that their May European tour was their album tour when it only comprised of them being on stage for ten minutes, whereas they are scheduled to be on stage to play the entire album (and more) on the upcoming tour. Note that the official poster for the May/June InsideOut 20th Anniversary Tour features Spock's Beard's album cover/artwork and name at the forefront (available here [5]). The poster even advertises the Spock's Beard album, Brief Nocturnes and Dreamless Sleep.

All evidence I have given thus far has pointed towards this upcoming tour being the promotional tour. The band states they will play the entire album on their August/September tour, plus an additional medley at the end of each event. Logically, although the band has not printed explicitly that the tour is to promote the album (out of respect for the other bands perhaps?), it's obvious that's what the tour is about. Winkelvi is attempting to study strictly the syntax used, and only the syntax. This provides an inherent flaw, as although the band has not typed it outright (and perhaps would be stupid and selfish to do so?), they've made it clear enough through their marketing and description of the events -- they are the only band to appear at every gig, they will play the majority of the show and perform their entire album plus more, they organized the event (appropriate insignias appearing at the bottom of the poster -- Light years Music[6], SoC (Sound of Contact), IK MultiMedia, and Sonic Reality are all properties of Dave Kerzner and Simon Collins), the poster features their album cover and name prominently, and they will additionally appear at the end of the show to perform a medley (perhaps not unlike an encore performance). The official poster looks like this, the name "Sound of Contact" at the top and the poster consisting of the album artwork: [7] It clearly says "Sound of Contact Performs Their Sci-Fi Concept Album "DIMENSIONAUT" Live!" in the heading, obviously advertising the album as its main selling point and promoting the album. This is their concert; to deny it, and to instead assert that their ten-minute opening act in May "was their promotional tour for the album" suggests Winkelvi can not look beyond the most explicit syntax, does not understand how sources are used, and quite likely is living under a rock, unable to distinguish between an opening act and an actual tour based on the specific wording of the text given. To edit in such a manner is impractical and can only lead to inaccuracies. Vuzor (talk) 02:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

They are the only band to appear at every gig, which says to me they are the headliner of each concert, not that this is a "Dimensionaut Tour" as is being claimed in the previous section. If this was a tour to promote Dimensionaut, they would have said so. This is a tour to get audiences enthusiastic about the genre, "Progressive Rock". The title of the tour speaks volumes to that very fact, hence the tour being named, "Bring the Prog Back". The band has not made it clear through marketing or anything else that this is a tour specifically about Dimensionaut as is being claimed. If that were the case, it would surely be at their own website, including Collins quoted statement. Even the poster doesn't say "Dimensionaut Tour", it says "Bring the Prog Back". At the most, anything included in this article should state following the tour that Sound of Contact performed the entire album live at each concert. But the amount of content inserted previously is not, in my opinion, appropriate for this article. The Sound of Contact article, sure. But not the album article. Coming to the conclusion that the tour is a Dimensionaut Tour without anything solid saying that's the case or without a reliable reference to support the claim, that's still using synthesis and original research. Don't forget, the threshold for inclusion of content in Wikipedia is verifiability over truth, not truth over verifiability. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 02:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

What does the big heading, "Sound of Contact Performs Their Sci-Fi Concept Album "DIMENSIONAUT" Live!" followed by a prominent image of the album cover say to you? That's clearly a promotion of the album.[8] Vuzor (talk) 03:02, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Promotion of their music on the album, sure -- but the promotion is to "Bring the Prog Back". This is a genre tour, not an album promotion tour. Can't find anything that verifies it's an album promotion tour without using synthesis and original research? Then saying it's a Dimensionaut album promotion tour doesn't belong in this article. Or any article related to Sound of Contact. Verifiability over truth. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 03:17, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The links may it perfectly clear that the tour is for the promotion of the album. Winkelvi, your comments are offensive and full of personal attack [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] and your editing tendentious, this whole talk page is testament to that. Neither Vuzor not I agree with your analysis or your approach. If you cannot be civil in your dealings with other editors, then Wikipedia is not the place for you. Span (talk) 18:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The links do not make it perfectly clear. There is no verifiability when it comes to this content, which is why it is disputed and discussion was started. What you've done before even commenting here has left me nearly speechless. You dare to lecture me on civility after you've behaved in a completely uncivil manner by reverting disputed content that is currently in discussion for consensus on the article talk page? I don't care how much you don't like me or how pissed off you are at me, you are en experienced editor who should know better than to revert content I have promised to no longer revert while seeking consensus is blatantly hostile and completely uncivil. I can't think of any other good reason why you have circumvented the process of discussion and consensus than to intentionally disrupt to make a point. Look here [19] for more on why what you did is just not acceptable. At the very least your action is poking; at the worst it is disruptive, pointy, and tendentious editing. Regrettably, you've put me in a place where I now have to report your actions. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 01:57, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

To bring this back to the topic at hand, I'm not that familiar with what the rules are considering concerts relating to articles. (the only one I've really approached with with this subject is Homogenic). But many articles mention when bands had been performing the entire album in order at concert's like "Don't Look Back" and "ATP". Even if the tour is not entirely related to the promotion of the album, if it involves it in a special way like performing it in it's entirety, then I think that's something worth mentioning within the article. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't see this until now, Andrzejbanas. Since those who seemed to care about the content staying would rather edit war than discuss, I've gone ahead and pared down what was there -- which seems like a fair compromise to me. The mention of the album being played during the tour is highlighted and all the other fan-cruft stuff has been pruned. Thanks for your help and effort. Too bad no one else was interested in actually helping. But your interest is appreciated. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 02:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

You must really be kidding, Winkelvi. Andrzejbanas essentially said the information about the tour was fine to keep, contradicting your previous assertions. The topic seems to have been settled, which didn't exactly require much else discussion, but your insistence on calling it "fan-cruft" and paring it down while addressing us in such a condescending tone continues to add to the examples of why you aren't possible to work with. You want to be confrontational. "Too bad no one else was interested in actually helping?" Andrzejbanas says to leave it alone and yet you feel a need to intervene and manipulate it to your liking without discussing it with the rest of the group? We are looking for a consensus, and yet you've edited against it. I suppose when you don't get to remove it altogether, the next best thing is to strip it down to nothing and claim the rest to be "fan-cruft;" truly a conflict of interest since you've been adamantly against keeping the content; no one agreed to your substantial "paring down" of the material. It's not a compromise if no one else agrees. It was fine the way it was. You continue to show your arrogance time and time again. The fact you've edited what was there makes you quite hypocritical; no more discussion was needed -- keep the material; you seem, however, insistent on wanting to instigate another edit war. Your pompous approach to editing is on full display.

I don't think it's really worth debating over this, though. I think we've reached a consensus in terms of keeping the material; that was the key issue here. Since that has been resolved, we'll leave your presumptuous edits alone since they don't compromise the content too much. You still are very much a hypocrite for assuming us to be the ones wanting to "edit war" when you, in fact, are clearly parading your ego as you edit and discuss on these pages. Vuzor (talk) 07:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to let these personal attacks from you go this time, Vuzor. I note that with each instance of your personal attacks directed at me -- and there have been several over the last few months -- they escalate and become more abusive. The next time they occur, I won't be as charitable. I strongly suggest you keep them to yourself in the future as they give the impression you aren't willing to work in a collegial manner. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 18:17, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

 Comment: A few weeks ago, Winkelvi requested some opinion on this matter, so I'm giving mine: if the main problem is calling the tour promotional or not, then I think the best way of solving this is keeping that particular section as it is now. When an album is performed in its entirety it is always worth mentioning it in the article of that album, and here's a fine example from another prog band. In this case here, the album will be performed shortly after its release. Sometimes, it is just too obvious that a tour is promoting an album, as it happens here, but I don't think this is the case. Was I involved in this dispute, I would just keep mentioning that the album will be performed in its entirety and wait for the band to explicitly say if they are using the tour to promote this particular album only rather then promoting the band as a whole. Avoiding the word "promotional" won't change the fact that they are going to perform the album, anyway. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 20:24, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your astute observation and spot-on comments, User:Victor Lopes. I agree, the section containing the content on the tour should remain as is until something specifically stated by the band regarding the tour to be promotional is made known. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 06:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. But remember that this was just my opinion, and other editors are still free to disagree. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 19:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, of course it's (just) your opinion. That's how discussion ensues and consensus is built, isn't it? Others will very possibly disagree, but, again, that's what discussion and consensus building is made up of. All part of the process. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 20:00, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The official website now lists the "Bring The Prog Back" under the heading "Sound of Contact Dimensionaut World Tour." This implies the North American tour is indeed part of the band's global tour to promote the album. That's just further evidence to consider in regards to how we should assess this upcoming North American series of concerts.

"Tour Dates

Sound of Contact Dimensionaut World Tour

BRING THE PROG BACK!

(Click on the venues below for ticket links)"

http://www.soundofcontact.com/tour-dates/

Also, Winkelvi, please do bear in mind I don't appreciate threats, especially when you've used abusive language towards your peers and tried to dismiss WP:CONSENSUS in the past. Thanks. Vuzor (talk) 21:33, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

You're right, "Sound of Contact Dimensionaut World Tour" does now indicate "Bring the Prog Back" is going to be a tour that highlights Dimensionaut. The previous information you gathered, however, in your attempt to prove the same thing through synthesis did not.

Don't appreciate threats? Then stop with the personal attacks. Worrying about editing articles in a productive manner is what's needed, not personal attacks directed at editors. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 07:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree editing the articles in a productive manner is what we should be focusing on, though you're just as guilty as anybody else in regards to said attacks; if we can all set aside our differences, then we'll find a resolution to most discussions. Despite the previous lack of an explicit description of the tour as being the "album tour," though, I think most of the editors involved in this discussion agreed that there was sufficient enough information to include a description of the tour in this article. That's a moot point now, however, as the band has since explicitly labeled their tour as the "Sound of Contact Dimensionaut World Tour" with "Bring The Prog Back" being its North American segment. I think it's fair to say that "Bring The Prog Back" is a promotional series of concerts for the album and that it could be discussed as such in the article. We've reached a conclusion here, I think. Vuzor (talk) 09:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Not a Crystal Ball

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. Don't replace 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. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 13:50, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

This does not fall under WP:CRYSTAL. The text in question describes events that have already occurred, i.e. the development history of the tour. This topic is currently being discussed on Talk:Sound of Contact. Vuzor (talk) 18:28, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

It most definitely does fall under WP:CRYSTAL. That the tour was cancelled can be included in the Sound of Contact article, but even there, all the reasons why are irrelevant. Here, in this article, it just isn't appropriate or relevant to the existence of the album. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 00:27, 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 ● ✉ ✓ 01:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Facebook?

The Facebook image was put there over a year ago. In that time, absolutely nothing is available on the internet to verify Olbinski had anything to do with the artwork for the album? Facebook is a receptacle for much information that is old, outdated, never gets updated, and could never have actually materialized. That makes it an unreliable reference. Because the drawing is there on the SOC Facebook page doesn't make the caption on the image true, it doesn't even make Olbinski important to the production of the album. With lack of verification available online, I find the validity of it dubious. It doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. But, really, does the inclusion of Olbinski really do anything for the article? I don't see it, myself. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 02:48, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Request For Comment

I am requesting comment from editors in regards to this article's "development" section. Recently, the article was expanded with an assortment of new information. There is a debate regarding which of it should stay and which of it should not be included. If editors could please evaluate and provide a neutral opinion, that would be greatly appreciated. In addition, a comment regarding what kind of information is suitable for this type of article would be very helpful. The new material can be found in this revision of the article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dimensionaut&oldid=606129306

Thanks. Vuzor (talk) 04:59, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• Non-encyclopedic fan-site content was removed. There's no "debate", just copy-editing and pruning of content that is more fan-site like in nature than encyclopedic. For some reason, the editor who put it there continues to try and introduce that type of content over and over again along with lofty wording that is not aimed at the average reader. This has been going on for a year. The so-called "assortment of new information" was largely suited to a sales brochure or official website for the band but not an encyclopedia. It was edited, reworded, and some of it removed; precisely what happens in Wikipedia. Vuzor, you've been told numerous times over the last year "what kind of information is suitable for this type of article" by more than one editor. Why are you asking a question that's already been answered more than once? This RfC appears to be an instance of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT rather than an honest search for assistance and advice. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 05:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Winkelvi, many of the times we have had these discussions, other editors have disagreed with your changes. While you assert "this has been going on for a year," you have been in the wrong for many of these instances. You have unfairly enforced your ideal of an article on to these particular pages, making it impossible to add any new information, regardless of the quality of the source or the relevance of the content. You have not been helpful to the process of the articles' growth, instead often removing much of what is added.

On your talk page, I recently asked that you cooperate with this discussion. You removed my message to you with your comment, "EYEROLL":

"Please cooperate with the request for comment, found on Talk:Dimensionaut. I do not know why you would revert an edit that strictly requested we seek additional opinions for this disagreement. The same occurred for the Simon Collins article after which a number of different editors approved the additions. Please wait until a discussion is had. As mentioned, you have your opinion, they'll have theirs, I have mine. Work with us. I thought we had turned a page and were ready to cooperate; the content you are removing from these pages is frequently acceptable to articles, and you'll find a lot of Wikipedia's content comprises of this type of material.

"One commenter on the other Request for Comment provided this statement:

"'A good article would include items that arguably can be seen as trivial by others. Certainly items tied to his life as a music performer is relevant'... Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)"

You must explain how a development section can grow if all of the content is barred (controversially, and by one person) from being added. Please be patient while a decision is made. Thank you. Vuzor (talk) 05:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC)"

Winkelvi, you continually dispute every change made to these articles as if you desire no growth. You have called other users names and patronized them, dismissing and removing their contributions; often, once a request for comment is issued, many users disagree with you. This talk page itself is full of attacks from you: on User:Spanglej's talk page, you wrote, "Edit warriors and those with battleground mentality LOVE to use the excuse: there's no consensus. That excuse is total bullshit." That quotation and incident is detailed by User:Spanglej above, dated 26 June 2013. Please wait for this discussion to take place.Vuzor (talk) 05:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Is your request for comment about me or the article? From the wall of text above that talks mostly about me, what you perceive to be my mistakes and failures and my shortcomings as an editor, it's difficult to tell. Based on your extensive commentary launched negatively in my direction, I'd say you're just looking for allies not actual editorial comments and advice. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 05:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Please do not manipulate words or make assumptions. Your initial response to this RfC was an accusation aimed towards me and even addressed at me specifically, a perceived attempt to criticize my contributions to the article. I responded as I did above simply to specify why your criticisms are out of order. In fact, your own comment minutes ago, "EYEROLL," is an instance of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. In the past, you broke WP:3RR and then proceeded to issue me a WP:3RR warning. You have been hypocritical throughout this process. You have demonstrated a paranoia about Wikipedia being a "fan site" and have aimed this frustration at this article and its related articles. I ask that you cooperate. As I have requested several times already, please wait for a discussion about the content in question to take place. The goal here is the expansion of this article.Vuzor (talk) 05:38, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I must also add, your own comment, "'A band like Sound of Contact has done so little and is still so new that dates would be an unnecessary distraction in such a limited article'... Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 20:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)", from Talk:Sound_of_Contact#Specification_of_Membership_Period is an instance of you disallowing content primarily because the article was deemed "limited." That's a dilemma. As I have requested above, I would like to know what content you feel is appropriate for the expansion of this type of article.Vuzor (talk) 05:50, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not manipulating anything. You launched a tirade above that is focused on me, not the article. Then you added more about me in your responses. By now, because of your tirade, your comments are no longer about the article or the content you wanted comment on. People coming here in response to your request for comment on the article and content don't give a fuck about the drama you have introduced above or your feelings regarding me and my edits. They won't want to read a wall of detailed text and quotes from the past, either. As far as my comment in an edit summary that accompanied removal of stuff from my talk page: it's my talk page and I have a right to remove comments from it. If you don't like how I do it or why, stay off my talk page. Likewise, if you don't want it pointed out you are focusing on editors rather than edits when you open an an RfC about article content, then be sure to make your own comments about the article content, not other editors. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 05:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

If you wish not for an appropriate response to a personal attack such as: "This RfC appears to be an instance of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT rather than an honest search for assistance and advice. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 05:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)", don't make those accusations and let the other editors comment on the page as I had made clear in the very first entry here. That comment is especially strange due to the success of the last RfC on Talk:Simon Collins. Thank you.Vuzor (talk) 06:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Grow up. No one forced you to make this about me or introduce drama and bring up old crap and laundry lists of perceived past wrongs, that was your own doing. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 12:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

You had already done that. Your very first response here says "this has been going on for a year." It absolutely has, and you seemed so eager to discuss it. Now please let the other editors speak. If you would like to contribute something to this discussion, however, please provide your opinion of what content you feel is appropriate for the expansion of this type of article. Over the past year, you have tried to veto almost everything, including the existence of this article. I invite you to explain your view of what content is appropriate for the growth of this type of article. Every time something is added to this article and its affiliated articles, we are forced to seek an RfC because you won't approve it. An explanation here would be appropriate.Vuzor (talk) 20:38, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Stop trying to weasel out of the responsibility for this RfC going downhill and losing focus before it even began. You made this about me, I didn't. Admit it or stop talking about it. The more you blather on about it, the more you keep digging the hole by continuing to make it about me and not the article and edits.

"Now please let the other editors speak." Who the hell is keeping anyone else from speaking? And where are these "other editors"? "If you would like to contribute something to this discussion, however, please provide your opinion of what content you feel is appropriate for the expansion of this type of article." I will contribute what I want. Stop trying to manipulate and control. "Over the past year, you have tried to veto almost everything, including the existence of this article." A complete and utter lie. And in case you haven't noticed, I've edited this article and its affiliated articles more often and more consistently than you have. What I have vetoed over and over is your insistence on turning this article and its affiliated articles into a fan-cruft laden love letter to Sound of a Contact and its members. "Every time something is added to this article and its affiliated articles, we are forced to seek an RfC because you won't approve it." Total bullshit. There have been many edits you've made that I haven't said a word about. Don't forget that just because someone edits what you've written, they are only doing what Wikipedia is for: editing, improving, contributing. And who is "we"? I only see you whining and starting RfCs. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 21:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Winkelvi, you have not added any new material to these pages in the period that these pages have existed. The only thing you have done is dispute and attempt to remove the additions to these pages, even at times filling the article with grammatical errors, mistakes, and changing the meaning of sentences from their intended meaning in the sources. The edit history is available, and this talk page itself is mostly a log of the disputes we've had and your attempts to keep material off of the page. Do not manipulate the truth, especially as the truth about your conduct is documented extensively on this page and the affiliated pages featured on Template:Sound of contact.Vuzor (talk) 23:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Is this RfC supposed to be about me, yes or no? If the answer is no, then stop talking about me and focus on what it's supposed to be about. If the answer is yes and you really opened this RfC to bitch about me, embellish the truth, blatantly lie, and bring up things from the past that have nothing to do with the stated premise of this RfC, then do the right thing: be honest. Then close this RfC out and take it to AN/I. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 23:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I read the development section in the version linked above and the current version, and I am not sure what the issue is (I started reading the above comments, but stopped when I realised it was unconstructive to this RFC). There is very little difference between the two versions, with neither being particularly easy to read or making much sense. For example the first paragraph says what was done prior to the work on Dimensionaut, but the second sentence says that some lyrics were written during this stage. SWouldn't writing lyrics constitute work on the album? It just reads a bit messy and could do with some tightening up, but I see no issue with the content itself in either version. AIRcorn (talk) 08:02, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with User:Aircorn. My changes were only copy editing and removing extraneous and unnecessary wording. The addition of the content was not my choice and I never thought it needed to be added. Even so, I didn't make a big deal of it because of Vuzor's past history of tantrums if he wasn't allowed to write what he wanted. Vuzor saw a Youtube video interview of two of the band members and decided this needed to be newly added content in the article. The result was the Development section. And it is hard to read and understand even after the little tweaking I did to it. I've stopped doing anything to it due to the RfC here and the ANI. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 13:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Your revision, User:Winkelvi, is a lateral move that does not improve the section or the article. In fact, saying you felt a development section did not need to be added is counterproductive to the development of the article. Why remove it or dispute it every time if there is nothing wrong with the content? Your comments were: "Development: the section shouldn't be a fan site style blow by blow of the development - what's next? whether they ordered chinese take out?" (see: [20]) and "Reverted 1 edit by Vuzor (talk): It. Is. Not. Encyclopedic." (see: [21]). Vuzor (talk) 03:43, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

How the fuck can you have been in Wikipedia this long and not understand how it works? People disagree about content, they express that disagreement, they edit differently than you do, see things differently than you do, have different priorities about editing and on and on. So fucking what? There's nothing wrong with any of this. Someone edits content and disagrees with you about content and to you that's "counterproductive to the development of the article" and you come unglued? It's the nature of Wikipedia, for pity's sake. Gawd.

I'm done talking to you. You have exhausted my patience beyond what's normal tolerance. It seems you've done the same to administrators at AN/I, too. Wikipedia is about compromise and working well together with others, not running to an administrator or a noticeboard or calling for an RfC every time something happens that you don't like or agree with or someone edits what you've added. I suggest you get with the program. If you don't, you're going to continue to be frustrated and frustrate those you come in contact with here. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 03:52, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Not adding a common section in these types of articles is absolutely counterproductive, particularly when the content is available and is sourced appropriately. You have disputed every single addition to this series of articles, deleted sources (which were then replaced by more senior editors), and I even opened up this RfC so we could have an open discussion about the content; you criticized me for it in your very first response here, throwing around an unfounded accusation. Your words are frequently very patronizing, and your justification for the removal of the content here (see: diff comments) and in most cases is the same: in the majority of cases (if not all of them), the conclusion has been that the additional content is fine; your hostility towards me for these additions is completely unwarranted, and your tendency to veto additions has become an impulse. The only way to develop such a "limited article" as you yourself said (see: [22]) is to add available content. Your accusations and ill will towards other editors are not constructive. You have demonstrated behavior that suggests you simply do not want this series of articles to develop. You have been uncooperative with not only myself, but also others. Due to the disruptive, hostile nature of your conduct here, it is very difficult for others to contribute. Note that your abusive language is not appreciated.

Also: "'Wikipedia is about compromise and working well together with others, not... calling for an RfC'... -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 03:52, 30 April 2014 (UTC)". Is that sentence not a contradiction? I call these RfCs to gain consensus because the only thing you ever wish to do is to keep relevant content from being added to these articles. Is your word about keeping content off of these pages the final word? RfCs are available so that consensus can be reached. You make no attempt to compromise; you simply veto and then throw around some lame excuse (the same one every time) to keep content off. The majority of the time, others disagree with your vetoing of content. If you argue against consensus, you aren't exactly following the first part of that sentence about "compromise" and "working well together with others."Vuzor (talk) 04:34, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Talking in a way that gets your attention and helps vent my frustration in regard to you isn't "abusive". Abusive would be if I told you to go fuck yourself or if I called you a whining asshole. Which I haven't. Further, Wikipedia isn't censored. Like I said, get with the program or continue to be disappointed while thinking everything is about you and has to reflect your interests and meet your standards. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 04:46, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Considering you've criticized me for calling RfCs just a few responses above, that seems to be a better description of your expectations. Consensus doesn't appear to be a part of your vocabulary (see: [23]).

"Reverting all of it? Really? Looks like the start of an edit war to me. WP:UNDUE as well as comparison to other similar album articles most definitely addresses and refutes your edit summary, Spanglej. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 22:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

"We do not have consensus on this. Consensus is required. It seems neither Vuzor or I agree with your perceptions on this. Span (talk) 23:34, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Editors who aren't getting their way and start edit warring love to use the excuse: "we need consensus in order to make changes". Never expected an experienced editor like you to use such a lame, bullshit excuse and engage in edit warring. Aren't you a part of the Wikipedia kindness campaign or olive branch society or something like that? So much for expectations and thinking too highly of someone based on their experience and user page trinkets. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 00:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)"

RfCs are about consensus. Wikipedia is about collaboration, compromise, and consensus.Vuzor (talk) 04:51, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• Right this is sounding more and more like a bitching sessions thean an RFC - how about we carry on like this Vuzor and Winkelvi dont comment on anything posted on here until we have some outside input that can be clearly segregated from what has occured previously. When we have opinion and consensus from those outside the current issue(s) that exist betweent he two of you we may be able to make some progress on this.

An option that I hope wont be nessecary would be asking for a restriction on editing this page and the article itself to allow other editors to contribute without getting caught up in an ongoing argument. Amortias (T)(C) 12:32, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Here's a thought Amortias: how about making productive, helpful commentary on the article and editing the article rather than personally attacking editors and suggesting restrictions that would only cause more animosity? You know - suggesting things that are about encyclopedia-building?

In case you didn't notice, Vuzor pretty much vanished after his quest for getting his way through forum shopping failed. I'm still here, waiting for suggestions from editors who might give a crap about this article and actually address the premise of the RfC. So far, none have shown up (including you). -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 01:48, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I "vanished" because I have a life, Winkelvi, and it has been occupying a lot of my time. I have become very tired of this ongoing argument between us and I realize no progress can be made as long as you continue to revert and dispute every change made to these pages. At some point it's no longer worth my time in spite of my desire to keep these pages updated and well-maintained. So much time is wasted arguing when these pages could be maintained more efficiently.

I have given up. I hope you and others can build these pages and add information to expand these articles because clearly there's nothing I can do anymore. You have put up a brick wall preventing me from doing anything. I feel quite helpless, in fact. At this point, I just hope you can build these pages and not let them rot and become outdated. If we can not work together and you can not allow other editors the freedom to contribute to these pages, then I have no purpose with these pages. Considering most of the work here has been by only us, this will become your responsibility solely now if I walk away. A lot of the additions to these pages are fine, especially compared to what we see on so many other pages. I don't see why this series of pages is being filtered so harshly. Let me contribute, Winkelvi. You could nitpick things about every article, but you have chosen to focus so much on these articles that any effort to contribute to them has become futile. The content I try to add to these pages is not unlike acceptable content on many, many other pages. I can't understand why so much focus has been placed on trying to keep these pages from being expanded. You've put a microscope on these pages when the same content is deemed acceptable across all of Wikipedia. This is a senseless fight over something that's not even out of the ordinary on Wikipedia. It's a huge waste of time; we don't all have the time to nitpick such minor things. There's more to Wikipedia and life than debating hours and hours over additions that aren't harmful to the pages. I've offered solutions and have asked your opinion about content -- these inquiries have been ignored. I can't see how any discussion we have about content (unless something really changes) won't end up in the same place as before. I took a two-week break; I really needed it. We are volunteers. If we can't work something out, I'm just going to leave.

I really am not your enemy. I am simply someone who is willing to contribute to these pages and who has the knowledge and resources to do so. If someone is going to do everything in their power to make sure I can't contribute, then it's a waste of time for me to even try. There are so many other articles with similar content. Some have even been good or featured articles. I feel utterly helpless. I'm making a plea here for you to please ease off on these articles (I mean this with great sincerity) and to allow some space for them to be developed; I'd like to respect your time, and I'd like you to respect mine. There are fully-developed articles that can be scrutinized. This one and its related articles need room to grow and people interested in developing them. Without either, they'll just remain stagnant and die.Vuzor (talk) 05:44, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Looking at this: "no progress can be made as long as you continue to revert and dispute every change made to these pages", it's obvious you have no concept of your role in the problems at the articles you and I have both been editing. Until you recognize you have culpability, take responsibility, resolve to behave differently, and follow through on that resolve, there will be no cooperative editing between you and I. Until you stop pointing fingers, feeling persecuted, and start working cooperatively, you will continue to be miserable. Until you realize you have to play well with others and share, as well as accept what you contribute will likely be changed and removed because that's the nature of Wikipedia, you will continue to be miserable. Until you lose your now blatantly obvious ownership issues and drop the attitude that you are the only one who can make this article "right", you will continue to be miserable. Until you stop running to an administrator's noticeboard to tattle and opening RfCs because you refuse to work cooperatively, you will be miserable. You want to leave if you don't get your what you want (me leaving "your" articles alone)? Then go! Before you do, please read WP:DIVA on your way out (it's an article written with you in mind). -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 09:08, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Followup: How very interesting, Amortias. You've been in Wikipedia a grand total of 7 days and you are not only making unhelpful comments on this article talk page, you're suggesting sanctions be made? I also note you've been busy at SPI and in nominating articles for deletion. Your first edit was this [24] at "Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/May 2014". Strange behavior for someone so new. Strange behavior, indeed. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 01:53, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

A quick look at the above explains quite convincingly why no one is showing up. It is hard enough getting answers when the RFC question is not particularly straight forward, let alone when two editors dominate it with what for all accounts appears to be a personal dispute only tangently related to the RFC. I personally have given up on it and I can't imagine too many people have the time or desire to contribute here now. The only strange behavior I see here is from you and vuzor and quite frankly you both deserve each other. AIRcorn (talk) 04:55, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I completely agree that's why no one has commented. You can thank Vuzor for taking this RfC in the direction it went. Aside from that, your comments are more off-putting than those from Amortias because you should know better than to be a WP:DICK for no reason other than gratuitous dickery. Your inability to catch that this particular RfC is over a month old (gee, could that be why no one is commenting?) and really just dried up because it's just uninteresting and pointless is amusing, though. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 05:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)