Talk:London After Midnight (band)

possible copyvio
A lot of the text seems to be taken directly from the band's history page on their website. I think that the page can be edited so as to be okay, but I checked out the instructions at Copyright problems which say that you should blank the page and put up a copyvio notice...? Not sure what to do here - I'm going to wait a day or so and see if anyone has any ideas. Cantara 19:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

What's your concern? The guy who does the web work for LAM wrote that article which was used with permission. The text was ok'd by the band to be presented here on Wikipedia.

Okay then. I wasn't aware of that. Perhaps mention of this should be made somewhere on the page, e.g. some text courtesy of LAM, can also be found [at this link]. Also, would you mind signing your messages? It's a little annoying to have to look at the history to see who left me a note. Thanks! Cantara 20:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

not exactly npov
what are adjectives like "funny" and "touching" doing in what's supposed to be an encyclopedic article? this reads like a fan's praise rather than a fact-based, informative article. -supine 07:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I edited out the biased stuff. -

It really reads like a Press Realease. -


 * That is because it was taken from a press release, I've improved the article now, however. - Deathrocker 21:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Deathrocker- I suggest that you actually inform yourself about LAM before continually editing the page. The info you provide isn't accurate. Please leave the page alone. - 


 * I suggest you view other band articles on here to see how they are set out, this is not an overblow fan article or a promo slot. It is meant to be an encyclopediac article on a musical band.


 * "None" is not a viable genre. The discography on the version you keep pushing is a mess, the language is awfully POV reading more like a hagiography and it mentions little to nothing of their history. If you feel something is inacurate, then correct it cite a source. - Deathrocker 21:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Deathrocker, just a few quick notes; LAM was a very political project from the beginning. Your posting of "fan frustration" is speculative and misleading. LAM is a solo project (Brennan). It was formed by Brennan. LAM was not formed with Tamlyn as you stated. The fact that you are unaware of this is evidence that you shouldn't be contributing to this page. Live members come and go and are not involved in the creative process. Hardly relevant except for noting live concerts, but you can list the various live members if you feel the need - but yo need to specify that they were live members only. Also, why focus on one bass player (Areklett) who was kicked out of the live band? Do you know anything about Covet and Areklett? If you did I think you probably would not be pushing him. You read the "Covet" page and took that as fact, but it's not fact. No "Covet" songs were ever meant for LAM. Areklett was removed from the live lineup of LAM for some serious reasons. Why you feel the need to push him here is kind of strange, with a paragraph on his defunct side project (which by the way he took thousands of dollars to produce and never released "frustrating" people who he'd promised the CD to). Its clear you have very superficial knowledge of LAM with the various edits and misinformation you keep posting, so I suggest a little research or just bowing out to work on other pages, as seems to be your passion. The discography was originally posted by someone else. I just cleaned it up and corrected it, you should have seen it before, it was a bigger mess. It could be deleted but you wanted history and that is a history of releases that contain LAM music. Also, LAM doesn't apply genre labels to itself, hence the "none" genre. If you wanted to list all the genres other people apply to LAM the list would be longer than the discography, and irrelevant.


 * 1. where are examples of the band being political from the begining? none of their lyrics (up until 1998), contain examples of "animal rights, pro-environmental and human rights issues, anti-corporate control of media, and progressive, and liberal politics." stances that the band are now said to follow.


 * 2. there are sources which state that the band was formed by Brennan and Tamlyn in 1990, the fact that he has being there from the begining and is still there more than a decade and a half later shows that it isn't just a "solo project" of Brennan's.


 * 3. then provide a source proving otherwise. i'd tend to believe that something stated on an official page of somebody who was actually in the band (for a long time) would be a reliable source. if other members of the band have gone on to feature in different projects, then they can be mentioned too. Areklett's current band is relevent in the context of the article, regardless of anything else.


 * 4. all bands have genres whether they like it or not "non" and then listing four or five after it, is contradictionary. not something for a encyclopedia. - Deathrocker 22:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Deathrocker, 1. One of the first LAM songs released was a song called Revenge. Quite political. Not to mention everything that's been played in concert since 1997-98. Also, LAM has long been known to pass out literature related to animal rights and various progressive issues at the concerts, through mail and now online, has done concerts that benefited animals rights organizations, had voter registration at concerts, etc. This started as far back as the first concert. However it was never asserted that these issues figured into all of LAM's lyrics (some, however). You have taken a hostile approach to the bio and claimed politics have not figured into LAM's music, which is false, and is misleading being that a key aspect of LAM is the politics and progressive social causes - and has been from the very beginning.

2. The only reliable source for info on LAM is the LAM website. AllMusicGuide, etc, are all wrong and refuse to correct the misinformation. Trust me, I know Brennan has tried. Tamlyn was NOT there since the beginning of LAM and contributes nothing to the band musically speaking. How could LAM have formed "with Tamlyn" when LAM was formed prior to Tamlyn and Brennan meeting? See, again, you are not informed enough about LAM to be editing this page.

3. Areklett's current band is nonexistent. He has no band and last I heard no plans to release any music. He lives in his girlfriends mother's house about 4 hours outside of Los Angeles after losing his job years ago and is about to have a child. He is hardly in a position to be doing music. Areklett is well known for being less than honest. He started a big campaign in 2004 after he was replaced saying Covet music was meant for LAM but Brennan didn't want to use it or something (feigning frustration), but this was only to get attention for Covet, which he hoped to release at some point. No Covet songs were ever meant for LAM. In fact Brennan didn't even know of Covet's existence until Areklett tried to hijack Brennan's live band out from under him, which eventually led to Areklett being replaced in the live lineup. Why trust this guy who was kicked out of LAM and is well known for being a bullsh*tter, but not LAM itself? Try reading the LAM Online community or the LAM website where all this was discussed in-depth. Again if you don't do your research then stop pretending to be qualified to edit this page. Seriously. My sources are what has been written by Brennan and live members of LAM on the LAM online community, my own experience with the band (which is vast), and online by Areklette himself (all of which contradict Areklett's myspace page which you are citing as a definitive source). http://p098.ezboard.com/blondonaftermidnight

4. Your opinion. "None" is a viable genre when the artist says his genre is "none".

By the way if you're going to be editing pages please check your spelling as well as your facts. Last I checked "implomenting", among others, wasn't a word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blipblip (talk • contribs)

Friendly warning
Caution The editors of this article, particularly Blipblip and Deathrocker, are headed down the wrong road. You have been blocked for violating the 3 revert rule. Reverting each others changes is not and acceptable method of editing. With reference to the article content, A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication. It includes personal websites, and books published by vanity presses. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published sources, whether published online or as a book or pamphlet, may be used as sources of information about in articles about the writers/publishers of those sources, so long as there is no reasonable doubt who wrote them, and where the material is:
 * This is an encyclopedia, not a fan site. We will generally list a band's releases but not every compilation album that has one of their tracks on it.
 * Everything must be verifiable through a reliable source. my own experience with the band is not a reliable source and adding information based on personal special knowledge violates the No original research rule.  None of the things you have been arguing about have reliable sources--animal rights, the genre, none of it.  Blipblip's claim that Allmusic is wrong is a serious problem.  You may not make claims based on your own knowledge.  You can only report what other reliable sources have written about the band.
 * Regarding claims to the band members web sites as sources, let me quote two sections from the reliable source policy:
 * relevant to the self-publisher's notability;
 * not contentious;
 * not unduly self-serving or self-aggrandizing;
 * about the subject only and not about third parties or events not directly related to the subject;

Now, I am not even interested in trying to sort out a he said/he said argument over who was in the band, who tried to steal whose band, etc. Web sites owned by the band and band members may be cited as sources if the information is not contentious and not unduly self-serving. So, simple stuff like what genre he calls himself and what his own lyrics mean to him are probably OK; stuff about controversies in the band can not be sourced to personal web sites because they will by definition be self-serving and contentious. If you can not find third-party reliable sources that talk about the band you may not be able to talk about these things at all. These sources do not have to be on line, but they should be readily verifiable to someone with a decent library, and cited properly. (for example, "Album review, Rolling Stone magazine, June 1992, page 36) If you want to make progress here you will look at some other articles, carefully read the reliable soure and verifiability policies, and maybe ask for help at the rock music wikiproject.  Good luck. Thatcher131 03:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If you can not find third-party reliable sources that talk about the band you may not be able to talk about these things at all.


 * This is merely a suggestion on my part, but I think using both band the band's site and the ex-band member's site as sources would probably do a better job of illustrating the controversy than one published by an outside source; you'll get all sides of the issue and it will be from those directly involved in it. A third-party source would be more likely to take a side. Ours18 05:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

How about working together?
Some quick comments because I theoretically am at work now. I'll look in on this over the weekend and see how you are doing. Thatcher131 15:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Please try and find some outside help for the article. I don't think Blipblip yet has a handle on what makes a good article, and he has conflict of interest issues.  Deathrocker is perhaps overly aggressive in removing material and has revert limitations.  Some other editors would provide additional perspective and could rescue parts of Blipblip's contributions that are worth rescuing.
 * 2) Bibliographic citations need at a minimum the name of the source (like a magazine), date and page number. Including the article title and author name are preferred, like this:  (Jan Wenner, "Rock sucks." Rolling Stone, June 31, 2007, page 44).  Linking to the magazine's homepage is of no value—direct link to the article if it is freely available on line, otherwise don't link at all, just give the bibliographic details.  Linking to transcripts on another web site is prohibited unless the site has permission to repost the information.  Transcripts of magazine articles are probably copyright violations and we do not link to external sites that violate copyright.  Again, provide the bibliographic information.
 * 3) If a magazine publishes an interview, and the band's web site posts the "longer, unedited" version, the parts that are only in the band's version fall under the Self-published sources section of the reliable source policy.
 * 4) Blipblip and Deathrocker need to talk about some of the disputed information on the article talk page for others to evaluate and make the edits. I am thinking specifically here about the issue of whether the band is a one-man project (kind of like Boston (band)) or a multi-person band; and the issue of the former bass player.  I think it would be acceptable to discuss the issue of the bass player using Brennan and Areklett personal blogs as sources, since they are writing about themselves, but I would like a third opinion on that.  In any case, the Neutral point of view policy requires that if the issue is dicussed, both sides need to be presented fairly.  If an outside reader can detect the wikipedia article taking sides in the matter, that is a violation.  It would be better to report what some third party reliable source has to say about the matter, if one can be found.
 * 5) Deathrocker can not revert the article more than once per day or twice per week, but he can make useful edits that are not reversions. For example, the current version is poorly wikified, and the references need to formatted per WP:FOOTNOTES.  Some additions that you might disagree with in the long run could still be rewritten for style and tone without removing significant content.  And of course discuss it on the talk page.  Of course, if the net result of many minor formatting edits is to reduce the article back to Deathrocker's perferred version, or something close to it, that's a revert violation, but he know that.  He may prefer to play it safe and see if any outside editors agree with him. (Even people with whom he argues on some topics but who are knowledgable about music might be helpful here--hint hint.)

This ok?
I tried to modify the article to include page numbers and other info you suggested. I hoe its acceptable for now.

1. I'm open to suggestion. The problem lies in Deathrocker adding information that was wrong and, as you said, being overly aggressive with posting that information (and being unwilling to actually research facts). There seems to be a misunderstanding over just what the objections I've expressed actually are (everyone seems to be focusing on the "ex-memberr" things- that is minor. Looking at the various versions should spell that out. I have tried to tell Deathrocker repeatedly but he won't listen. The main point was over what LAM is and its construction. The band is essentially a one man band with varying live members but Deathrocker refuses to accept this fact- a fact that is easily verifiable even in some of the sources Deathrocker cited himself. Also LAM is very political as an entity. Deathrocker repeatedly calls this fact into question, and adds a negative tone to many of his comments. He also suggest fans are angry at the band because they want a new CD released but cites no sources. He has provided some false information (citing the Cure as an influence, saying the music is "sexual", etc) and apart from that posts a listing a tour dates that was originally taken from the LAM website by allmusicguide and then redistributed to countless websites online (allmusicgude is a content supllier for many websites). Some of the info that allmusicguide originally distributed was wrong (saying the band started in the 1970s, listing people as being members who Brennan never even heard of, etc).

2. I am working on improving the sources and will continue to do this in the coming days.

3. The information in question was actually printed in the magazine.

4. I have tried but Deathrocker is abusive, insulting and unbending in what he thinks is the truth. The Areklett matter is a minor concern compared the the fact that Deathrocker continually changes what LAM is actually about with his revisions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blipblip (talk • contribs) 22:14, 17 November 2006

bot reversion??? Why?
The page was just reverted by a bot because it said I may have been vandalising the page. What in the world wis going on here?I just spent all morning fixing the article with relevent and accurate info and it reverted back to deathrocker's inaccurate version. Why did the bot blank out the corrected version? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blipblip (talk • contribs) 23:11, 17 November 2006
 * The bot is a piece of software that looks for triggers that indicate vandalism. Something about this version is setting it off.  Tawker will try to fix the bot.  By the way, on talk pages you should sign your comments with 4 tildes like this ~ or click the box that looks kind of like a signature (to the right of the red circle).  It will make a signature with time stamp so readers know who made which comments. Thatcher131 00:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Thatcher, thanks you've been very helpful. It seems Tawker fixed the bot mistake. And sorry for any missteps in etiquette. --Blipblip 02:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, deathrocker is back and blanke out my page with his version that has many flaws. he claims to have incorporated mine into his but if you actually read them he has not. I've tried to edit it as best I could and remove the false information, remove the unsourced negative bias, remove awkward wording, fixed multiple misspellings, etc, and removed the copywritten photo. But this is really annoying at this point. --Blipblip 06:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Nice attempt at covering the truth there blip blip. Unfortunetly for you there are diffs to disprove such claims, this is the older version this was the version which incorporated a hybrid of both As you can see it included ALL the NPOV sourced information you included. Obviously you didn't bother to read or compare. But what can I say, you seem to still be pushing for a hagiography not a NPOV factual article. - Deathrocker 06:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Despite my fueds with Deathrocker, this time he does have a point as this band is in his area of expertise. Please read WP:NPOV and WP:CITE Blip. Your problem is, much like Deathrocker's was (and often still is), wording. When you word things, be carefull not to offer praise or scorn. This is meant to be an Encylcopedia, which means observing, not passing judegment. Im sure you will improve over time. As a suggestion, look at some featured articles for examples of what makes Brilliant Prose. I dont know if it will offer much help, but this tutorial is supposedly designed to walk yew through the passes of editing Wiki within the core policys (WP:CITE, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.166.127 (talk • contribs) 18:10, 18 November 2006

Image:Sean brennan.gif and Image:Lampromo.gif

 * Image:Sean_brennan.gif was tagged with the license which means that the copyright holder has allowed it to be "freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, used, modified, built upon, or otherwise exploited in any way by anyone for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial, with or without attribution of the author, as if in the public domain", in essence "releasing all rights". However it appears that the copyright holder when contacted by Wikipedia did not want to release the rights to the image. See the deletion log entry.


 * Image:Lampromo.gif lacks source information, which is incompatible with the fair use critera. I have provided a detailed fair use rationale (which is a requirement and was previously lacking), but if no source information is forthcoming the image might be deleted in seven days. If that should happen a new image with proper source information could be uploaded under the fair use criteria to illustrate the article, provided that no free image exists.

More information on how images are used on Wikipedia can be found at Images. --Oden 18:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

In response
Unsigned- LAM is obviously not in his area of expertise considering so many facts are wrong, which I've pointed out repeatedly. He has taken a hostile tone and this isn't making this easy. I can tone down any wording that is deemed "praise", but I wonder why Deathrocker is allowed to post libel like implying Sean Brennan is lying about certain things? Why is he alowed to post things that are not sourced? Or personal opinion? And he continually refers to LAM as a group effort and can't make the distinction between the varying live members and LAM itself, something I've tried to correct him on on several occasions. I have even corrected misspelling and had that blanked out with the wrong spelling restored. Seriously- if you look at my edits you will see my disputes with deathrocker. Deathrocker likes to spin things and then claim others are offering something that is POV however this is what he is doing. He has made unsourced claims repeatedly, he refuses to differentiate between live members and LAM itself (which is just Brennan) even though I have pleaded with him to read my edits, etc. Why is he allowed to do this? My version's edits are not allowed because they seem to say good things about LAM? But these things were all sourced and relevant to what is being said in the article (that LAM helped revive a music scene in the US and is a band that has influenced others). All of this factual third party information has been removed and Deathrocker's personal opinion is inserted. He continually claims LAM has virtually no political music (however I've cited several songs that are overtly political) He then claims LAM's music is sexual by referencing ONE SONG. Back to the political aspect, the entity that is LAM is political in nature. Deathrocker doesn't seem to be able to grasp this. I've pointed out how LAM is political (apart form the music) but Deathrocker isn't paying attention and refuses to understand. The guy is being hypocritical and unbending. He is unwilling to compromise and unwilling to actually read my edits and understand them. I urge anyone to go back and read my version of this article and then read Deathrockers. Then compare what I have removed or reworded in his version which was then restored! (I removed false information, personal opinion, poor grammar, misspellings). It seems no one is actually paying attention. Also the image being used is a copywritten image that was uploaded by another user and should be removed. It was never released for use by the copyright holder (Brennan). It appears here: http://www.londonaftermidnight.com/photo5.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blipblip (talk • contribs) 21:34, 18 November 2006


 * Appreciated that Deathrocker violates civility policy in most everything he says, i know this. Easy way to deal with that is to just report it here. Other than that, his edits are not too bad. My suggestion is to read this and then if Deathrocker continues to violate his revert parole (he can revert once per 3 days (if he violates it, just report it here and here)). Also removed anything that 'doesnt' have a citation.


 * Bear in mind however, that what i have said also applys to you. So try to keep cool and refrain from edit warring. Also if the image is copywritten, then remove it, and post to an appropriate admin about it.

Controversial edits
Edits where User:Blipblip and User:Deathrocker have conflicted:
 * 14 November 21:44
 * 14 November 21:56
 * 14 November 22:03
 * 14 November 22:54
 * 14 November 22:59
 * 17 November 04:03
 * 17 November 04:46
 * 17 November 07:56
 * 17 November 08:40
 * 18 November 00:29
 * 18 November 04:14

As far as I can tell, the controversial edits in this article center around the following: --Oden 04:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * whether this is a band or a "musical project"
 * Genre
 * interpretation of the band's music and the band members political stances and lifestyle choices
 * the mentioning of former band bembers
 * recent events, specifically:
 * original bassist Michael Areklett leaving the band in 2005
 * a new London After Midnight song released on the Saw II motion picture soundtrack
 * style and language issues
 * removal of references, and
 * (sometimes) a lack of references


 * Blipblip makes a large issue out of whether LAM are refered to as a band or a project in the article, this is entirely petty IMO. Despite the fact that the group have members other than Brennan which have been in the band for 16 years (such as Tamyln who has also written music).... and Areklett was involved for over a decade (13 years).


 * An act like Nine Inch Nails for example are refered to as a "band" on here using terms such as "they", "their", "band's" and Trent Reznor is the focal songwriter for that band.


 * Every band on Wikipedia has a designated genre, blipblip has claimed that they have "no genre" and that any source which is not from the official band website is a "lie". Such behavior is not in folowing with the Citing sources policy.


 * The music London After Midnight have released is largely non political, aside from one song "Revenge", which is down to interpretation and if it didn't have the Adolf Hitler intro, nobody would not associate it with politics. The band's primary themes are that of emotion, romance and sex. (see; Kiss, The Bondage Song, This Paradise, The Black Cat)


 * In recent times the frontman has voiced political views on the band's website, and attempted to reinvent the band as politically themed, yet they have not released an actual album for 8 years and these alleged "new political songs" have only supposedly been played live. Until (or if ever) this album is released, (fans have been promised this album for quite some time) this shouldn't be the focus of their overal themes recorded here because there is no proof that these songs will even be included on the final release. Their official released discography is 99.9% unpolicital in lyrical themes at this moment in time.


 * You'd have to ask blipblip why the Areklett info is continually blanked from the article by him. (Even though it is sourced)... the Saw II soundtrack isn't a bone of contention however.


 * As was mentioned in the last sentence... you'll have to ask blipblip why he removes sources, I really don't know. Blipblip has claimed that I have discarded all information he has added to the article, this is a clear cut untruth. here is one version I edited, which blipblip blanked much of replacing with this, however.... I did not just discard everything as he added, I created a hybrid variation, using sourced info he had put fourth, while cutting the fan orientated promotional material (stolen from the band's official website) and fixing to the correct formating.


 * Also.... for some reason, he has attempted to cover up the fact that the band played in the gothic rock clubs in California when they started, the fact that they covered a song from highly popular movie Nightmare Before Christmas on their 3rd album... and he attempts to blank all mention of musicians who have played as London After Midnight who are no longer involved. - Deathrocker 14:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I made comment above on my view on this. In this case, anything without a source is removed. I also suggest filling out the little chart below - i think it might help you two to communicate and better co-operate to improve the article. Remeber to keep within being nice and civil when doing so.


 * Deathrocker's problems with Blip's version:


 * Blip's problems with Deathrocker's version:

Response to Deathrocker
1. Your opinion doesn't matter. What matters is accuracy. LAM is not a band or group, as you refuse to comprehend (and as sourced). It is Sean Brennan's music, as stated on the LAM website itself and in sourced interviews. There is LAM, which is Brennan, and then there are live band members who change all the time. Your list of live band members is missing most who have come and gone. The live band has done tours on 3 continents without Tamlyn, for example. Listing live members is fine, however you must do it correctly and accurately!

2. Alternative is the most accurate genre description. But the genre isn't a major issue.

3. This is where Deathrocker loses focus. My edits continually make it clear that LAM, as an entity, has pushed a political and social agenda since the beginning. The music is also sometimes political, like with the song Revenge and all the material played since 1999-ish. His edits, claiming LAM music isn't political, is not accurate as released music has been political in nature, and the thing that is LAM is entirely political. My objections were to his wording. It seems he's coming from the point of view of a disgruntled fan. His approache is a negative one, calling into question the very nature of LAM. Also see number 4 where he implies that LAM don't play new music that is political, etc. Again, his approach seem to contain some negative bias that isn't sourced or valid, IMO. All the songs cited as being "sexual" are not sexual. Your Best Nightmare is the most sexual and that's a black comedy styled like an Edward Gorey comic. I would think that outweighs the sex aspect when describing the song. The other songs are clearly not sexual (taking one word out of context doesn't amount to a song being sexual. Bondage Song uses bondage as a metaphor for control between people and on a larger scale, society (which the song's subject) but mentions no specific sex acts. If Deathrocker's assertion is that LAM's music is sexual in nature by these songs, then anyone can argue the LAM's music is political and socially aware in nature from the song Revenge etc (and the unreleased material, the philosophy behind the project, etc).

4. Evidence of Deathrockers hostile tone. Constantly referring to Brennan as "frontman", when he is more accurately the creator and songwriter and instrumentalist, he fails to differentiate between the live aspect of LAM compared to the creative aspect of LAM. Igniring edits adn blanking out sourced info (not a group, for example). Inferring there is no political music in LAM ("supposedly played live"), hostility over the last release date of a CD, etc. Again, its his wording that's the problem which paints an inaccurate picture. Again, he's shaping his edits in a hostile way. Thats what I objected to and told him.

5. Again the Areklett info you had was inaccurate. I blanked it until you corrected it but you refused to correct it! I have now corrected it for you and added sources.

6. You continually revert the article back to the one you've written, discarding my major points (the group aspect, casting doubt on the future release and the political nature of LAM, etc, again displaying a nagative tone). Again pay attention to what I actually edit and tell you on talk pages and then we will be able to proceed and make a more accurate article. Also your chronology of live members is wrong, you're listing people who never played live with LAM, your chronology of press coverage is wrong, etc. I had blanked that until you fixed it but you refused to fix it. I tried to edit it so its somewhat more accurate using your writing but its quite clumsily written so overall its still not a true reflection of reality.

7. False. In regard to this I told you I edited some bits for clarity, grammar and some spelling (for example "limitating" is NOT A WORD!). The official site (which you clearly haven't visited) mentions Helter Skelter so I'm not trying to cover up this fact. It just wasn't that important. The specific focus on unimportant details (like a cover song or what club was played at when) weren't as important as some things which you edited out or changed the meaning of entirely with your edits. See my version posted on 00:29, 18 November 2006 and compare it to yours. There are major themes there that you have chopped out or changed the meaning of. This is supposed to be an encyclopedic entry on a musical artist. Rather than rehashing tour dates (more appropriate for a bio press release) perhaps you should define what LAM actually is. Tour dates can of course be added, along with live member info or what project some ex-live member is doing now, however shouldn't the focus be on defining what LAM is, how the press views them, how they are seen as influencing a scene, etc? Those are more important aspects when contributing encyclopedic information on a subject than a retelling of tour dates and ex-associates current activities.--Blipblip 21:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

See the main problem is, you are claiming this is "all just my opinion", when it simply isn't the case here.... I have edited this site for quite a while and know how it goes, thus I have gone through the correct fields and cited sources for ALL information I am adding to the article. You haven't and can't (especially in regards to LAM "always being politically centered", because it isn't true, simply history revisionism). You have also claimed things in your reply which are untrue, such as the nature & content of my edits (I disproved above with diffs).

Refering to somebody who is the vocalist in London After Midnight, as a "frontman" is a hostile tone in your eyes?... I'm sorry but that is simply ridiculous.

LAM songs with sexual themes; and there we'll stay"
 * 1. The Black Cat - "Oh Little girl, don't go away, just come to bed
 * 2. Kiss - "take me in your arms my love and rape me"
 * 3. The Bondage Song - "take me to bed and rip me apart"
 * 4. Claire's Horrors - "wrap me in darkness, Claire make love to me"
 * 5. Demon - "velvet touch your mouth on mine, drunk on lust like drunk on wine"

Its there in black and white...with a source.

Released LAM songs with political themes; - Deathrocker 23:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1. Uhhhhh.

deathrocker
You are confusing the issue by not paying attention to the edits I've made and what is being objected to. Implying that LAM isn't political, as you've done repeatedly, proves a lack of knowledge of the band. LAM never claimed to have released music with 100% political content (though Sean has released some music and is about to release more which has been played in concert for years- a fact that you seem to doubt). Again read exactly what I objected to in regards to your edits about the political aspect of LAM. You simply aren't understanding what I'm saying.

Referring to someone as "frontman" in this case is misleading, because it implies that there are others who are responsible in some way outside the live arena. Can you not comprehend what I am saying (repeatedly)? (and is it THAT important a word to you that you have to continually erase all my edits or discount these major points?!). Again, you need to understand what LAM is and how that differs from the live band. Your continual unbending and some might say negative, tone, where you refuse to accept modifying your wording, seems to imply you like using words that are objectionable to some (out of ego perhaps?), when its clear you possess a lack of knowledge on the subject as I've shown. Therefore the impression that you are being "hostile".

And again you can't take one word or line out of context. I can provide numerous examples of songs that verge on "sexual" in NIN music, for example, but people don't describe the band's music as mostly sexual in nature.--Blipblip 01:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Problem Solved
I took each of yours version. Removed all the nonsense, pov, original research, and weasel words from each. Then glued them back together. I then neutralised it, Wikified links and structure, and tided up what loose ends there was.

Now, if either of yew want to edit it. Follow WP:NPOV and WP:CITE. If either of you start mouthing the other, go to WP:AN. Otherwise, quit with the warring, its deconstructive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.216.25 (talk • contribs)

to the person above (deathrocker?)
You did NOT fix anything. You simply reposted Deathrockers version, with perhaps some altered wording here and there, that made it even less accurate (saying LAM and its members are a prominent act of the goth scene"... does that even make sense? For one, LAM is the act, the people are people. Then we have the live band members, who change all the time and are not involved in the songwriting, art, etc, so should be referred to as LIVE members, etc). The more accurate version has been restored. Why do you insist on inserting made up words ("limitating"), made up quotes, made up history, false times lines, and refuse to understand that LAM is different from the live band?--Blipblip 20:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The anonymous editor above is Leyasu, who has been banned from editing Wikipedia under any circumstance. Thatcher131 21:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You also reverted the article to your preferred version and used a misleading edit summary. Thatcher131 20:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Thatcher- if you're referring to me (I can't tell because you said "also", so I can't tell if you're talking to me or Deathrocker) I had several problems with editing the page. It kept pasting it twice into my browser, so my edit summaries might be a bit messed up as to what was edited in a particular version. Also, I added the wrong edited article once. But my summaries are essentially the things that were fixed yesterday from Deathrocker's version, which is what today's version posted by an anonymous user amounted to.--Blipblip 20:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, to make clear- Deathrockers version, which was posted again this morning by an "anonymous" user (hmm, wonder who it coulda been), was essentially his version, uncompromising even though he keeps claiming he's "combined" versions. The fact is he continually makes the same mistakes on the major points I've object to regardless of if he's added a line of mine abotu song titles or something (as I've pointed out repeatedly), his version of this morning was nearly identical to his preferred version down to the same spelling errors. He claims something is POV in my edits when all I've tried to do is make it unbiased and factual (I've added sources to back me up), compared to his version that is biased and not factual (citing unsourced fan frustration, wrong live "member" info, chronologies are wrong for press and live members, his interpretations of music (sexual), his frustration vented (Fan frustration), his interpretation of the sound (industrial ala Manson/NIN), --Blipblip 21:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Fan frustration? Hahahaha... you're joking right? I'm only interested in making a decent NPOV article. And you were told explicitly who the anonymous user was above by Thatcher (further proof you don't bother to read what anybody else is typing) I suggest you get your facts straight or actually read what is being typed infront of your eyes, before leveling unfounded acusations at me.


 * All the information I provided previously was sourced and NPOV... even on this very page (in regards to sexual lyrics), you need to come up with something new, claiming somebody hasn't cited sources when I have is pointless & untruthful on your part.


 * Also, the way you have twisted the Covet/Arklette section is extremely POV (against him)... do not remove former members (live of otherwise) they played under London After Midnight, thus they belong in the article as "former members" (read any other band's article, it is the same).


 * In regards to Covet... you have just linked to the MySpace bio, with claims that are not actually shown there, thinking people won't bother to follow it up, that isn't how we cite a source. POV wording like "Covet has since been virtually abandoned", the Covet profile on MySpace was signed in on "11/20/2006" (today)... so that is another untruth from you. And "Covet claims to have released one EP", there is no "claims" about it.. they either did or they didn't (I'll give you a clue, they did... some of the songs are on their MySpace). You really need to get over whatever jealously or bias opinion you have with Arklett if you are going to edit information in regards to him for an encyclopedia. - Deathrocker 22:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Blip, im going to be really straightforward with you. Your version massivly violates WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:CITE. Those are the three core policys. Granted, Deathrocker did have some minute biased wording, his version was a lot less POV than yours. He made very few slurs against anyone, where as you vandalised the article by blanking sections, violated nuetral point of view by praising one member of the project and slurring others, and violated no original research and citing sources by including information with no source, whilst deleting sourced information. As such, you are now violating policy, and i urge you to stop doing so.


 * Oh, and i almost forgot to mention it. I didnt repost Deathrockers version. I picked out all the POV and Uncited information from BOTH versions. And then looked at what was left and used the more nuetral worded part, making minor tweaks if necessary. There is an equal amount of content from BOTH of your versions. And the layout is how Wikipedia layouts are done. A good example would be the Cradle of Filth article that i spent a lot of time working on with Cardinal Wurzel.

deathrocker
One of my posts was made prior to Thatcher's, the other he made while I was writing up a my last message so I'd not read it yet. See the times of the posts. Thatcher had posted one message after one of mine and WHILE I wrote another (so I'd not seen it).

Anyway- try to calm down ok? I told NO "untruths" as you accuse me of having done. Your response here exhibits a hostile tone (as I already pointed out in your edits) and favoritism (or desire to promote) Covet rather than a desire to get the facts straight about LAM. The Covet site has had no updates for over 2 years as can be seen on the site, and no major release (you can't verify it was released on mp3.com, can you?)- hence the reference to it being abandoned. The singer lyricist quit and joined the army. There is no bias against Areklett, only factual information as sourced. You are seeing my desire to clear up what LAM is as a bias against live performers which is absurd. You need to stop thinking LAM is a group of guys. Its not.

Lyrics- again I explained about the lyrics. You can't take a couple of lines from a couple of songs and claim ALL music is sexual. That's your misinterpretation of some words from 4 songs. And you're also painting with too broad a brush. Also if you're so bent on saying LAM's music is sexual due to a few lines then you should admit it's political and socially aware in nature because of various songs like Revenge, Bondage Song (about human interaction being more and more based on control rather than interaction), Kiss (which is about sexual abuse in organized religion, not sex) (not to mention the new material as well, the long history of social and political causes pushed by Brennan). Or maybe LAM's music is X-mas due to The Christmas Song and Sally's Song cover?

I have told you repeatedly about the "ex-members". I asked you to correct the wording and then they can be added without me objecting. Personally I feel no need to add them as they didn't contribute to what LAM actually is (they are more like hired tour musicians than band members who shape LAM (though I have added the line about Tamlyn's "Ice" song being included by Brennan on Oddities). But if you feel the need to add live performers to the page why only add some? There are many more than who you list. But list them as LIVE performers who perform Brennan's music. Not members of a band.

Covet- The "virtually abandoned" language can be removed if you're so uncomfortable with it, however its true as half the band joined the army and went to Iraq (as sourced). I don't see why you view it as negative. Yet- You seem to feel the need to talk about fans being frustrated with LAM because a CD hasn't been released in a few years, etc. You're being hypocritical and writing stuff about LAM that's VERY POV (YOUR interpretation of lyrics, YOUR unsourced impression of what fans feel, YOUR idea of influences [you had the Cure in there at one point], YOUR impression of what the band's sound is, YOUR impression of what the band is and who makes it up when sourced material says otherwise, etc) and then you object to me saying Covet is abandoned - when it has been abandoned as can be seen from no updates to the site since about 2004 and no full release. A covet song being on MySpace doesn't mean it was released on MP3.com, by the way. You seem to think that's proof they released a single. Its not. They just put some songs on the page.

Regarding live "members" again- The point was that for some reason you cannot distinguish between people who played Sean's music in concert from time to time, and LAM itself. Some (like Areklett) were only live performers and contributed nothing else to LAM. LAM- the entity is another thing, which is what this Wiki page is for. THAT LAM is responsible for writing and recording the music, doing art for the band, shaping the message and philosophy, etc (this being Brennan). Your insistence on inaccurate language was my objection!!!

Why do you view this as "POV" and favoritism? The point is that you view these facts as "POV" shows you really have very little understanding or knowledge of LAM. Again you need to understand LAM is Sean Brennan. Then we have live performers who perform when the band tours. Do you understand this yet? These members change all the time. Some, like Tamlyn who's been around for a while, sometimes don't even go on tour when Brennan takes LAM on the road (and as I sourced).--Blipblip 02:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

last anonymous revert
The version with wrong info was again reposted by the anonymous user. I fixed it with the nonPOV correct version. Glaring problems were too numerous to fix line-by-line, like attributing LAM's CDs and works to "members" when these should be attributed to Brennan, saying the "group and members are considered a prominent act...", etc. This doesn't make sense really- bad grammar. LAM is the act. Its "members" aren't a "prominent act". Also live performers do not figure into the artistic side of LAM, they are performers, and change frequently. Thus- they should be listed as live performance members separate from being part of the core of what LAM is, the creative side. What so hard to understand here about this? Its sort of like a solo artist who then has a live band to performances. You can list these people if you like but you have to do it accurately. And why list only certain ones? The last version also implies LAM "became" political in the later 1990s, when in fact LAM has always been political. Again poor wording actually says something that is untrue! What is hard to understand about my objection to that Deathrocker? Far to many other mistakes to list but whoever keeps posting this stuff ... ahem... seriously needs to read and understand what I'm writing here and what the objections are. I've sourced it all and its not POV. The things I've objected to/changed from Deathrocker's version are clearly his opinion or wrong information that I've corrected and then sourced.--Blipblip 06:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The reason they have Live Perfomance Only is because that is how Wikipedia lays out articles.


 * And again, you have removed cited information which is vandalism. Please do not do this again, as this kind of behaviour is considered vandalism. Also please respect the three revert rule.


 * Second ive taken into consideration 'both' of your objections and views. Again, most of your wording is not nuetral and does not have citations, which makes it original research.


 * Again, if you keep up this behaviour, people will report you to an admin. Please be constructive rather than deconstructive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.91.34 (talk • contribs) 08:27, 21 November 2006

Request for Comment
This is a dispute about whether the article is about a band or a music project, whether this band/music project belongs to any genre, whether the music is political and the inclusion/exclusion of former band members from the article. 10:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Deathrocker
Band or Project?: Brennan (the frontman) has called them a band in interviews before;

Interviewer: You say it has been a struggle to form a band you can work well with-do you feel you've achieved this yet?

Brennan: Yes. (...) The line up now, the four of us, are all positive and eager to do things. We've been together since 1992 and all is going great. It's really been great, and things have fallen into place in such a way that has inspired us all to really put everything we have into this band. - Deathrocker 12:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Blipblip
The above quote was referring to an older version of the live band. LIVE BAND. Again- when you are talking about LAM MUSIC you can't credit the CDs, music, art, etc to "they", the "group", etc. What's so hard to understand about this? You refuse to understand this simple objection, which I've sourced. Again your wording is the problem here. I don't see why you're being so hostile about this and refusing to understand, erasing this article over and over. You can reference the LAM site itself to see that what I say is true (or see the sources I provided, one of which you've erased). You can talk about the live band all you want but you should refer to them as the live band. Its very easy. What's the problem here? Why do you keep erasing fact and replacing it with your opinion?

I have provided sourced info for this "member" situation. YOU HAVE ACTUALLY REMOVED sources! I have not removed sources to my knowledge (if I have please let me know exactly what I missed. I want an accurate article), I just removed just false info or poor grammar. My edits fix false info, your opinion which you attempt to pass off as fact, spelling errors, false quotes, false timelines, etc. You keep reposting false info, false quotes, even the same spelling errors.--Blipblip 17:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments

 * Comment, copyright violation and proposal:
 * I have left a message at WikiProject Rock music and one at WikiProject Metal asking for an expert to weigh in on this edit war.
 * This edit appears to be a copyright violation from http://www.londonaftermidnight.com/history.html which states "All content (c) 2006 London After Midnight". Per Copyright problems a revert to the clean revision is the solution for blatant copyright infringements. (I don't know how much of the copyrighted material is still left in the article though).
 * Another solution would be to start a new article at Talk:London After Midnight (band)/Temp and move it into the place of the current article after a consensus is reached, since the wording of the present article seems to be a matter of contention. --Oden 21:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oden, some of the text comes from a public press release that is also on the band's official websites. It was intended to be used for publicity. However the photo is being used without LAM's permission.--Blipblip 22:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment:
 * I could not find any part of the website that deviates from "All content (c) 2006 London After Midnight" (or any statement to that effect), or a press section on the website.
 * Image:Lampromo.gif is being use under the fair use criteria.
 * Wiktionary defines band as: "A group of musicians". A Google search for "London After Midnight"+band gets 140 000 hits, while a Google search for "London After Midnight"+"musical project" gets 67 hits "London After Midnight"+"musical project" gets 506 hits.-- Oden 00:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC) --Oden 03:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: in many of the articles I have looked at for comparison (Marilyn Manson (band), AC/DC, Rush (band), Guns N' Roses, Led Zeppelin, Queen (band), Megadeth, Iron Maiden) former band members are listed. --Oden 01:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Protected
All I can see here is a constant edit war. Please settle this by discussion on the talk page. If that doesn't work use dispute resolution. I've protected this until parties start working it out instead of constant reverting.--Docg 17:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

lets get this right
I've sourced what I have contributed. If the Areklett language is disturbing, then Deathrockers opinion posted as fact should be objectionable (though mine is actually accurate- all I said was Covet was virtually abandoned after the singer left [as sourced] and no updates to official site [as evidenced by looking at page] and no promised release in over 2 years. Deathrocker implies worse unsourced things about LAM; fans being "frustrated", language which sounds negative towards Brennan, LAM following industrial music bandwagon with Psycho Magnet release even though the majority of songs on Psycho Magnet are clearly not industrial [thus this is opinion posted by deathrocker], providing personal interpretation of songs [sexual, etc], he provides false timelines for live band performance members, inaccurate timelines for press, I've removed false quote and removed poor grammar and made up words like "limitating"). Essentially if you look at my edits I've reworded Deathrocker's version to be more accurate. This is Deathrockers version and I've abandoned mine. I have taken Deathrocker's version and edited it be accurate and provided sources for what I've added. Perosnally I don't think a recitation of tour dates belongs in an encyclopedia. That's more a press release thing.

So deathrocker- talk to me and try to actually respond to the facts I've posted here. You don't do this with me, you often ignore large and important chunks of what I write here (and in edits to the article). I try to respond to you point by point. You should do the same.

The main problems I have with your edits are: 1. you cant understand the difference between the live band and LAM itself. You can't credit CDs to "them", "their" or "group". You need to list live band members as live band members. There is a difference between LAM the recording project and the live group of humans that tour occasionally playing LAM songs, as stated on sources. Its just wording to make this more accurate. This is an encyclopic entry on LAM. Accuracy is important.

2. you need to remove your point of view opinions on your interpretation of the music ("sexual" and industrial bandwagon). For one, they are inaccurate and another, they are your opinion. This isn't Spin magazine. Its an encyclopedia.

3. What's the problem with the Covet language as it stands? Its accurate. If you think it sounds negative we can change it. But why not include mentions of other live band "members"? (I'm a little confused by the obsession with Covet, but whatever...)

4. you have several things wrong with the time line of live members and press. I've repeatedly tried to fix these or omit them as some are unimportant* and you just revert the article back to your wrong version (*and too involved to correct; for example if you want to talk about press you can't mention that around 1998 LAM started appearing on magazine covers. This is factually wrong. LAM had been on mag covers in Europe since 1995. And if you want to get detailed about who was in the live line up when, then it becomes a much longer article and belongs in its own section (like "timeline of live performance members").

5. You have removed at least one source that back up what I've said.

6. lots of poor grammar and extraneous words that make for clunky reading.

7. your claim that LAM/Brennan has recently developed a heightened sense of political awareness is NOT ACCURATE as I've already shown repeatedly. LAM/Brennan has been political from day one.

8. "limitating" is still not a word

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Blipblip (talk • contribs) 18:28, 21 November 2006

New infobox
See also Template:Infobox musical artist. For inspiration: Marilyn Manson (band), AC/DC, Rush (band), Guns N' Roses, Led Zeppelin, Queen (band), Megadeth, Iron Maiden. --Oden 01:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Removed the words North America and Europe from infobox since Russia is also a part of Europe, the record labels are listed by nationality instead. --Oden 03:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Oden
The problem is those were bands where all members contributed. That is not the case with LAM. LAM is Sean Brennan's music and art. The live band is made up of different people who are not involved in the recording, writing, or shaping of message. "Group" and "member" implies that they are, thus they are the wrong words to use. Do people list performers in Rod Stewarts band as being "members", implying some part in the creative process of Stewart's music? No. (I'm only using Rod Stewart as an example of a singer/songwriter). In LAM's, Sean created a project, a theme, which was London After Midnight. Sean uses some people on repeat occasion (like Tamlyn as noted) during live performances (but this changes often and even long standing live performers like Tamlyn often do not tour with LAM). These people should be listed as "Live Members" or "Live Performers". In other words there needs to be adistinction between "member" (Brennan) and "live band members or performers" (the other people). This has been sourced. Also, the language that talks about LAM CDs as belonging to the "group", "theirs" ("released their CD", for example) should be reworded (as I have reworded it) because the CDs are Brennan's, not the performers'. I really cannot understand what is so hard to understand here. Am I being unclear?

Some of the genre's are entirely wrong. Shock rock certainly doesn't belong anywhere near LAM nor does any genre of metal. These need to be changed

"Members"- Janus never performed with LAM. Ever.

Labels- Trisol is all of Europe. No reason to say "Germany/Europe".

Regarding the photo- so a photo was stolen from the LAM site and uploaded here by someone else, and you're saying its being used fairly because someone (who wasn't the copyright holder) claimed it was free to use?--Blipblip 02:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * To quote metropolis records: "Soaring guitars, haunting vocals, and soothing keyboards all combined to make the band more than simply music, but an event. L.A.M.'s third album was Oddities, a mix of live, rare, remixed, and acoustic interpretations of new and established songs. To date, the band has sold more than 30,000 CDs, proving that their fan base is not only loyal, but also plentiful" (my emphasis added).
 * A search of the website http://www.londonaftermidnight.com reveals 23 instances where the word band is used.. However the band apparently has to be distinguished from the live band. To quote the official website: "The live band varies but includes Sean Brennan (vocals, guitar, programming), Edward Hawkins (guitar), Joe S (drums) and Tamlyn (live keyboard)." The word "musical project" is not used anywhere on the website. The word "music project" is only used in one place on the website.
 * It is possible to distinguish between one person and a group of people, see for instance Marilyn Manson (person) - Marilyn Manson (band) or Bruce Springsteen - E Street Band.
 * Regarding the use of fair use images, se Fair use.
 * If User:Blipblip is involved or associated with the subject of this article in any way that might present a conflict of interest, the applicable guideline and policy might be of interest: Conflict of interest and WP:NPOV. --Oden 02:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Last of all, your argument is quite clear but not supported. See WP:V and WP:RS. --Oden 03:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Oden, How do you figure my argument isn't supported when I've sourced it? The LAM website itself says that the live band varies and the history obviously focuses on Brennan. The only place where this would be discussed (the history page) describes LAM as a "project". No where else would it say "project" on the website, why would it refer to a project on the merchandise page, for example?! The word "Band' is used, yes, and it says live band.

The metropolis site refers to band out of convenience I imagine. I've sourced where Brennan in the main member of LAM and live members change.

Again- think Nine Inch Nails. Most often you think of Trent Reznor. But NIN is actually more of a band of contributing musicians than LAM is. Yet look at that Wiki page- its more like what the LAM page should be!

Again its a matter of wording- When discussing CDs, songs, etc, you most often see references to Reznor, not "them", "their", etc.

See the Nine Inch Nails wiki for an example of what the LAM wiki should resemble. While the word "band" is occasionally used, most emphasis and creative credit is given to Reznor as director of NIN. This is also how things should be worded for the LAM wiki. I have given sources for this. If you need more, let me know.

Why do you think this is not a valid claim when I've provided sources? You are nitpicking over one word "band" on the website (in the context of "LIVE band"), but that isn't the point. You're missing the larger point here. Which is that people need to be referred to as live members as LAM is the creation of Brennan and no one else. There is no group of people running it. Band is often lazily used to refer to a musical "group".

There are no sources that cite LAM as shockrock or metal. These genres should be removed.

The image was stolen from the LAM site and is being used illegally. Why is this allowed?--Blipblip 04:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oden has explained the same things i have to you. And as Oden has said, you have not provided sources that say what you claim they say. Thus, they fail WP:RS.

I think its safe to say blipblip is in the wrong for all the reasons stated above. His claims are not of a NPOV and numerous important Wiki policies such as WP:RS are being ignored, it is also worth noting that community concensus is heavily weighted against him (I mean, even Leyasu is agreeing with me here.. we've had alot of problems previously) - Deathrocker 14:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

"Gothic Sleaze"
Wow, powerful new genre term. I'd have to agree with it somewhat though. I was actually wondering who put it in. Jotsko (talk) 00:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

"Some Images"
I took some images of LAM at WGT 2008, please feel free to use any of them in this article if you deem them suitable. Flickr Page 77.184.85.113 (talk) 10:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

"EDITS"
I edited a few points on this page to make it more accurate; LAM didn't form in 1989, as was stated. It formed in 1990; Psycho Magnet release date fixed; AGAIN fixed the false quote attributed to Sean, calling the goth label "artistically limitating". Sean never used the word "limitating", as it's not a word. He said "LIMITING". Quote has been correted. I've been correcting this one quote for years, please stop reverting this page; Also, removed some false information about LAM's lyrics referencing vampires. There are NO Lyrics that reference vampires; Generally this article has more inaccurate inforamtion, speculation and personal interpretation rather than fact and SERIOUSLY needs to be edited. But whenver I edit this stuff to be more accurate, someone comes along and simply reverts the page. How can this be rectified? Blipblip (talk) 20:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Lineup, Confusion, and Conflict over Members
I am removing this section. It is all a violation of WP:OR and not notable enough to warrant a subsection in the article. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 08:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

--I'd like to point out that 90% of this Talk page is a testimony to the confusion and conflict. It may be OR, but it was self-referential.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.119.128.141 (talk) 22:59, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

... and properly cited and verifiable... ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.119.128.141 (talk) 23:04, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Full disclosure
I have never listened to this band (came across them via the film article), but there was some horrible writing. I've copy-edited a bit to remove some of the more pompous stuff, but it probably needs a proper look by someone that is more familiar with the subject material - and by that I definitely don't mean some hagiographer! Can we get some actual reliable sources in there? I've left alone the opening line that they are a "project" rather than a band (which they obviously are - there is such a thing as a one-man band at any rate, but it appears many people have played for this "project") purely because there appears to be history on the talk page. But seriously, claiming they are not band is just massively pretentious, and it would take 10 seconds on Google to find reference to this band being, um, a band. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 23:27, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

You are very correct.. :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCU3mmnPAZk 162.119.128.141 (talk) 00:00, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Wayback Machine
Not to flog a dead horse, but it's a pretty simple matter to use the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine and see curated copies of LAM's official website, the same website that is being appealed to on this talk page as the only reliable source, for some reason. Reading the "band" and "interview" and "history" pages as they evolved, it appears that prior to 2005, this was a band lead by Sean Brennan, and was nowhere described as a solo project with a "touring band." Btw, I'm only jumping into this because years and years ago I followed this band pretty obsessively, then drifted away, and recently came back here to see what "they" were up to these days, and discovered it's a solo "project," always was, always will be. That certainly was not my impression at the time, so I look at the Talk page and lo and behold, what a raging argument on that very subject! Anyway, the Wayback Machine is at archive.org for those who care to look. Count Robert of Paris (talk) 12:29, 23 May 2020 (UTC)


 * And to add just one bit of real world evidence that LAM was a band before it became a "project," the original booklet from the Psycho Magnet CD plainly says, "London After Midnight is: Sean Brennan, voice, guitar, bass, keyboard. Tamlyn, keyboard.  Douglass Avery, drums, percussion.  Michael Areklett, bass."  There is also mention off additional guitar being played on the CD by William Skye, so it even makes a distinction between members and a guest musician.  This does not give the impression of a solo project. Now, I have no intention of getting into the controversy any more than I have, and I feel someone with more experience with editing might revise the entire article, but the article as it stands appears to be someone's effort to rewrite history.  Count Robert of Paris (talk) 12:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You are 100% correct, that the revisionist history was hard at work, and a lot of effort has been spent erasing the names of those that gave LAM that push into.... viability. I salute you, as another who was actually there back then. 63.155.29.251 (talk) 03:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC)


 * LAM at the Wayback Machine:

https://web.archive.org/web/*/Londonaftermidnight.com Count Robert of Paris (talk) 13:46, 29 May 2020 (UTC)