Talk:Doctor Steel/Archive 1

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

Welcome

Welcome to Doctor Steel's Wikipedia page! We encourage anyone who has a positive contribution or improvement to make to the article to add to it, and Wikipedia admins are encouraged to assist with guideline conformity and style format.

However, please note: this page is being closely monitored both by editors and Wikipedia admin; any additions that do not fall under Wikipedia's guidelines of verifiability, or those that include unpublished facts, arguments, or speculation, biography violations or outright vandalism will not be tolerated and will be quickly removed. Any additions that are purely promotional and non-encyclopedic will also be swiftly removed.

If you have any questions about such matters, please contact one of the actively involved page editors before contributing. Thank you. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 21:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Band member name removal

I'm curious to know why the information relating to the non-robotic band members present in the original article have been removed? This is important and valid information regarding the musical performance group. 12.155.10.50 (talk) 22:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

User IP 12.155.10.50, the band member names were removed for legal and private reasons. I contact Doctor Steel about his band members, in which he specifically stated that there were legal reasons as well as protecting the privacy of the band members.

If you have contact with any of the band members, feel free to ask them if they wish to be listed. Viraneth (talk) 05:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Notable changes made by Jonny B. Goode

I added a line at the end of the musical career section that mentions the MTV article.

I added Dr. Steel's photo to the top of the page.

I added new pages for Dr. Steel II: Eclectic Boogaloo, People of Earth, The Dr. Steel Collection, and Dr. Steel Read-A-Long, and linked them to the current page.

  • With regard to Album Notability: If the Wikipedia admins deem that the albums themselves are not worthy of having their own pages, the links and subsequent pages can be removed, of course. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 05:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Changed the link at Duck and Cover to a hotlink, rather than a reference, in accordance with standard Wikipedia practice. Same with the references to the Rue Morgue Magazine, Land of the Lost TV series and Film, propaganda, and Puppy Linux.

Added a link to The Singularity and transhumanism.

Added an example of Dr. Steel's propaganda artwork. (Which was already in Wikipedia's files.)

And last but not least, fixed a typo that was bugging me. UniformS was spelled with a capitol S at the end. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 02:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I cleaned up the red links at the bottom of the page today and made the footer compliant with the standard. Added a blurb about his fictitious 'mad scientist' stage persona (with picture). --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 19:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Added references pertaining to the fictitious backstory. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 21:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Added a paragraph about the 'Dr. Horrible' controversy, since it was noted in national magazines. Paragraph may need to be re-written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonnybgoode44 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Split off the blurbs about Dr. Steel on TV, added a few of his more important interviews and called the new section "media attention" --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 17:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Organized the talk page today. If we're going to be professional, let's look like it. ;) --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 21:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Rewrote the 'Youth' section last night per direction of admin Llywrch. Reorganized 'Musical Career' section after clarification email from Doctor Steel. Added a link to a toy drive video. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 16:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Severely edited "Websites" section, per suggestions by admin Tony Fox. Intend to make other suggested changes as time permits. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 23:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Severely edited the The Army of Toy Soldiers section per suggestions by admin Tony Fox (although I posted it as a minor edit but I ended up making much more sweeping changes): condensed it to about half it's original size, removed "fannish" verbiage, extraneous information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonnybgoode44 (talk • contribs) 23:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Revised and condensed the Propaganda section per suggestions by admin Tony Fox, removed some "fannish" verbiage, rewrote some clumsy language. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 00:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Musical career section: Commented out the Band members and Instruments as irrelevant or repeated information. Will consider whether to permanently remove. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 00:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Commented out the Youth section as irrelevant; even with changes suggested by Llywrch, it still looked "fannish" IMHO. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 01:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Commented out a few other links that I felt might look "promotional"; can restore them if admins deem necessary, otherwise they will be deleted if article stands as is. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 07:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: Not exactly sure why there was a footnote to Dr. Steel's name in the information box (footnote #1); it pointed to a fairly trivial blog entry and made little sense being there. I removed it (unless objections arise?). [oh bother I keep forgetting to sign these things lol] --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 06:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

98.148.245.7 is me. :) --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 04:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Redirect

I created the redirect for Doctor Steel, as it looks like the notability has improved in the last year. You folks may want to have a look at the refs though. Facebook, Twitter, Myspace stuff doesn't usually last long here. Cheers and best. ;) — Ched :  ?  18:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! A small group of us spent an entire day working on the article and two of us have been checking the page and making edits so the page better conforms to guidelines. Viraneth (talk) 23:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Peacock

Note: Paragraph after ToC ("Youth") may need to be rewritten or removed to comply with Wikipedia standards on objectivity. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 21:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Admin Llywrch contacted me directly; he will be tagging and/or sending me a list of sentences in the article he feels are "peacocky" and need work. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 23:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Per Llywrch's suggestion, I have rewritten the Youth section as a direct quote from Dr. Steel's biography page.
  • Commented out the Youth section as irrelevant; even with changes suggested by Llywrch, it still looked "fannish" IMHO. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 01:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonnybgoode44 (talk • contribs)

Speedy Deletion Contention

I noted that this page has been flagged for speedy deletion. Therefore allow me to make a case for having the page remain. And thank you for allowing me the time to do so.

Firstly, to the charge that "there is no record of a recreation debate." This may be true. This page was originally created as Doctor Steel (band), as it's intended focus was meant to be on the band rather than on the personality, and was moved to Doctor Steel by an admin. Thus it unintentionally circumvented a recreate discussion, which was not our intention.

This was not an effort to circumvent the admins of Wikipedia. Rather, this was a sincere effort in good faith to write an objective article on the band, rather than the viral marketing spam that had been posted on Wikipedia many times in the past. This is also not "Recreation of deleted material", as this was not a recreation but rather an entirely new, fresh article written from scratch, and with an eye to leaving out as much "propaganda" (or as you in Wikipedia would call it, "peacock") as possible.

As several admins have noted here before, there was an admittedly very misguided effort in the past on the part of Dr. Steel's fan base to spam Wikipedia, apparently for retaliation for removing an article that had been up there(?). As some of the admins truthfully noted, they called this "Operation Wikipedia."

Over a year ago, this "Operation Wikipedia" was halted. With a note added at the bottom of the thread in the TSU forums, in bold, capital letters, to cease and desist all efforts in this regard. They even had a few fans police Wikipedia and remove subsequent postings, or warn the posters to do so. (I know, because this is where I came in, and I was one of those "policemen", trying to get people to stop the spamming.) If you will note in the logs mentioned by JzG, aka Guy in the Dr. Steel (album) deletion review thread, there has been no significant spam regarding Dr. Steel since March of 2008, a year and a half ago.

About three or four weeks ago, four of the more "mature" members of his fan base got together with the intent of redeeming our standing with Wikipedia. They intended to write an objective piece about the band, rather than a "propaganda" piece about the fictional persona, as had been spammed here many times in the past. They cooperated with Doctor Steel himself on a complete rewrite of the article from scratch, and attempted to follow as closely as possible the Wikipedia guidelines. After final approval from Doctor Steel, they put it up. And then posted what they had done in the TSU forums with the title "Wikipedia Redemption." Redemption being what they had in mind.

This was about the time I came into the project. As a professional website developer and website content editor by trade, I started cleaning up what they had, which by my standards was still quite a rough draft, and adding additional references. I requested the aid of admins here at Wikipedia whenever necessary, and several were most cooperative. (For instance, Llywrch was helpful in noting that the first section after the ToC was written in what Wikipedia calls "Peacock" language, and suggested we instead quote from Doctor Steel's bio page instead; although I did suggest that removal of this section in its entirety was also a possibility for compliance.)

With regards to the charge that "the sources are all (as always) the subject, his website, blogs, his myspace etc.", that simply isn't true, as any honest perusal of the article would tell you. I have noted his review in Rue Morgue magazine, his appearance on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, his appearance in an article by MTV regarding him as a "great example" of the steampunk musical genre (several of his peer bands are also mentioned, and while not being called "great examples" by MTV - who should know their music - they all have Wikipedia pages), and interviews in recognized industry magazines and websites such as ReGen magazine and Indy Mogul. In addition, I noted that Dr. Steel gained nationwide attention (which was reported in several blogs, websites, magazines, etc., including most notably WIRED magazine), last year when Joss Whedon released "Dr. Horrible," and many people questioned whether Whedon had plagiarized the character of Dr. Steel. I also posted a link to a Los Angeles Time article where Dr. Steel was noted - by name - as a significant member of the steampunk community who's arrival at a steampunk ball was anticipated. Dr. Steel is notable, in that he (as well as his fan base) is a prominent member of the growing steampunk subculture.

Some have objected that Dr. Steel was not signed to any major record label. Might I point out that as far as I know, none of Dr. Steel's many peer bands are signed with major labels; the steampunk genre is very much an Indy musical movement. Yet virtually all of Dr. Steel's peer bands have Wikipedia articles. And Dr. Steel, who has been on TV, who is sought after for interviews and who is mentioned by the LA times and MTV as a notable component of this growing genre, does not. (I might also point out that there has been an uncontested French Wikipedia entry for Dr. Steel, for more than a year now.)

I realize that the earlier ill-advised spam campaign by Dr. Steel's fan base has rather "poisoned the waters" here at Wikipedia, and that there are some Wikipedia admins with notable bias in this regard. Which is understandable. If I may speak for Dr. Steel's fan base: We at TSU wish to ask forgiveness for past stupidity on our part (nostra culpa!), and wish the admins here at Wikipedia to make, as nearly as possible, a fair and unbiased determination as to the merit of this article regarding Dr. Steel and his growing fan base. This is truly and most sincerely a work aimed toward "redemption" in the eyes of Wikipedia, in which we desire to present objectively "Doctor Steel" the band, rather than throwing up a "propaganda" viral marketing piece.

As I have said before to numerous admins here, we also eagerly accept any input from Wikipedia mods regarding the content of this article (and any related/peripheral articles), and desire to work with you in the improvement of this page to conform more precisely with accepted Wikipedia standards (as you guys are the experts and we are not). We sincerely appreciate the help of the several admins who have already assisted us in this regard.

Again, thank you for your time and consideration. Respectfully,

--Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 20:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Recusing from admin work regarding this article, as my delete finger is still itching madly every time I visit. Frankly (and my WP:AGF is busted when it comes to dealing with this topic for so long, so I apologize if this sounds harsh) I still think this is a marketing effort with a goal of getting the good doctor more exposure. (And before anyone gets into calling me a hater, I like his stuff and I've got a good friend who's a Toy Soldier, so that's not where I'm coming from.) The article is spammy; it should be about a third of the length, with a greater focus on the media references and far, far less of the fannish stuff. The fictional bio is pointless and promotional; the sections on the Toy Soldiers, "propaganda" and websites should be condensed way, way down into one section; I've opined that a discography here is all that his releases need, not individual articles; we don't need multiple links to his multiple social networking links (those should be external links, and I'm not sure even then if they meet WP:EL... and that's just without my feeling that most of the media links are minor mentions. Some admins have worked this through protection a couple of times, without the discussion that was requested during previous deletion reviews, which disappoints me. While I don't agree with a speedy deletion, I still feel that there is a general lack of notability that is being buried by sheer volume of promotional links here. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • It's constructive input like this that is exactly what we are looking for. :) Believe me, I have been making a lot of notes here.
    I don't see this as "another marketing attempt"; personally, as a musician, I see it as a fairness issue. Virtually all of Doctor Steel's peer bands in the steampunk genre have Wikipedia entries, many of them less notable (IMHO) and with far fewer media links than he. Yet their pages are allowed to stay, and - regardless of content - pages referencing Dr. Steel are consistently deleted from mention. While I understand the "itchy trigger finger" mentality in this regard, I am asking that this article not be summarily dispensed with, that it is given a chance (as it is still in the process of being edited, as noted above, to comply with standards.)
    Regarding the multiple social networking links, Ched mentioned this previously (see Redirect section above) and I have been working on rewriting those places as my time permits, and will take your suggestion to move them to an External Links section (although I agree, some of the social networking links such as Facebook and Twitter probably aren't really necessary; Dr. Steel works primarily in MySpace and YouTube so those sites are rather redundant and "spammy," as you would say).
    - EDIT: Just did rework the last section (Websites), encorporating Tony Fox's suggestions; it's now half the size it was. Have also looked at the two sections immediately preceding and made further edits. (See "Notable changes made by Jonny B. Goode" above, and the page history.) --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 23:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
    Regarding the discography, that has been discussed both here and on the Dr. Steel (album) page and I am also leaning toward your suggestion of having just a discography here with no links (and had mentioned it to our committee), but I was waiting to see how the discussion on Dr. Steel (album) panned out before making any changes (not wanting to execute the accused before the verdict was reached, so to speak). --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 22:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
    Regarding "the fictional bio is pointless and promotional": Are you referring to the section entitled, "fictional persona" or the section entitled, "Youth"? (Which was not fictional but Steel's own words in the third person, but which I have removed because I was also uncomfortable with it for the same reasons.) --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 03:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
The "Youth" section was my concern. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

This irks me terribly, simply for the fact that we've put as much work as possible into the article to make it as objective as possible. None of the original team (myself and three others) have experience with creating wikipedia pages. So we've been constantly trying to fix it and make it better. Jonnybgoode44 has been fixing things that, due to college, I have not been able to fix, so I thank him for that. But our intention was to add an informative article which would belong in any other encyclopedia, general or music related. We decided to work with Dr. Steel to make this article, not just because we are fans (toy soldiers), but we are all part of the steampunk lifestyle, and Dr. Steel is on the forefront of steampunk, along side bands like Abney Park, the Harlem James Gang, and the Extraordinary Contraptions, magazines like Steampunk Tales and Steampunk Magazine, and comics like League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. This article should remain simply because it is a necessary reference point. This was originally created as a band page, but it's being moved to Doctor Steel was done directly by an admin, not by anyone else, admins with full knowledge of the previous issues. Aside from the point, I will be making other wikipedia pages for other bands and groups in the steampunk genre that don't have wiki pages yet. As a closing argument, why does Doctor Steel not deserve an article, when a small time hip-hop artist out of atlanta does? Viraneth (talk) 15:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

You guys keep using an argument that "So-and-so has an article, so why shouldn't Doctor Steel?" This is a standard argument in a lot of debates; please read this guideline to understand why that argument is not terribly valid. If there are other articles that are of less notability, please point them out so they can be discussed for deletion purposes. I'm still unhappy that admins moved things through protection without the recommended discussion, but I'm one admin, and I have a fairly strong aversion to bands that use Wikipedia for self-promotion. Fact is, Wikipedia turns up close to the top of any Google search, and a lot of people feel that having an article here is validation of their band, product, company, conspiracy theory, whatever. My concern is that it weakens our guidelines for musicians and will result in more people using the "well, this exists, so..." excuse to promote themselves. I am still opposed to the article in general as I feel the sources are weak, but I'm a lone voice, and unless someone decides to do an AfD discussion, well, congrats on the article, I guess. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I can understand your point, which is why I've endeavored not to use that argument much. Although in this particular case I believe it has some weight, as the admins have known about other bands in this genre with 'questionable notability' for years - we don't really have to point them out - and Doctor Steel was always the one singled out for deletion. (And again, I understand the bias, which is why I've been endeavoring to be as gracious as possible here.) Besides, I believe the other bands in the genre are notable, in that they are also major examples of the genre, regardless of their having been noticed or not by the mainstream. That's what a subculture is, after all: something that's under the radar of the mainstream, for the most part. These bands - including Doctor Steel - are notable in their genre. Ask anyone in steampunk if Doctor Steel is a notable steampunk band, and you're going to hear "of course." Every bit as much as Abney Park or Vernian Process or Unextraordinary Gentlemen. (Granted, Abney Park has had a bit more mainstream notice than the rest, and good for them...) To suggest otherwise to a steampunker would just be nonsensical. It would be like describing Disney characters and leaving out Donald Duck. His fan base is notable as well, in the genre: it has more than doubled in the past year and has become a large force in the steampunk community. (An example: at the steampunk panel at Comic Con this past month - which was covered by all the mainstream media - a third of the panelists were Toy Soldiers.)
Besides, Doctor Steel turns up at the top of a Google search on his own merit, he doesn't need Wikipedia to get there, so that's hardly an issue (with me, anyway).
At any rate, I spent the better part of yesterday going through the article, eliminating redundancies, stuff that was irrelevant, removing links that were self-promoting, mentioned elsewhere or in one case just nonsensical, and removed three whole sections that were either irrelevant, self-promoting or somewhat trivial; and the article is now about half the size it was, and I think very streamlined. I've strived to follow every suggestion that every mod has given me thus far (even when it hurt!), and although the article now is nothing like the original, I think it is much more like an encyclopedic entry than it was. I intend to do some minor edits later today (unless someone points out something major that needs addressing) but hopefully this is a version everyone can be (mostly) happy with. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 16:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Gorillaz have an article, and they're a fictional personality for a real band. Both are fairly well known. Both are completely unknown to a fair chunk of the population. Their popularity is similar, and the type of band(Not music) is similar. So if you're going to delete this, please, go ahead and delete the Gorillaz article and justify that to the fans of Gorillaz. Case closed, imo.--99.225.28.182 (talk) 19:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Not to argue for the opposition, but to be fair, Gorillaz is also signed with a major label, they aren't really "Indy" anymore. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 19:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
And as pointed out above, the "other crap exists" argument doesn't really go down too well with admins. Astronaut (talk) 19:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I was also looking to get this article speedily deleted a couple of weeks ago, but held off due to it still being actively developed by Jonnybgoode44. Instead I added it to my watchlist to see what improvements were made. My major concerns were the language and tone of the article - sounding like a publicity piece written by Doctor Steel himself, his record company, or perhaps some fanboy. I have seen the article get better, but it is still in need of more work. There are many areas where it still sounds like advertising, it contains way too much unencyclopedic detail and fan cruft (eg: the "Fictional persona" and "Army of toy soldiers" sections), and relies too much on self-published sources, blogs, YouTube videos and so on. On reading Jonnybgoode44's defence of this article, I am even more worried about his motives in writing this article.
I think the article has just about demonstrated the notability of its subject, but it is still vunerable to deletion due to the concerns I mentioned above. However, let's wait and see if anyone else agrees with the Speedy Deletion notice. Astronaut (talk) 19:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I fail to see how the "fictional persona" section is "unencyclopedic detail and fan cruft." It seems essential to explaining the band, to me. Can you have an article about KISS without explaining their fictional personas and costumes? Bowie, without explaining Ziggy Stardust? Alice Cooper, without explaining... well, Alice Cooper? And at least some attention to the fan club I think is warranted: the article on Insane Clown Posse (another duo who's fictional persona is relevant) mentions the Juggalos (actually, they're given their own article... though we don't exactly want their sort of notoriety...). The same for KISS, they have a separate article for their fan club, the KISS Army. I didn't think the Toy Soldiers needed (or warranted) their own page, but I believed they deserved mention as they are a rapidly growing segment of the steampunk community.
I have pared both those sections down enormously though, as they were filled with quite a bit of what even I would call "fan cruft" in the beginning - as well as outright promotion (I think I removed most all of that) - and am still considering some further editing. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 19:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree that it does sound a bit promotional, and it definitely needs some reworking and organising. However, if the admins are going to dismiss a perfectly viable point/argument in the case simply because it's "Other crap exists" based, then they shouldn't be admins. There's no argument to delete this other than it's been done sloppily, and a much better fix to sloppy work is to improve it, rather than delete it. I've searched for Dr Steel tons of times on wikipedia, hoping an article had been put up to provide quick information that you can't find on his Myspace or website. I would say that the fact that this page has such a long and thorough discussion justifies its existence, since if it were something people didn't care about, something irrelevant, it would've just had a speedy deletion tag and a few comments in the talk.--99.225.28.182 (talk) 20:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

If you think my concern is based on the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS issues solely, you may want to reread my comments. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I was interested in this subject (why doesn't Doctor Steel have a wiki article?) quite a while before I became involved myself, because people outside of his fan base notice this stuff as well. And I am attempting as much as humanly possible to continue to write and edit from that POV and remain as objective as possible. I hope that shows in my edits (which I'm sure to some of the fan base seem rather draconian, but too bad, one does what one must.) For me, it's not about promotion, it's about imparting information. BTW pared down the fan club section some more today, removed a couple of sentences that were likely irrelevant to outside observers. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 22:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Media Attention section

While the Media Attention section might help make an AfD argument or serve as a good list for any <ref>s, does it really serve any purpose on its own...especially as long and detailed as it is? It sounds distinctly "fannish" to me. Looking at other musicians: Madonna, for instance, who has certainly had her fair share of media attention, has no such section and any mentions of media attention are simply cited as appropriate in her biography. Ozzy Osbourne also has no such section or anything really resembling it, despite plenty of media attention, including his own reality show. So is there something special about Doctor Steel's Media Attention section, or should I just go ahead and remove it wholesale? —RobinHood70 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Just as a follow-up, I've gone ahead and removed the section. Looking over it and really thinking about it in light of recent discussions elsewhere, it didn't seem to have the required notability. —RobinHood70 (talk • contribs) 23:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
The whole argument for having the article included in Wikipedia, the whole discussion going on in AfD, is built upon Dr. Steel's notability as an iconic example of the steampunk genre. Removing this section removes all the references supporting that conclusion. It's like going to court and having the evidence removed before the jury reaches its verdict. Perhaps we can leave it in until the AfD discussion is finalized one way or the other? --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 02:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
That makes sense. It may seem a little strange, but I think the section establishes Dr. Steel's notability (in that it shows the various interviews he's had, satisfying WP:BAND, I think), while at the same time not actually being notable in and of itself (in that there's nothing terribly special about those interviews). —RobinHood70 (talk • contribs) 03:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
After the page is approved, perhaps the section can be re-written, rather than removed in its entirety. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 04:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I've pared the whole section down to two sentences in the intro, while keeping all the references. Long term, it would be best to find more informative uses for them (e.g. quotes from interviews). -Kieran (talk) 06:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Doctor Steel: WP:WikiProject Comedy?

  • Thought: This discussion has been bugging me for some days now, and I hate to make a menace of myself here, but I'm trying to compare apples to apples and finding that things almost add up. I know the idea here by the page creator was to classify this as a band, but doesn't it fit more under the WP:WikiProject Comedy genre, a la Bruno (character)? I understand the WP:Peacock concerns, but I find this page to be much more substantial, even with the "promotional" information that has already been removed than Bruno (character)'s backstory, and there's no question about keeping that page. The only notable difference is that we know the performer behind the mask there, while here, the performer has taken pains to remain privately anonymous, which shouldn't matter to our discussion. Indeed, the only real argument is the WP:Band concern. From my somewhat rigorous digging on Wikipedia and the Internet, the WP:Band notability concern seems to parallel the argument made by Yobmod on the Talk:Steampunk#Band_with_conflicts_of_interest page regarding the genre in total, specifically, do we have "an idea what it is?". From listening to most of the musicians listed on that page, including Abney Park, Vernian Process and others I found listed elsewhere on the Web, I think that there is a significant resemblance of musical style here, though I lack the musical criticism skills to define it succinctly ("Industrial Age" does come to mind). Within this young, but developing genre, Doctor Steel appears to have some influence and has played a developing role, not just in the music, but imagery and culture as a whole. Would we be having this discussion about Weird Al when he first came out with "Another One Rides the Bus" on a homemade cassette mailed to Dr. Demento? (I think I dated myself there.)SithToby (talk) 21:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
An interesting thought (although I'm not really up on the standards for WP:WikiProject Comedy). The character known as Dr. Steel has morphed from being "just a band" to also being the dark comedian of steampunk as well as it's resident philosopher, as noted by publications as divergent as Paranoia magazine and the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies, groups well outside of the musical sphere, being interested in his [fictional character's] views on emerging science, transhumanism and conspiracy theories. (I'm not really sure how relevant that is to the discussion however, unless they wanted to expand the "stage persona" section into it's own page, which I rather doubt.)
As far as "do we have any idea what it is?", as a musician myself I'd opine "Industrial mixed with Eastern European folk", to which each individual group adds it's own element - in Dr. Steel's case, hip-hop (among other things). --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 23:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Not to play the "wikicop" but this discussion isn't really related to why we are here, which is discuss if this article should exist at all. This sort of conversation would be better on the article talk page, where it can continue after the AFD is over, assuming the article is not deleted.(Although as long as we're leaning off topic, it's pretty funny to see a guy with "Sith" in his name say he doesn't want to be a menace, and I was always partial to "My Bologna")--Beeblebrox (talk) 03:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm always making puns that I don't get! So embarassing to be the last one laughing at one's own joke. SithToby (talk) 17:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Moved here from AfD, but the concept has merit for further discussion. Especially if Dr. Steel continues to become more notable in non-musical endeavors. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 03:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, that's what you get for being new to wiki editing! You all make this look so easy! But I would like to point out that while this deserves some further discussion, it does relate to the AfD discussion--but perhaps the WikiProject mention derailed that argument. Ah well. SithToby (talk) 04:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

"Yes, that is the passion..."

The Wikipedia admin's insistence that Dr Steel is not notable, is nearly moot. The continued refusal to allow this page to remain up has generated the notability for Dr Steel that the admins insist is not there. While I despise astroturfing of all sorts, this is a loyal fanbase fighting for the recognition of a person whose work they respect, not paid employees. - If Wikipedia no longer thinks that what the public thinks is notable is important, then what hope does wikipedia have to remain true to its original goals of tearing down the ivory towers of the encyclopedia business? 173.48.232.80 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC).

While I can appreciate your passion, I don't think this is the place (or the time) for editorialism. Keep it over in the TSU forums please. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 05:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Noting the concern re: Op: Wikipedia at said forums, and the (understandable) victory dance that must ensue, I would suggest a certain degree of diligence in maintaining the page in its encyclopedic purity. In other words, at long last, there is a wikipedia entry for Doctor Steel. Don't screw it up. SithToby (talk) 18:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Also going to be watching it for vandalism. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 20:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Post AfD discussion

I added a link to a news article from The Herald-Mail, a newspaper for a large suburban area midway between Pittsburg and Baltimore. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 19:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Added a link that hadn't even occurred to me even though it was staring me in the face. Not only did MTV spotlight Dr. Steel in their article on steampunk, but they showcased his music video on MTV.com. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 05:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

By Anon.

An anonymous user added this to the page today. While it may or may not be truth, it is largely editorializing and opinion without references and the very thing that would get this page knocked back off of Wikipedia. But the guy has the right to express his opinion so I moved it here.

Seeing as most of Dr. Steel's work is satire, in regards to "bowing to the corporate man" and being "brainwashed" by modern society (and yet, in return brainwashing his own "Soldiers" and encouraging them to brainwash their friends and family with mind control cookies and Dr. Steel's music) it is natural that would demonstrate his point by entrusting his Soldiers with "missions" that involve subliminal or blatant "brainstorming" in the real world -- Project Starbucks consists of printing out Dr. Steel icons similar to that of the goddess on Starbucks cups and slipping them into the stores for others to unwittingly take home; invading Disneyland en masse to alert the media as to how many of them there really are. As for the Dr. Horrible controversy, it is a mere publicity stunt, and nothing more, that the Toy Soldiers are put up to, and in a way the joke's on them. In the midst of listening to his music (which at one point tells you to think for yourself and use your imagination, and at another literally subliminally tries to hypnotise you) you are yet again following another leader. His philosophy is that, deep down, people just want to be happy and enjoy life. Mind, this is flawed thinking, because without a job and work, nothing would get done, but if he makes it fun and voluntary, he can get his zombie-like followers to do some free advertising for him. Even as a signed Toy Soldier, I can appreciate their efforts, but there are classier, more effective ways of getting the message out there than the attempts I've seen my fellow Soldiers put forth; putting out the accusation that Dr. H is a ripoff (which is a joke, and nothing more, in reality) they make themselves look like idiots and give the Doc a bad name. Having heard most of Steel’s music and seen Horrible’s blog, it’s true — there’s not really any standing in the claim, but it’s just to get people curious as to whether there’s something behind it. He’s trusting the skeptics will go find out for themselves, and skeptics and cynics are the kind that appreciate his work, so win win. -- Anonymous IP.

--Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 16:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanls for catching that Jonny. I haven't had the chance to look over the article, I have two big projects for school taking up most of my time. These are exactly the contributions I wish to avoid, and, to be honest, the article is at the best it can be right now. I think we should ask a moderator to lock the article for the time being, to prevent any negative contributions to the article. -edit- Not logged in, but it's me, Viraneth.

131.94.180.145 (talk) 17:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Not sure about locking it, that may be a good idea. But I told you I was going to keep an eye on it. ^_^ Also keeping an eye on Abney Park's page now, at Captain Robert's request, as you know he's had some trouble as well. We steampunkers gotta stick together. :p --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 17:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Locking (even semi-protecting) is reserved for extreme circumstances. In general, the anti-vandal patrol, and a few people keeping an eye on the article are more than enough. (And good catch, Jonny.) -Kieran (talk) 22:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Birth Name?

There's been a lot of speculation since Dr. Steel first appeared as to who he "really" was, including (redacted for privacy reasons) .; now someone anonymously has been trying to add (redacted for privacy reasons) as Dr. Steel's "real name". Leaving this off until such time as better "evidence" (i.e. corroborating references) should arise. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC) So we're claiming now that there is ANOTHER Dr Steel, or a musician named (redacted for privacy reasons) who released a Dr Steel album in 2001 (which coincidentally is when Dr Steel by Dr Steel was released). I say keep it in until its proven not to be his name. Too many coincidences on that entry. 68.81.18.87 (talk) 18:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Leaving out until someone can show corroborating references. One questionable entry in the copyright catalog does not conclusive evidence make. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Its obvious what happened, Dr Steel used his real name for the copyright, before he started using World Domination Inc as pseudonym. The only metal band that used Dr Steel as a name was some Serb band that was active from 1985 - 1991. Plus isn't it possible that considering it was his debut that he self printed a few hundred CDs and sold them at shows? Plus if he goes through all this trouble hiding his name, why would he admit if it was his name? 68.81.18.87 (talk) 18:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia deals in facts, not speculation. You may want to read up about the policy on original research. That said, I'm changing his birth name to "unknown" on the band template. -Kieran (talk) 01:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC):
Actually, I did some more research. The (redacted for privacy reasons) was actually a government typo. At the US trademark lookup there is an entry for a Dr Steel trademark which is now dead. It was formerly trademarked to (redacted for privacy reasons) in 2002. 68.81.18.87 (talk) 14:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
You may be right, but it still falls under speculation at this point. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 18:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Viraneth here (redacted for privacy reasons) is NOT doctor steel. AT ALL. (redacted for privacy reasons) is the artist of (redacted for privacy reasons) - definintly not Dr. Steel. Here's my proof: (redacted for privacy reasons) END OF DISCUSSION 66.229.134.224 (talk) 22:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Hows that end of discussion? He can't be an artist and a musician? Its not as though whoever is Dr Steel does it enough to make a living off of it. Also, if you look around its nearly impossible to find a headshot of (redacted for privacy reasons) . Even the link you just gave doesn't show his face, and from what I've seen of Dr Steel's face and (redacted for privacy reasons) face they look similar. Also, why would (redacted for privacy reasons) not only copyright Dr Steel (with the reasoning listed as being musical) and register Dr Steel as a trademark (and characters in the "Dr Steel Universe"). Obviously the trademark died, but it does seem to be quite the coincidence. Unless (redacted for privacy reasons) originally came up with the idea and sold it to a friend.
He may have come up with the idea, but whether he's the man in the labcoat or another, remains unclear. What is clear is that the man who now calls himself Dr. Steel desires his anonymity and privacy, for personal and likely for security reasons. And Wikipedia is not the paparazzi, it's not Wikipedia's place to sleuth out and expose celebrity's private lives. Since who the actual person is behind the goggles is still a matter of speculation, until an interview appears in a reliable media source that says, "Dr. Steel, who's real name is...", the name on the top of the page will remain Unknown. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 05:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I do like your comment on Viraneth's discussion page where you mention you think (redacted for privacy reasons) is probably Dr Steel. If he desired his anonymity he wouldn't have started up "Operation Wikipedia" to get himself included on Wikipedia. We'll find out his name and get it on the page eventually. All in due time. 68.81.18.87 (talk) 05:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
You can like what you want, it doesn't make any difference to me. I said it's possible. But I also think it's irrelevant. There may be a good reason Dr. Steel wishes to stay anonymous in his private life. Most likely for the same reason comic book superheros do - to have a private life, and to protect his loved ones. Used to be something in this country called "respect", that would give a man that.
It also seems that you have some sort of an agenda to "out" Dr. Steel, to expose him or to bring him down or something. Especially when you say "we'll find out." Sounds like things just took a sinister turn; sounds very much like an organized effort to ruin the man. I don't like that sort of behavior when Perez Hilton does it and I don't like it when you do it; it's reprehensible and ungentlemanly. And it certainly doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Especially while you hide behind a cloak of your own anonymity doing it. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 06:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I wasn't the one who wanted to be on Wikipedia so badly that I started a campaign to get on. He's not the only minor celebrity to want to keep his anonymity, but these things tend to get found out eventually, that's all I'm saying. Especially in the computer age. 68.81.18.87 (talk) 06:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Steel didn't put this page up, his fans and others did. At any rate, you've said your peace. This entire conversation is in violation of Wikipedia's rules on talk pages (Article talk pages should not be used by editors as a platform for their personal views... Article talk pages are only to be used for discussing improvements to their associated pages.), as well as the section on posting personal details of people without their consent, and therefore should be terminated. I'll leave it up to the admins whether it should be expunged. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 20:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous user, nobody is trying to cover anything up. The fact is that no-one has found a verifiable source stating Dr. Steel's real name. To reiterate that policy, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." And to restate the original research policy, "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position." So far, all you've put forward is your own synthesis of facts. When a reliable source is found which explicitly states what his birth name is, then of course it will go into the article. -Kieran (talk) 22:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and Jonny, anyone (yourself included) could just edit out the comments, but I don't think it's gone far enough into personal attack territory to warrant that (although it's heading that way). -Kieran (talk) 22:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I was asked to look into this matter, and I have to say I'm troubled by the anon editor's attitude. It is absolutely not Wikipedia's task to ferret out private details on living persons that they do not wish to have published. It's also not Wikipedia's task to speculate on such things without verification. Continued attempts to insert such information could esily lead to the page being protected for violations of Wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Oversight

In response to Beeblebrox's post to oversight-l (referring also to this discussion), I have investigated this situation and concur that there is no justifiable cause to include the subject's alleged real name at this juncture, in accordance with WP:BLP. That may change if, and only if, reliable, verifiable sources (preferably plural) can be presented to support it. As Beeblebrox says, Wikipedia is not a tabloid rag that goes around digging the dirt on its article subjects. We present professional, encyclopedic content that covers what is reliably known about them.

I have Oversighted a number of revisions from the article, and a large block of this talk page history, to remove these unverified personal details. Do not restore them without providing reliable sources to support their accuracy. That means you present the sources first, and wait for others to agree that they meet our standards of verifiability, before adding any content to the article. Failure to proceed with this matter constructively, will be met with escalating sanctions.

Queries over the nature of oversighted material should be addressed to oversight-l@lists.wikimedia.org, or to myself via EmailUser. Happy‑melon 22:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Doctor_Steel/Archive_1&oldid=1136666530"