Talk:Asia (band)/Archive 1

Re: THX "Deep Note" usage by Asia

I still need to find the source for this again (somewhere online at an Asia-related discussion forum frequented by both fans and band members alike) but I seem to recall finding out that Geoff Downes had received permission to use the new "Deep Note" sound in the recording of "Countdown To Zero". It had not even been used in connection with a motion picture yet at that time. The "Deep Note" version in the song is "Deep Note" in its original form. "Deep Note" has evolved a bit over time, including the change in key. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wkargel (talk • contribs) 22:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as John Wetton remembers it in My own Time, there was no copyright at the time when they used it. The story went that while recording Astra, Phil Alexander stopped by the studio and showed them a few samples he was considering for the THX soundbyte. They were blown away by the Deep Note and asked if they could use it, Alexander agreed while coincidentally the very same byte was chosen by the THX people. Here's the book info -in case you need it- for proper citation: My Own Time: The Authorized Biography of John Wetton Northenline Publishers. 1997. ----philosopher2king 3/17/08

Former membership of Pitrelli

Asia guitarist Al Pitrelli was formerly a member of Danger Danger.

Album Links

Most of them are wrong. Linking to albums from other bands. nihil 23:01, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Any More Info?

I see that my stuff was slightly editied. I do have info of most of there albums. Let me now by editing this page, since I go thru anonymous.

proposal, merge

merge Heat of the Moment(very short article) into Asia (band) and delete the category Category:Asia songs (category that lists only Heat of the Moment)--Melaen 19:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia

Not a fansite. Quotes like "scotching [sic] guitar hooks" are not neutral. Quotes like "Early on the Asia debut produced outstanding reviews" need to include links to the reviews in question (I can't find any. I looked) and quotes like "is known as one of the tightest albums in rock history" need A LOT of backup, which I don't see. If want to make a claim, especially a superlative one ("Greatest", "Worst", etc.), but can't find a web site to back it up, don't make the claim. --Richfife 21:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

p.s. If you want your edits to be taken more seriously, get a user name. -- Richfife 21:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

p.p.s I move some the previous info to different parts of the article. When you re-added it, you didn't remove it from the new location. This caused a lot of redundancy. -- Richfife 22:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Neutral (and even negative reviews) are perfectly valid

If you have links to positivie reviews, add them. Do not remove links just because you disagree with them. As I mentioned, this is an encyclopedia, not a fansite. -- Richfife 17:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

People turn to these sites for facts, you can find bashing on any album if you look for it, but that is not the overall view of the legendary Asia debut. The Asia debut has topped out it's critics. We are not bashing JP or his era. Brag all you want about how great he is, fine, we are not going to bring him down. If you can't say anything nice please don't say it at all. People don't agree the SGT. Peppers is the greatest LP of all time, but it is not the general perspective of the mainstream world. So peoples opinions that differ from the general view of a classic LP should not be included in what is supposed to be an encyclopedia. People turn to these sites for facts, and it shouldn't be a battle between the Payne and Wetton fans, or one era trying to bring down another. Peace out  :)

Richfife 18:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC) Starts here

I'm not an Asia fan or non-fan at all. I think I have a cassette of the first album in a drawer somewhere. I haven't listened to it in over 10 years. To me, it was a mildly entertaining artifact that got old like almost all music does. I'm simply standing up for a neutral point of view, which means including links to ALL opinions, positive or negative, without favoring one or the other. It is a neutral, verifiable fact that some people think "Asia" is a classic album. It is also a neutral, verifiable fact that some people don't care for it at all. Most opinion falls in the middle.

Does the fact that classic rock stations still play old Asia songs mean it's a classic? They still play "Hey Mickey" from time to time. It's their job. If Progfreaks is an acceptable inclusion, so is Starling. My real name -> -- Richfife 18:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

---

I doubt Hey Mickey is on over the air classic rock radio stations around the world that play the Guess Who and Boston, but more likely on oldies & 80's stations. There are many indicators that prove the Asia debut is accepted as a classic and legendary album, such as the Boston/Asia winning combinations CD, their genre is compared to Boston Kansas and ELO, (Classic Legendary bands), also, if a classic rock radio station plays deep cuts (non hit's) from an album over 20 years later, is proof that it has been accepted as a classic album. Sole Survivor and Wildest Dreams still get heavy radio play along with HOTM & OTWT on CLASSIC and Quality rock stations throughout the world, NY, to LA, etc. Why do you not hear any deep tracks (non hits) from the Quiet Riot debut or a Ratt LP, or the 1987 Starship LP? This is the difference. Songs like, Led Zeps, Battle of evermore, The Who's, Join Together, Beatles, Tomorrow Never knows, and Asia's Sole Survivor are all non hits that are played this very day because they are considered classic. The album is also legendary in the sense that it is the Biggest debut album of all time for a progressive rock band, It is even bigger than the Beatles, The Who's or Led Zeps debut. Spending 9 weeks at the #1 position selling over 10 million units worldwide. They are also known as phase 2 of progressive rock, leading the way for 90210, Big generator, and others, it was the spark of the dawn of a new generation, and that in itself is a major legendary and nostalgic accomplishment. Do you really believe the experts and prog freaks would include the Asia debut as a masterpiece along with Floyd's dark Side if it was not? When you see stations playing it's tunes and prog experts saying this 23 years later, is a clear indication that the Asia debut topped out it critics and is the more popular view of the mainstream world. It is the general view that should be presented as fact, like SGT Peppers, and Dark Side, not the reviews from critics that can be found about any band or album. Recently Nissan in Japan chose a track from the ASIA debut for a commercial. Program directors & critics have off the bat in 82 said there no doubt this will be one of greatest, along with Skinnerds first and the White album. From it's conception in 82 until today the reviews of it being classic and legendary are there. We are well aware of the bias reviews from disgrutled ELP and YES fans and the critics who were fans of those bands, or fans of progressive rocks first era. But the Asia album won out. Some bashing consisted of labeling the Asia debut as fake, because they didn't believe they or any band can play that polished or tight, but they did, I have the quotes. Bias and false reviews from these types of critics should not be listed in a page that is to be of fact and the general mainstream view of what is, classic rock. Remember, whenever an album sits on top of the world and the US for 9 weeks, and or, breaks up 3 bands,sells 10 million units you can rest assured some people are not going to be happy about it. This should not be included in a page that people turn to for facts.

---

I'll grant your point about classic rock stations.

Here's a quote from the review you keep pulling:

Asia is a pretty nice album! Out of its nine songs, not a single one is unmemorable. Not a single one is un-elaborated. Also, not a single one is a ballad: even the sappiest, most sentimental stuff is normally served under a tough rockin' sauce, with occasionally unexpected musical transitions and great drumwork from Palmer.

The overall point is that it has good points and bad points. The final evaluation is "Just Very Good" (click on the "Overall Rating" link). Have you even read it?

For the record, I believe that what we are currently experiencing is a rare instance of "Positive Creative Tension". The article as it stands is actually quite exceptional. I don't think it would be nearly as good without our current squabble. Let's not cross the line into open flames (it hasn't happened, I just wanted to make the point.) Also, you keep pulling the categorizations when you pull the link. Don't do that. They're harmless. -- Richfife 20:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

---

If that's from the article you keep posting that is the nicest thing said, that article was bashing at is best. No I wish not to make an enemy, but the way this article looked a week ago was bias to the extreme. Statements like, Wetton leaving is the best thing that ever happened to Asia, (like they had muti platinum albums when Wetton left) or luckily the Asia reunion didn't take place. Saying that the Astra LP was a commercial failure when it reached Billboards top 60 when a Payne era LP never broke the top 100. The bias and bashing of the Wetton era will not continue, as an entire community is pretty P..O .. If I'm removing something else I should not when I remove the link I apologize, but as long as I'm alive, that link will not be there. Peace out.  :)

---

The concert from Japan with Greg Lake on vocals is available on CD, I own it. The existing versions could use a remaster but that isn't the point of this post. You can find it on Amazon and I'm sure other sites carry it as well. WOlson17

Fair use rationale for Image:Asia Band logo.png

Image:Asia Band logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 12:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I've added a fair use rationale for the image. Bondegezou 14:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit war over anonymous edits removing information on John Payne era

Over the last few days, an anonymous editor has been repeatedly editing the article to remove information about the John Payne era. I have engaged the individual in some discussion at User talk:70.167.100.82‎ and recommended s/he brings his/er reasoning for the edits made to this Talk page. The matter has also been reported to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Bondegezou 15:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The most recent IP address behind these changes has now been temporarily blocked for violating 3RR. Bondegezou 16:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

New edits to make last part of article more concise, accurate, and fair

I hope any of you long-time article editors don't mind, but I made some edits to the last part of the article that make clear what's going on. I was very confused as a casual (and recently renewed) fan of the band, and I've been editing other related articles for some time, so I felt like I could make it make more sense.

The new edits reflect the idea that there are two bands simultaneously using (some form of) the name Asia, and the relevant details of each.

Alternatively, I could see an argument for creating a separate page altogether for each band, and using this page as a pre-2006-only history of the band, followed by links to each of the new bands, but I think that would be too complex considering there's not that much info to cover on both bands. - Shubopshadangalang (talk) 01:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking that the best way forward would be for the reunion line-up of Downes/Wetton/Howe/Palmer, the ones who legally own the name and would be regarded by most as the legitimate Asia, to be covered on this page, but that Asia Featuring John Payne be given their own page as a distinct new band, with a short section on this page introducing them. However, to date, AFJP has done so little that there's hardly anything to put on a page of their own! Bondegezou (talk) 21:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that they're both "Asia", and AFJP is the continuation of the existing band minus Geoff Downes. In that sense, the reunited original-members band is more of a new, separate project. Both bands have huge pieces of overlapping history, that you'd have include on both separate pages, which is redundant... a separate page on "Asia Featuring John Payne" would have to include all of the history of the band "Asia" that "featured" John Payne, which goes all the way back to the early 90s. As Bondegezou suggests, until either band creates any substancial amount of their own history, separate pages would contain mostly the same info. Odds are that a legal battle will ensue over the name "Asia" before too long and we won't have to make any decision :) - Shubopshadangalang (talk) 04:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, the legal situation has been settled and it's been settled with this somewhat ambiguous solution. The reunion band own the Asia name; AFJP can use "Asia" within that longer moniker but do not appear to be able to just call themselves "Asia". What may more clearly settle the issue in the long-run is whether AFJP can sustain any commercial success.

The reunion band have been and are active, with a world tour and multiple live releases so far, and further touring and a studio album due. In contrast, AFJP have done considerably less: there's been a live release of the final Asia line-up under the AFJP name, a studio release is planned this year and they would like to tour, but nothing's been confirmed on those latter points. Given what we know of the legal situation and given their relative activity, while Shubopshadangalang's contention "that they're both "Asia"" is correct to some degree, I still feel the reunion band have a greater "claim" on this Wikipedia page. For now, I think it is appropriate for this page to cover both bands, saying more about the reunion band as there's more to say. If AFJP has any legs as a separate, ongoing concern, then I think an Asia Featuring John Payne page would be in order. Bondegezou (talk) 14:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that, but I have serious doubts on how long the legal agreement will hold up... the differentiation between the two bands is pretty shaky as long as AFJP uses the name in a way that basically says it's "Asia" with "featuring John Payne" smaller type that reads more like a secondary emphasis than part of the name. For anyone who's not familiar with the fact that the original Asia are back together, this comes across as being "Asia", which, by the way, features John Payne :)

For example, check out the "Extended Versions" listing (and cover art) on Amazon [[1]] - they even credit the album as simply "Asia" and list it in with the rest of Asia's discography. It really doesn't work as a separate name, and as far as the general public perceive it, they're both called "Asia". - Shubopshadangalang (talk) 17:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Extended Versions is a live show performed by a band calling itself Asia at a time when there wasn't any competition for the name. AFJP now are using that release, in a sense, to launch a new line-up and a new name. The question becomes to what extent AFJP will attract sufficient commercial interest for them to do anything. While the disparity in commercial success exists between the reunion band and AFJP, there's little reason for the former to sue the latter.

However, this is turning into a discussion about Asia rather than a discussion about the article, so I should probably stop going on now! Bondegezou (talk) 10:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear friends, There are moderators that are favor the John Payne era here and there is a history of that on this site. There were previous statements in regard to the failed reunion in 99 such as "luckily it did not take place". Today I was informed that the bands online fan club was removed when it was put back into the order it was. For the longest time the site was underneath the official reunion site. It was there before John Payne's ASIA site and before the my space page. No sites were removed, we did not disrespect anyone. Our site was disrespected in two ways, one it was removed from which the order it was placed. When it was put back into the #2 position where it was, someone then decided to delete the website. I am the President of the ASIA fan club and my site is authorized by ASIA's manager. This fan club is an important part of ASIA, as John Wetton and Geoff Downes had a chat there in the fall of 2005. If this needs to added to the article, please add it.. We are currently in negotiation for a chat with the band before the launch of the new LP. So the site is very important for interactivity with the band itself, and fans need to informed of such events. The site contains fans that played a very important part of the reformation of the original line up. As John Wetton said in the VH1 classic interview in regard to the reunion being fan driven "we knew there was enthusiasm coming from certain quarters". It was I who received the phone call from management to announce the reunion news. We look not for a debate, but what is right. I have over 20000 fans in my newsletter that will come here to edit this. If we meet any resistance we will file a lawsuit for emotional stress and discrimination and deformation (as it was reported that we loaded SPAM by loading the Authorized ASIA Fan Club to Wikipedia) and sue personally those who edited out this important authorized site and this will go to the Arbitration Committee It is my wish to settle this fairly, friendly and in an adult type manner. We do have long history of resistance, and I have already contacted an attorney. This website, is listed in the official ASIA biography with the other official sites on the final page of the book. That's how important this club is, is that a spam link IN THE OFFICAL BIOGRAPHY? I certainly hope this ends in friendship. But we are prepared. Sincerely, Sole President of The Authorized ASIA Fan Club

External links dispute

Some sort of edit war has erupted over inclusion of two external links, one to the Authorized ASIA Fan Club and the other to the band's official MySpace page. Both links have long been on the page and, personally, I believe both are justifiable under WP:EL policy. To the President of the Fan Club: I'm not certain you quite understand how Wikipedia works, but the way forward is to discuss the edits on this page, not to get the newsletters subscribers to all keep making the same edit. Threats of legal action do not appear helpful to me. To those who object to these links: could you give a longer rationale for your objection? Bondegezou (talk) 10:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

My own rationale in favour of the links is as follows. While WP:EL is skeptical of links to MySpace, in this context we have an unquestionably notable band with an official presence on MySpace. In that context, I think WP:EL's "Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any." trumps concerns around MySpace. I also feel that criterion covers authorised fan clubs, and that is how it has been interpreted on several other musical acts' articles. Bondegezou (talk) 11:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

A message from the Club President:

Sorry this had to happen, but I was called a spammer, define spam? Is spam a site that was on the Wiki article until I decided to move back to it's #2 slot? First of all I appreciate the response, the best way to settle things is through calm reasoning. It would be a different story if the link was added yesterday, and if I was spamming.

 What happened was that ASIA Fan Club was always listed there.  Two others sites were added to the external links this year, but they not take their place in line.  They moved our link to the 4th slot.
 So I edited the ASIA fan club back to it's original slot, WITH AN EXPLANATION, first in line, to be fair. I did not remove the other sites.  So this would have never happened had I left it in the 4th position in the external links section where it was yesterday morning.  It would still be there now had I not put it back to #2.  Then it was my site that was taken out only for about the first 3 hours of the war, then they decided to remove the my space page as well.
 Our site is not some yahoo fan site, it the endorsed management authorized ASIA fan club that reports official ASIA news and press release information.
 We are listed in the official ASIA biography with only about 5 other official links.  That is not spam.
 We have held a worldwide chat with John Wetton and Geoff Downes after the reunion news announcement.
 This information of the worldwide chat was deleted from the article.  It is important because I am in touch with management to hold another worldwide chat with members of ASIA before the launch of the new tour and new album.  So the site is extremely important to ASIA fans that turn to Wikipedia for information to know about such events as worldwide chats with ASIA.  We also have the ASIA forum, the reunion site, (the main headquarters for the original band) does not. We handle the majority of fan interactivity.
 If the truth had to be told, there are political reasons why this happened, those from the other era have infiltrated as moderators here at Wikipedia.
 There has been a long history of war between these two eras of ASIA.  This was Bias, and discriminative.

It happened because I moved it in front of the ASIA featuring John Payne link. That is a recent site, my site was there first. I explained that in the initial edit, that comment disappeared from the history edit link on top of the page. This proves a bias from the other ara.

 Thank you for the calm reasonable response, it is my wish to settle this in a friendly manner.

Please lift the ban and allow us to edit the The authorized fan club back into the place it was before I moved it back to the #2 slot. As you stated, this link was there for a long time. Was it SPAM THEN... WHY NOW>>> WHY NOW? Why?............ IT SUDDENLY BECAME SPAM WHEN I MOVED IT IN FRONT OF THE JP ERA SITE... WE WERE THERE 1st...THIS HAPPENED because it was moved in front of the new JP era link. Who had the right to bully their site and push mine down to #4?

    Sincerely,
        ASIA Fan Club President

Is the Club Official. Ether way you are being investigated for Sock puppetry. Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 16:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what's going on here... there's absolutely no reason to remove and blacklist this site. If this is some kind of Asia vs. John Payne rivalry, then just list it as the "Asia Reunion" fan club and get over it... the link has been there for a long time and is clearly legitimate. I tried to add it back in myself, but got a "spam" warning (and I have no idea how to change that). - Shubopshadangalang (talk) 16:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection removed

I have lifted the semi-protection as a talk page discussion is ensuing and it is no longer needed as Nakon (talk · contribs) has blacklisted the problematic link. If a consensus is achieved to include the link, then an interested party should ask Nakon to reverse the blacklisting. CIreland (talk) 18:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

From the ASIA Fan Club President.

If mistakes were made on my part they were done inadvertently, I sincerely apologize.

One mistake caused other mistakes, and it was not me who made the initial mistake. The initial mistake was calling me names, a spammer, calling my site a spam site, blacklisted. All we did was put the site back into the place in line where it was.

Shubopshadangalang or CIreland, please contact Nakon the remove the blacklist and replace the link. :Again it is not me that started this, if mistakes were after THE FACT, I apologize. We would be willing to go to #3 on the external links list.

This all about the long war between the two eras. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.238.124.30 (talk) 19:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I have no interest or opinion on the matter in dispute. My only interest here is to prevent unacceptable behaviour. Attempting to strong-arm a contentious external link into the article by using multiple accounts is unacceptable. Discuss the issue on this page and come to a consensus on whether the link is appropriate or not. CIreland (talk) 21:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The External links section is for adding links that enhance/add/support content already in the article. WP:EL is in place to lay down a solid policy for what isn't required on Wikipedia. If a link doesn't add anything to the article... that isn't already in the article... then it's a WP:EL vio. And the fanclub link adds nothing that isn't already available in the article. Authorisation means absolutely nothing on Wikipedia. Fanclubs/Fansites/MySpace... they are all frowned upon and are scarce. To assist Wikipedia in achieving it's goal of being respected resource... instead of struggling to replace an un-req'd link in this article... spend your energies removing the few fanclub/fansite/MySpace links from as many other Wiki pages as you can. It would be a great help. 156.34.220.66 (talk) 21:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

From the President of the ASIA Fan Club!

Then why did it take the moving of the link from the 4th position to the second for this to suddenly be realized. If I didn't move it move it back to the #2 slot it would still be there now. This happened because of bias discrimination from Payne era fans that became moderators here, and they saw me put the link in front of that one, for my explanation that mine was there first. You want to tell me if I looked around every artists website on Wiki all I will see is the main headquarters link? It says external links not link. The club was there before that and it is important that Wiki readers know of on line chats with members of ASIA and other official press relase info in regard to fan interactivity. What is more the article did reference the club, it said John Wetton and Geoff Downes had a chat there with it's fans before the launch of the tour, and was removed also. I wish this to not get to the next level. The site is an official news source press release outlet as well and it is listed in the official biography. I will fight this to my death! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.238.124.149 (talk) 22:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Who's a John Payne fan? I know I'm not. I think this whole "Asia featuring John Payne" division in the article is nonsense. This is an article about "Asia" not "Asia featuring John Payne". If this Asia featuring John Payne band is that notable then it should have an article of its own. Similar to the Wishbone Ash situation where the "riding-coattails" "Martin Turner's Wishbone Ash" has a separate article rather than clutter up the page for the actual Wishbone Ash band. This "Asia featuring John Payne" content should be reduced to a short footnote and a link in the See also section... and thats it. The title of the page is Asia (band). It should not contain any superfluity about associated acts, side-projects or acts simply cashing in on previous connection. 156.34.220.66 (talk) 23:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Open Directory Project or DMOZ links are perfectly acceptable on Wikipedia. If anyone is all hot n bothered to get some free advertising out of Wikipedia all they have to do is get their website listed on the DMOZ link list and then come back here and add a properly formatted {DMOZ} template to this article. Lots of other pages use them. Deep Purple, Iron Maiden and Motorhead spring to mind. Motorhead is a Featured Article and it's External links section is uncluttered by fanspam. The DMOZ link covers it all. Hope that helps. 156.34.220.66 (talk) 00:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

From the ASIA Fan Club President Yea... cut me a break OK... want to talk discrimination... go to the Van halen page here on Wiki, what about Britney Spears, Air Supply.... are there any links there that are not official headquarter sites? I believe there is an Unofficial site at VH, mine is the authorized fan club listed in the biography. I can give 1000 links by tomorrow night that have such examples. Treat them all like that or let my site back into the external links. Now were talking discrimination. The worldwide wide chat with John Wetton and Geoff Downes before the launch of the tour is important news and an event worthy of repoerting, that was removed also, we know what is going here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.238.127.202 (talk) 00:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes we do. It's called encyclopedia building. Feel free to go to any music related article and remove any sites that violate WP:EL. And feel free to add a DMOZ link here. And feel free to delete any mention of "Asia Featuring John Payne"... as long as you create a separate article to move the stuff into. 156.34.220.66 (talk) 00:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

ASIA Fan Club President States Nice try to cloak yourself with the last JP comment. Me remove... I don't feel those sites have to be removed. You're the big cowboy removing my site, YOU GO REMOVE THEM AS WELL, I'LL HAVE 1000 sites like that, and another 1000 by the end of the week, why you just removing my site....picking on ASIA's Fan club and fighting me tooth and nail on this, why do you have such a vested interest in seeing my site removed? I'm glad everyone is seeing this.

More paranoia than a Democratic Party convention. If you are going to remove 1000 fansites by the end of the week then, on behalf of Wikipedia, thank you. It's certainly a challenge. Wikipedia is overloaded with WP:EL policy vios. Taking on such a great task as deleting 1000 fansites in less then a week would earn you a Barnstar. True Wikipedian dedication. 156.34.211.169 (talk) 01:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

ASIA FAN CLUB PRESIDENT STATES...

No YOU ... You're the big cowboy removing my.....  start here

Steely Dan Dokken John Lennon Paul McCartney Supertramp The Beatles The KINKS FAN CLUB WEBSITE

 You're dead to rights wrong and singling out ASIA fan club and we all see it!
 Unbias moderators please help.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.238.124.91 (talk) 01:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC) 

ASIA FAN CLUB PRESIDENT STATES... He is actually going around and deleting those links...

 Hey don't forget Bon Jovi....
 Be back here tomorrow with many more, I have a lot of work for you.  This is how far he is going to see my site off.  

There is going to be wars all over the place, and people are going to edit those back in, someone has to put and end to this guy now. Hey don't forget Donna Summer Steve Howe

 Go to the Former Presidents site too!  President Clinton There is a lot of links there.

Robert Plant Led Zep too Hey

I'll have a lot more for you tomorrow.... He is going to turn Wikipedia into a hell hole because he wants to win win this debate. When it is clear that he is dead wrong. Almost every site has these listed.

Me and my friend are going to spend 5 hours a night seeing every site that external links that are not main headquaters sites.
 
  If they are put back, lets see if he shows that kind of consistant drive to keep these links off as he did mine when these people replace them.

If the moderators agree with what this guy is doing... then join him in removing "every" external link that is not the main head quarters site on "every" Weikipedia site, or see this for what it is and end it now.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.238.124.121 (talk) 02:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC) 

ASIA FAN CLUB PRESIDENT STATES... What about all these sites, why didn't he notice these, I make one change to the ASIA wiki site and jumped all over it like a fly on dung?

 And I remind everyone I did not add the site, I put it front of the JP era site becase mine was there first.  Why didn't this guy notice that almost every Wiki site has these sort of links, why me...why is he so interested in ASIA when the links was moved (not added)?
 I will spend my life watching this guy go through the entire Wiki library.  You agree with what he is doing, or was my site no different than these?

John Denver Barry Manilow Jim Croce Jimmy Page Tom Petty Cyndi Lauper Boston

Michael Jackson

Adam Ant

Little River Band Muhammad Ali Ronald Reagan Terry Bradshaw The Carpenters Johnny Nash David Cassidy Bobby Orr Sony Tiffany Jack Nicklaus Lynn Swan Tony Danza Barry Williams Elton John The Guess Who —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.238.124.167 (talk) 03:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Here are some more Stevie Wonder

Cream

David Bowie

Whitesnake

Steve Vai

Journey

Peter green

Dan fogelberg

Eddie murphy

Carly Simon

Diana ross

Soft cell

James Taylor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.238.124.203 (talk) 04:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

What everyones quiet now, no one comments now or no one is fixing this what was done to me?

Is that all moderators want to do is ban, delete, kick off, are problems ever resolved? Or is this all you care about as said above

" I have no interest or opinion on the matter in dispute. My only interest here is to prevent unacceptable behaviour."

Please remove my site asiafanclub.com from the blacklist now, it was deformation calling that a spam site!

Here are some more wiki sites start with 

John Payne

Look at this (on External Links) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fan_club Here are more

The Zombies

Maureen McCormick

Crosby, Stills & Nash (and Young)

The Lionel Richie Fan club

The Yardbirds

Ritchie Valens

Eric Clapton

Hanna Montana

Kiss

Rush

Tom Jones

Ringo Star

Buddy Holly

Def Leppard

Reba McEntire

Spocks Beard

Val Kilmer

Lita Ford

Bee Gees biograpy (Fan Club)

Queen

The Partridge Family —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.238.124.91 (talk) 12:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Also,

The article did and should contain the information of the worldwide chat that John Wetton and Geoff Downes held, and again we are in negotiation for a new one.  That is relevant.  The authorized site is RELEVANT.
 According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:EL#What_should_be_linked

"Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews."

 We have a Concert reviews section and the exclusive greatest ASIA photo gallery in the world!
 RELEVANT  The Authorized Fan club is Relevant in itself!  IT's in the Biography.

I have contacted the higher ups of Wiki and have a ticket number.

I did not intend to sock puppet or what ever anything... I was at my office PC ... then I came home,... I also edited on my iphone during my break.

Arbitrary break

It would be helpful if participants in this debate could familiarise themselves with how to edit Wikipedia as the above discussion is difficult to follow because of formatting issues. For that matter, it would be helpful if participants in this debate started Wikipedia accounts instead of editing anonymously. This would also make discussion easier to follow and avoid concerns, as expressed above, around sock-puppetry. There is very little discussion above of actual policy. Under WP:EL, I feel both the removed links should be re-instated because they have an official statue and link to sites with content not covered by this article (particularly breaking news). Any concerns around the behaviour of editors during this dispute should be investigated appropriately but are not pertinent to the question of whether these links should be included. Bondegezou (talk) 13:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

No kidding. I'm a relative newbie, and even I know how to properly edit and sign a post. I don't know who's saying what in the discussion above, and I'm certainly not going to take any of it seriously. If you want to make serious edits to this article, take the 5 seconds it takes to sign up for a WP account. It's not like it costs anything. And besides not being able to make heads or tails of the details of this argument, I still see no reason why the fan club link shouldn't be included here, especially since it's been part of the article for a long time already. - Shubopshadangalang (talk) 17:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, in response to the anonymous user note above (4.238.124.30), I contacted Nakon to have the link un-blacklisted. - Shubopshadangalang (talk) 18:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

 ASIA Fan Club President States.

Thank you so much... yea ... right...the link was there for a long time... so all I did was move it to number 2 where it was for a long time, and he he took a fit! My site was there before the other. I explained it in the edit, first come first in line! Someone pushed it down to the bottom, have little respect, mine was there for a long time.

 If you get it back up please label it The Authorized ASIA Fan Club.  I don't think I'm granted to edit yet.
I think my ban is up, but I need to know if it's off the blacklist.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.184.84 (talk) 18:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC) 

When you click edit in the links section it says " PLEASE DON'T ADD ANY MORE LINKS UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE -->"

 Can you please find out who added this, is who we think or is this legit until my site is un-blacklisted?

If it's who I think it is... yea.... that might work! Can someone see who added this? I'll wait until Tuesday.

 It shouldn't take that long to get it un-blacklisted.  Please find out who added that.
 He hid it, so you can only see that notice when you click the edit button on the external links box.

Bozo just edited that page last again... he's is all over that site like a fly on dung.

You are more likely to get this issue resolved if you take some time to make your contributions easier to follow. For example, do not start a line with blank spaces as Wikipedia interprets that as a formatting command. It would be simpler if you stopped editing anonymously and created your own accounts. If, Asia Fan Club President, you have been blocked, wait until the block expires. Then, once we can demonstrate some sort of consensus here on this Talk page, we can request any blocks on the article page are removed. Bondegezou (talk) 00:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

ASIA Fan Club President states Someone has to do something about this SOB, he is trying control the ASIA page, and someone is putting hidden messages in the external links that you can only see when you go to edit. I understand and did not make any edits for the public to see. We're having this investigated as well, and we know what's going on, both sides have made their case and it appears to be evident that this guy has a vested interest on this page and that my site should not have been removed. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:EL#What_should_be_linked these are the sites that should be linked "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews." We have interviews articles, concert reviews, and chats with the band and I send out the official press releases to the fans ASAP by Email as soon as I get them from managment and also and exclusive tour photo gallery from 1982 that is exclusive to the ASIA Fan Club, it is the greatest ASIA photo gallery in the world, and we are authorized. Most of the fan sites linked to Wiki are labeled as unofficial and they're still there. You people are caught in the middle of long war that has gone on since 1994. The JP ASIA link wasn't in the official biography, mine is, and mine got removed? "BS"! Above I provided a link from Wiki that shows how relevant fan sites are added to the external links page, and I provided many examples of Wiki sites that have them... I'll wait.... but how long is going to take to get my site un blacklisted? That was slander and discrimination.... the site is legit, authorized and was there for a while until someone took a S%$T fit when it was moved in front of the ASIA with JP site. I just wanted to know who placed the private message in the external links edit button. This will not be tolerated by any means.

To respond to your queries:

• You can find out who made which revision to any article on Wikipedia by examining the edit history where every single change is recorded. Click the 'History' tab at the top of the page.
• As for the comment in the External Links section that reads, PLEASE DON'T ADD ANY MORE LINKS UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE, this kind of notice is fairly standard when something is under discussion and should be taken as an invitation to discuss the section. It is not binding and can be added or removed by any editor, although, like any edit, one should have a consensus to do so first.
• It appears to me that the link that there is a consensus to re-add the link to the fan club. In order to get it unblacklisted, an administrator will have to remove it. I could do this, but administrators do not overturn each other's actions without discussion. However, if a few days pass and Nakon (talk · contribs), who originally added the link to the blacklist, does not remove it, I will take ask him about it myself.
• Remember, Wikipedia is run by volunteers who have many commitments in real life. Sometimes things can take a few days to get sorted. There is no deadline. CIreland (talk) 12:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

From ASIA fan club Pres. Thank You. Wait a few days I will. Please check back & keep your eye on this, if you have to override by then please do what is right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.137.247.56 (talk) 14:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Great. Now, "Asia Fan Club President" - please take that time and sign up for an account so you're not posting anonymously (upper right hand corner of your screen). Also, take a minute to read over this: Talk page guidelines - Shubopshadangalang (talk) 15:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

ASIA Fan Club Pres states...

  Been a few days... had the site been lifted from the blacklist or are people in this together?
 I recieved a response back from Wikipedia and they said I could re add the link.
 Didn't take a few days for it to get blacklisted though did it?
 Please override the blacklist by Nakon.

As I said I would, yesterday I asked Nakon what the situation was. He has not responded yet, but has barely been on Wikipedia. If I get no response in the next 48 hours (approx) I'll just have to sort things according to consensus here. CIreland (talk) 00:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

ASIA Pres says,

 I will appreciate that.
  :)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.184.84 (talk) 02:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC) 

OK... 48+ up ASIA Pres says

  It obvious what is going on... Please take care of this .......

Fan club link blacklisting

I've removed Asia fan club url from the spam blacklist. If there is consensus to add it, as there appears to be, then it should be possible to do so. However, I'm not sure whether changing the blacklist takes immediate effect or whether it takes a few hours to take effect, so if it doesn't work straight away, try again later. CIreland (talk) 06:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Fan club Pres states, On behalf of the fan we thank you, however, I tried to re-add the link it and deleted within seconds by itself, has to be a robot. We need someone to fix that. What I did, was mirror the home to page to the contact page, it appears to be holding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.184.84 (talk) 12:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

OK....it appears to be ok now. What I did was add the mirror link which was a /contact extention... once that held I removed the /contact.... it appears to be holding. Asiafanclub.com is re-added. Nothing has to be fixed. On another note, I ask that if any links are added, please take your place in line. I took the 3rd place because one I'm not going to be a big baby, 2 the JP site is the actual official site for the other ASIA and for now these two ASIA's are using this page. It is my opinion that a separate page be created for each of these bands. You go to the JP official ASIA site, you don't see the other era, go to mine or the official reunion site, you don't see the JP era. I understand it was part of the history but that is all changed now. There should be two separate wiki pages for these ASIA's with an explanation of it's history and how it is now branched off into separate institutions. You will not see ASIA (the one I represent), play any JP era song in concert. Or on a compilation CD... Best of, anthologia, The definitive collection. The public should not expect JP era songs in concert as well, but they may if they see the wiki page with both eras on it. The definitive collection... not one JP era song. What is that telling you? Please, create the other page.

FYI, changes to the blacklist take affect immediately.

I don't see any consensus yet to use this link. Here are editors (besides Mondrago and his various IPs) that appear to support the link (from what I can tell):

• Bondegezou
• Shubopshadangalang

These are editors that have either removed the link, blacklisted it or appear to oppose it:

• 156.34.220.66 (and related IPs in the 156.34.220.xxx block)
• Compwhizii
• 198.164.251.53 (and related IPs in the 198.164.251.xxx block)
• Nakon
• 142.166.250.216 (and related IPs in the 142.166.250.xxx block)
• Ixfd64
• Blow of Light
• Cometstyles

If I've mischaracterized anyone's views on this, please feel free to correct the list above.

My own view is that the link doesn't meet the requirements of our External Links Guideline

Related discussions:

• Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mondrago
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive362#Linkspammer issuing legal threats on talk page

--A. B. ^(talk) 14:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I would tend to agree, Please take a look at the specific requirements of our External Links and Reliable Sources guidelines. I don't think this link meets either guidelines. Additionaly there appears to be no consensus for inclusion--Hu12 (talk) 16:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Asia Fan club pres states. If that is the case then remove all fan club sites from every wiki site this is not fair, and we know what is going on. Acoding to wiki it is valid. meaningful, relevant content

"What should be linked Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews. "

We have reviews and a tour photo LP— 70.188.184.84 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 17:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC).

The status of other articles has no bearing on this article. The nature of Wikipedia means that you can't make a convincing argument based on what other links in articles do or don't exist; because there's nothing stopping anyone from adding any link to any article. Plenty of links exist that probably shouldn't, conversly many links don't exist that probably should. So just pointing out that a link exists in an article doesn't prove that the link in question should also exist. --Hu12 (talk) 17:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

ASIA Fan Club Pres states.... He already banned me from talking here as well as editing....I'm glad everyone is seeing this... The fact remains my site is being singled out and according to wiki rules... concert reviews and interviews which the site has, is relavant content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.238.124.221 (talk) 17:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

IP 70.188.184.84 was linkspam warring on the article, here is the info;

• 1st revert: 11:55, 10 February 2008
• 2nd revert: 12:00, 10 February 2008
• 3rd revert: 12:08, 10 February 2008
• 4th revert: 17:18, 10 February 2008
• Diff of 3RR warning: 16:44, 10 February 2008
  --Hu12 (talk) 22:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I still think it should be included, but I wonder why this is SO important to the Asia Fan Club to be included... it's like a full time job for you, pleading for it to be included here! Wouldn't it be more effective to have a link (or an ad) on one or both of the official "Asia" sites? And, sorry to harp on this, but wouldn't it be worth your time to get a Wikipedia account and stop editing anoymously? And to stop starting every post with "Asia Fan Club President states"? Who does that?? Seriously, I'm trying to support your cause here, but you're not making it easy. - Shubopshadangalang (talk) 20:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

A. B. accurately lists those who have removed, opposed or blacklisted the link in question. However, this should be about reaching a consensus through discussion, not a show of hands, and most of those names have not taken part in the discussion here. Several of them were acting in response to an out-of-control edit war and inappropriate behaviour by one participant: as such, they may have been 'firefighting', so to speak, rather than considering the issue at hand in depth. Until today, the majority view on this Talk page has been to restore the link in question and I would give that more weight than A. B.'s list.

I've argued above why I think the link in question and another are consistent with WP:EL. To summarise, both links are official and contain information beyond that in the article: they are thus entirely consistent with the opening sections of WP:EL. While A. B. and Hu12 both say they do not feel the fan page link meets WP:EL, they have not explained why they feel it doesn't. Might I ask if they might expand on their comments? I also second Shubopshadangalang's comments. Asia Fan Club President: you are not making this easy! Bondegezou (talk) 20:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Great point. If there are legitimate reasons for removing the link, let's add them to the record of discussion and reach a consensus here. I've seen no real discussion in opposition of the link, only actions from people like Compwhiz, while Clerland's view appears neutral. As far as I'm concerned, anonymous users don't have much weight as "editors". By that argument, the consensus is in favor at this point... but let's leave this open for a while and hear what those opposed have to say, if they do. - Shubopshadangalang (talk) 21:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Just happening across this conversation in a random browse. I don't feel the fanclub link should be allowed in this article. I don't feel fanclub links should be allowed in any article. I am sure it's a fine website. But if anyone needs to find the link they can just Google for it. It doesn't serve any purpose here on Wikipedia. Fair Deal (talk) 21:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

"Links normally to be avoided:"

"1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article."

"11. Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups) or USENET."

"12. Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority."

The material on the asiafanclub site is essentially self-published material.

--A. B. ^(talk) 22:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

See also;

• MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#asiafanclub.com.
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Mondrago_socks_an_IP.27s

Aside from the obvious spaming and campaigning(see below), the link invariably fails the requirements of our External Links and Reliable Sources guidelines. --Hu12 (talk) 22:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

AB, can you verify the claim that the Asia Fan Club is "self-published" material? - Shubopshadangalang (talk) 23:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at the Verifiability Policy's sections on "Reliable Sources" and "Self-published material", then look at the asiafanclub site and you'll see what I mean. --A. B. ^(talk) 00:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Hu12 raises the issue of what he calls "obvious" spamming. Under WP:AGF, I accept the explanation given below by the Asia Fan Club President as to what happened. Regardless of that, the inappropriate activities of certain editors is completely irrelevant to the merits of the case. The link concerned was in this article for a long time before the recent edit war erupted and content should never be chosen to punish editors' behaviour. The issue must be decided in terms of what is best for the article.

A. B. and Hu12 raise WP:RS and WP:V, but WP:EL is the more relevant policy here, not those. This is not about using the link concerned as a citation, but giving it in the external links section. At the beginning of WP:EL, it states under "What should be linked" that, "1. Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any." An officially authorised fan club seems to me to constitute an official site. WP:EL goes on, "4. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews." The site in question contains such content.

If one is concerned about WP:RS policy, I note that WP:EL continues under "Links to be considered", "4. Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." That is, even if a site fails WP:RS, it may still be considered. Taking that in conjunction with the site's official status seems to me a sufficient case for the link's inclusion.

WP:EL then continues with a list of "Links normally to be avoided". The site in question does not appear to fall under any of the categories listed. A. B. suggests above that the site does fall under criteria 1, 11 and 12. With respect to 1, the site clearly contains considerable content beyond what a good Wikipedia article would ever include. I do not see how 11 applies at all. 12 reads "Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority." Given this site has been authorised by the band in question, that would seem to come under "except those written by a recognized authority". Nor is it a blog or simply a personal web page. Bondegezou (talk) 12:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Accounts/IPsocks used by Mondrago

Mondrago (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
70.188.184.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
4.238.124.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
4.238.124.48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
4.238.124.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
4.238.124.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
4.238.124.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
4.238.124.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
4.238.124.117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
4.238.124.147 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
4.238.124.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
4.238.124.149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
4.238.124.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

4.238.127.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
32.141.139.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
4.238.124.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
70.167.100.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
70.188.184.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
4.238.124.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
32.141.139.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
70.167.100.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
4.238.124.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
4.238.124.48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
32.137.247.56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
4.238.124.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

--Hu12 (talk) 22:19, 10 February 2008(UTC)

ASIA fan club pres states, Guys, I didn't sock puppet anything...3-4 of those ISP are mine, I explained, I started at work, then I was on my iphone, I came home where I have my home pc that my family uses and when they are on it I have a lap top downstairs. I AM NOT MODRANGO, what probably happened was I mentioned the edit war at the club and someone took it on their own to come here and edit. It was a war, it got out of hand, I aplogize, we are here talking about it in an adult type manner. Again this was not why the site was removed, it is also after the fact. We have official news, exclusive, fan and official concert reviews, an exclusive photo gallery consisting of photos that are from 1982 to present. Most of all we had a chat with John Wetton & Geoff Downes before the launch of the ASIA world tour. We are now in negotiation for another chat before the launch of the new CD. This is not a my space/yahoo fan club, this an authorized official news source fan club that has band interactivity. The material contained, such as reviews, interviews, official chats, exclusive photos, are consistent with wiki's policy of relevant meaningful content. This is not spam, you labeled me as spam, I receive not one penny, I pay about 100 dollars a year to keep the adds off the site and the forum & photo LP. Yes I am consistent about putting the link back, one it was there for a long time and this flared up only when I moved it in front the other new links. On the same note the question should be asked, with all the fan sites, why is so much attention being brought to remove an authorized site when so many unauthorized sites are on wiki. I brought up around 75 wiki sites and could bring up many many more, they are known about now, but yet all the energy is still directed to THE ASIA PAGE & keeping mine off, and mine is authorized others are not. The site is relevant, that is why is listed on the final page of the new official ASIA biography by Dave Gallant. Would a spam site with un-relevant content be listed with the official site in the official biography? If the truth be told, my movement played a big part in the reunion, so one guy tried to keep it off, and wrote a few administrators to take his side when this seems to go my way. A war that still goes on. The other side of ASIA lost out, and this here is part of their consolation revenge. Please enough is enough, it has relevant official content with band activity exclusive to this site. This is not an Yahoo fan club. Have a good one.— 4.238.124.41 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 12:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC).

Are we all set with this guys? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.184.84 (talk) 10:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, anonymous poster - who I'm guessing is "Asia fan club pres" - it does seem like the arguments presented here form a majority in favor of adding the link back, as no one opposed has presented a reasonable argument that has not been refuted. I think Bondegezou says it all in the section above. I'll try to add the link back... anyone who disagrees with this needs to present legitimate arguments here and reach a consensus before changing it. - Shubopshadangalang (talk) 17:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't work. I got a "spam filter" error so it must still be blocked. I'm not fighting this... Fan Club guy... sign up for an account (For God's sake it's free and it will take you 5 seconds!!!!!!) and make a legitimate plea to the powers that be (without re-re-re-re-stating your case... just refer them to this discussion!!!!) - Shubopshadangalang (talk) 17:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

From ASIA pres... (use colons!!!) That means someone re-blacklisted after it was removed for no JUST CAUSE. They just didn't remove the link off the external links to continue the chat here, but they re-blaklisted it. It was un-blacklisted last week. I mirrored the home page to another page so it's back up.... but someone needs to unblacklist it ASAP. Once again this was discrimination because that site is not spam.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.184.84 (talk) 23:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

yes. we know. obviously those who are reading this aren't the ones you need to talk to. - Shubopshadangalang (talk) 23:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

ASIA pres states it was just deleted with no explanation or response to Bondegezou round 4 underway.

Fan site link

I just removed another link from the article. Apparently, it seems to be promoting the band or something. I would like to seek conseneus before this turns into a holy war. Any thoughts? —BoL 00:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

ASIA pres states....Adequate time was given for a resonable response and as noted above, no one responded to the facts AS NOTED ABOVE, one person tried to re add it and again it was blacklisted with no just cause, this is going to get very ugly... this is the war of all wars is right, and my comments here was removed as well.

You don't want another one of these by someone else, right? —BoL 00:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

ASIA pres says... what are you trying to wear me out... I fought for years to get the original ASIA back against all odds where do you think I'm going buddy? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JE7ydsKckYI It seems to be promoting the band, no... really???? The ASIA fan club should promote the CBS Sunday night line up. They lost a debate due to wiki facts and policy, because they are sore losers and have no response don't expect them to come out and to vote my link in. ASIA pes states... I tried to solve this with every intent and in an adult type manner.... There was no response to the facts of wiki policy tat was presented.... I am left no alternative but to pursue legal action in every aspect to every extent of the law that is possible. Every ISP will be traced and sued. I a stressed and need medication and feel chest pains. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.238.124.247 (talk) 05:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to the discussion Blow of Light (and Barek). Discussion has continued on this for weeks now, and disregarding name-checking above of people who have edited against it without discussion, the majority of non-biased arguments are in favor of reinstating the link to the article, as it was before. Now, if you're really against this, let's hear some legitimate arguments on that side. As for the link "promoting the band" I don't see your point... so do the "official site" links, and they're still here. Of course it does. - Shubopshadangalang (talk) 05:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The IP just got blocked and now he's evading the block. Notice the differences in IPs. —BoL 05:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I just added my last post (in an edit conflict) before reading Asia Fan Club Pres's last post. Congratulations, "Asia Fan Club Pres states", for losing my support on this issue. Legal action? Seriously?!?!? You've made no attempt to play by the rules here... you've flooded this discussion page with confusing and repetitive posts, and aggravated the issue by anonymously posting under multiple IP addresses, causing the sock-puppet suspicion that made things so much worse. Regardless of your apparently-legitimate reasons for using multiple IP addresses, it made things 100 times more difficult for you, and I've REPEATEDLY urged you to sign up for an account, and act like an adult. If the appearance of this link is SOOOO important to you, and to the fan club, you'd think you would have made SOME attempt to work within the system here! You're in this fight without me now... but, one last suggestion: instead of spending your money on legal action, invest in a stress management program and some banner ads on a few sites, and trying to get your fan club promoted on Asia's official site - you'll get more out of that than you would this Wikipedia page anyway. It's not the be all and end all of information on Asia!!! - Shubopshadangalang (talk) 05:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

This should be over with right now, we've (filed an abuse report?) blacklisted the url, so he should go crazy if he can't insert it. —BoL 05:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. On this, I really failed to see consensus to re-add the links. While the "pro" group suggests that "no one opposed has presented a reasonable argument that has not been refuted", it appears that those who do not support the link feel the same. Personally, I have no overwhelmingly strong opinion on this. I stumbled onto this obvious edit war, where a user in violation of the WP:3RR policy and the WP:COI guideline was re-inserting material that appears to me to still lack real consensus. Also, as I found the site being added to be a modified URL of a site that was already blacklisted, the new URL appeared to be an attempt to circumvent the procedure for un-blacklisting pages in an attempt to make a point.

As I have been pulled into this by my actions, here is my take on it. The wiki, as a general rule, has permitted officially authorized fansite links in the past, and should continue to do so. However, to prevent articles from being web-directories or linkfarms, there must be a reliable source that identifies for us what is an officially authorized site rather than just a fan's personal tribute "fansite". For the site in question here, all I've seen is the fansite's president claiming they are officially authorized, no link from a true official site of the band or band member listing it as officially authorized. If such a link was provided, then I apologize, I may have missed it in the scrambled discussions. Also, WP:EL tells us to minimize external links. For cases where no WP:RS identifies for us the officially authorized sites, or where their are multiple sites with comparable qualifications, or where there's simply no consensus on if a site qualifies to be listed here directly, the Open Directory Project {{dmoz}} available as an external collection of external links, that can be linked to from articles.

In this particular case, I believe that dmoz is the best compromise here. A directory can be created, a link from here to dmoz used to that directory, and all sides in the debate end up with a compromise middle-ground solution. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The official Asia biography by Dave Gallant lists the site under question as being officially authorised. Bondegezou (talk) 11:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

(fixed indent) Asia pres...there was a problem with forums on the official site due to the innerfighting of the 2 eras and forum activity on manaments site was ceased. Original asia and my site are on the same press release mailing list, (I am officially authorized to post and report all Asia news, copyrighted photos & all official Asia news and press release info as an official authorized affiliate) so the news is the same, they wish not involve forums. My link does get added in such when we had the chat with 2 members of asia. There is also another reason why that is too legal for me too discuss at this time in public, at this time the fanclub is listed with all official links in the biography on the final page and also in the links section of john wettons official site I am also authorized for official photos and logo permission by roger dean.

Can either of you provide a link? If it can be verified, I would support removal of the site from the blacklist, and at that point support re-adding it to the article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Asia fan club pres.. http://johnwetton.com. Then click links..... Also see photo of biography below. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v71/Soles/ca1200_sm.jpg All the authorized Internet sources do not have the word authorized attached. The fact that this handfull of links are the authorized Internet resources and not all of these authorized Internet resources are listed on the main site, I can't mention why at this time. See also 2nd link to left http://hardrockcafe.narod.ru/a/asia.htm. also see http://www.asiaitalianfans.it/link_utili.htm. It is also listed as for the main concert advertisment for the concert in Phoenix at the celebrity theatre in April http://www.celebritytheatre.com/upcoming.php?viewevent=603

Based on those links, plus information from the article, I do support removal of the fansite from the wiki's blacklist, then at that point adding it back into this article. However, until it's removed from that list, I believe that any attempts to circumvent that list by using an alternate web address to be a pointy edit that would need to be reverted. Also, after reading more of the band's history, I also support splitting this article into two separate articles; one for Asia (band) and one for Asia Featuring John Payne. They are clearly two distinct bands, and should have their own individual articles - but that's a topic for a different discussion. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you please remove the link from the blacklist, Thank you so much! Asia Pres It is the same SOB "156.34.225.77" who started this 2 weeks ago who is writng administrators to take his side He wrote hu12 and stated "The owner of the Asia fanclub has sidetracked the Wiki blacklist of his original website URL and registered a new "un-black'd" version to spam the Asia (band) article again. This time he is showing up as ........ Is there any chance of having this address blacklisted as well? Using sockpuppets and issuing legal threats is one thing... but now he is moved up to a new level of spam determination. Can it be blocked? Thanks for you help. 156.34.225.77 " This is why hu12 is involved, it's all coming from 156.34.225.77, thanks AP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.238.124.219 (talk) 04:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

(undent)AP...I have appreciated your support and respect you, even though you may be against me now... when I am blocked I am forced to go downstairs to state my side. What would you do if you me and you were right? This is a conspiracy against me and I have the proof, I ask you still stay in my corner for the reason that I am right and you can see this is a conspiracy. Wiki states to pursue a settlement, and we have, but they brought no legit argument to the table ...other than deleting me and banning me to state my side sir. I feel stressed and sick at this point, and you know deep inside I'm right and so were you. They just keep requiting more people to delete my post with no rational reason & this will never end, the facts and wiki policy were on my side and that will play out. This is what they wanted... to stress me out and lose support of those who knew I was right. If you don't support me anymore thank you for what you have done. God bless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.238.124.3 (talk) Obvious intent to cause stress on my life "so he should go crazy if he can't insert it"

That IS a bit malicious, BoL. Are you really being objective? - Shubopshadangalang (talk) 23:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I am, but, just ignore him, he'll get tired. If he does step up, lock the article. —BoL 01:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Why? I've yet to hear a legitimate argument from you as to why the link should be blocked. - Shubopshadangalang (talk) 04:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Why argue with him when the link's blacklisted and he's probably rangeblocked? —BoL 05:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

(undent)ASIA pres states I am forced to comment from my I phone. To shubopshadangalang I apologize that I lost my temper the other night ... I withdraw legal action but I will no longer edit my link in the article. I feel this a conspiresy and I will hire an attourney to invesigate if this is an organized conspiresy againt the vintage movement of Asia and why the site was re-listed as spam. That is clearly deformation and slander this happened when no legit rebuttle was given to bonegezou's break down of wiki policy in great detail. Did people just jump in when they found out a black list site was readded or is there something bigger at work here? Because those did not rebuttle bondegezou post does not mean it should not have been setteled ...people still never admitted that GW Bush won Florida in 2000. Because there was no response does not mean anything. As said this was not a show of hands ... if that was the point I have 2000 members I can send here. This was a matter that was to be based on facts and the facts were not responded to that bondegezou clearly pointed out on 2/11... How I reacted after the point is irrelevant as to why the link was removed to begin with and why with thousands of unauthorized fan sites pointed out ...is all the attention still focused on the this authorized site? This issue will not go away because I am clearly in the right. As far as signing up for a wiki acount I appreciate the offer I may soon but wiki rules say it is not required. Sincerely

True, it's not required to have an account, but that has obviously been to your detriment here (see sock-puppet) ! My point is, if you want cooperation, it's best to do what you can to work within the system (whether it's explicity required or not). - Shubopshadangalang (talk) 21:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

32.142.189.17 (talk) 22:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC) 32.142.189.17 (talk) 22:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)AP... Understood I live up to all my ISPs and as I explained they were never inteded or presented to come from different people ... I explained & I am not Mondrago  :)

BoL, we're not asking you to argue with the Asia fan club President. His actions are irrelevant to whether the link should be in the article or not. The link was there long before all this blew up. I think what Shubopshadanalang is saying is why don't you debate the merits of the argument with him or me. Above, I've detailed why I think it is appropriate for the link to be included. No-one's yet responded negatively to the arguments I put forth. Bondegezou (talk) 16:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

AP..... Walking off the football field is a forfeit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.136.157.241 (talk) 17:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Probably for the best that you're out of the discussion, honestly, but the issue remains... I'm still in favor of the link being re-added, and if any who are against the link wish to refute Bondegezou's arguments in favor of, speak now. As Bondegezou says, the argument is on the merits of the inclusion of the link itself, so keep it to that. - Shubopshadangalang (talk) 18:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

(shubop fixed indent) Asia pres..... Ok... But I just added to bareks above comment. Thank you. Would like to add last page of official biography http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v71/Soles/ca1200_sm.jpg

No idea what you're saying here, but that does demonstrate that the fan club link is legitimate and authorized in the official biography, assuming that is a verifiable document, so further support for reinstating the link. - Shubopshadangalang (talk) 21:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)32.142.189.17 (talk)

AP....I swear under penalty of purjury that is from the official biography... See also my updated response to Baraks questions..... I will shut up now per your request. Respectfully...Asia pres http://youtube.com/watch?v=A1sRTbpqh-E. We accept nothing less than the external links section. The JP era link is not listed in any of the sites (but you ask for verification of mine... Why is not that link any where? But it is on wiki and bumped me off)....proves conspiresy & that JP fans highjacked this page. He is not even licensed for the logo.presently......If you only knew what I knew....Go...click that and tell me that is the ASIA logo.... I will provide the document approving me for use of the logo. Let's go ....as God made apples it's dead to right...& this is tooth & nail from my iPhone....OK AP from differerent ISP... have to say that because I will be accused of being a puppet...I downloaded Juno for free because iphone was timing out.... Barek has taken my side as well... see above it states............"Based on those links, plus information from the article, I do support removal of the fansite from the wiki's blacklist, then at that point adding it back into this article. However, until it's removed from that list, I believe that any attempts to circumvent that list by using an alternate web address to be a pointy edit that would need to be reverted. Also, after reading more of the band's history, I also support splitting this article into two separate articles; one for Asia (band) and one for Asia Featuring John Payne. They are clearly two distinct bands, and should have their own individual articles - but that's a topic for a different discussion. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)"....... ASIA Pres states....Please remove my site from the blacklist ASAP and reinstate my link to the external link section. Thank you for all your help!

Yes, the link should be removed from the blacklist first. Again, you're making things MUCH worse for yourself by trying to circumvent procedure with your alternate link. I don't know how to remove a link from a blacklist other than requesting as such as described previously, but once it is removed from that list, I contend, along with Bondegezou and Barek, that it should be added back in for reasons described above (which have not yet been refuted). Any further attempts to find a "workaround" to that system only risks further blacklisting. Can someone please advise as the proper way to have the link removed from the blacklist? As for the AFJP discussion, yes, that is another topic entirely, and one that's probably more worth this discussion space, as there are different points to discuss about whether it should be a separate article. - Shubopshadangalang (talk) 14:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)4.238.124.179 (talk) 17:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

ASIA pres... No I won't because they blacklisted "ASIAfan"... the problem is they blacklist the site and after that they are no where to be found as in the case with nakon,,, the blaklist me & then they screw. Please Barek & Bondegezou do what you can to unblacklist the site. Also please reinststate the official my space page, my friend runs that as well.

What's going on here guys is anyone helping me out with the blacklist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.167.100.82 (talk) 15:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Separate Page for Asia Featuring John Payne?

This has been brought up several times, but never properly discussed as far as I can tell. "Asia Featuring John Payne" is clearly a separate project from the currently re-united "Asia", but because they have shared history, and since there is overlap in their existence in a sense (since the early 90s, "Asia" did "feature" John Payne, and in a manner of speaking AFJP is a continuation of that, minus Downes), separate articles would contain redundant information. Since, for whatever reason, both bands apparently share the rights to the Asia name at this point, it seems to me that they are both "Asia" as perceived by the public, as ridiculous as that may be! And because AFJP have not yet released (or confirmed future release) of original material under that name, it appears that AFJP's existence is little more than a footnote in the scheme of the article. My view is that it should remain part of the "Asia" article for the time being, but I'd be interested in seeing some discussion on the merits of making it a separate article if and when enough new information comes to light that warrants it. - Shubopshadangalang (talk) 14:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)4.238.124.179 (talk) 4.238.127.171 (talk) 17:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

From AP....That is not true Shubopshadangalang that they both have right to the name. I'm not supposed to be saying this, but they have broken off into 2 different registrations, and from I was understand, Mr Payne only has use of the logo for the albums he created with Geoff, at this point forward my sources are telling me he can't use the logo for present and future projects. This happened once before with another ASIA with a different registration when the supergroup formed, read the story here.....http://www.barkingdogrecords.com/ASIA.info.html We kind of have the same thing now, or this is what it developed into, now I understand that it is part of the history, and that should be explained on the seperate JP era page if and when one is created. We have had a long intense battles for years between the fans of these two eras, with the closing of sites etc... It continues here and this is what this fued was all about with the removal of the Fan Club and the My space page. The JP era link is new very new, we all ignorned it laughed and didn't give a S&%t. The JP era needs or wants to be linked to the old for recognition, the reunion ASIA has no part and wants no part of what happened in the JP era years. Bottom line is that is not the same registration, Geoff was part of a different ASIA than the ASIA he is in now. You see the compilations, 20 & 25 year anniversary collections, but not one song fromm the JP era is there. You will not see my ASIA play one song from that era, you go to the fan club or Dave Gallants site and you see no CD's from the Payne era there, the only place these two bands exist is on this wikipedia page, it needs to end and this is why the fighting continues. I'm to busy with my own club to start a page. I also don't care if JP sells 88 million records, I wish him luck, we just wanted our ASIA back and we have nothing to do with his ASIA or his music.

I never said anything about the logo. I was just talking about the name "Asia". If AFJP doesn't have rights to use the name, are there lawsuits in progress? Because as it stands, both are using the name "Asia", and the AFJP site is selling 90s era "Asia" albums. Whether you or the current, reunited Asia WANT to have anything to do with the John Payne part of the band's history, the fact remains that he was a big part of the band called "Asia" during his tenure, and this article should stick to the facts and not be tainted by one-sided views on this. If there is a feud, a conspiracy, or whathaveyou, it's up to the editors to collectively try to maintain objectivity in the article. By the way, please stop running your posts to the ends of mine, they're getting lost. - Shubopshadangalang (talk) 18:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I don't think you actually understand and I don't blame you it is difficult, I know you didn't say anything about the logo, but it has relevance to what I was saying. Yes there are lawsuits, but from what I know right now is that yes JP may have the right to use the name but it is considered a different ASIA. For instance if you read the ASIA from North Dakota it said that Brian Lane found 9 different ASIA's in the world. Different registrations registered in different continents. Read the article I provided, we have the same situation again or this is what we have on the table now, his era has been split into a different registration and if he used the name from this point onward it is not the same logo (Roger Deans). If you go to the JP era site you will see that is not the logo. I can use the ASIA name on recording CD's if I use not the ASIA logo and register the ASIA name in Hati. Hope you understand a little better. THE AFJP is no more ASIA than the ASIA from North Dakota. It is now branched off into a separate registrar. Also he was not a big part of ASIA, go out and 2000 people in the street when did ASIA beak up see how many people give a date past 85 or better yet mention one JP era song and see if they know it... do the same with any DJ you call in the United States and see what they say as well, we didn't see one person at the concerts that even knew ASIA was around in the 90's, it was a failed attempt that was hidden from the mainstream world and nature corrected this era. ASIA has been in the news and is on the 3rd year of their world tour with no trace of the JP era, the AFJP site is new, no one paid attention to it. The only place they have left is here at Wiki because when people do a search for ASIA, to seperate that from the continent, they punch in "ROCK GROUP ASIA" or "ASIA ROCK GROUP" depending on the SE like Google, The ASIA Fan Club or this wiki page will appear 1st or 2nd, this is why this page is so important to them, this is all they have left. Signed AP

That's exactly how I understood it before, but that's some interesting support for your argument of which I was not aware. I agree of course, that the re-united Asia is far more popular and recognized... no need to bark up that tree. My point is that the situation is confusing to anyone who happens upon AFJP's existence in the context of Asia. Your contention that Payne was not a big part of Asia makes sense in the scheme of recognition, but as far as the number of years and albums that he played on, he IS still a "big part" of the band's continuing history, as I previously said. Logo or not, right or wrong, John Payne IS using the "Asia" name right now to promote his band, and attempting to use his history with Asia to further his musical career. However, the fact remains that "Asia featuring John Payne" does NOT come across as a separate band name, but rather an incarnation of Asia that features John Payne - whether he has any success compared to the re-united Asia or not. I think it makes sense to include the AFJP information in this article because it clarifies any confusion new or casual fans may have about who is doing what with the name. Avoiding that confusion benefits the re-united Asia as much as it benefits AFJP, in my opinion, as it clarifies the situation. If lawsuits are in progress over the name, there may never be a release of original music by AFJP, and this information can be a passing note in the history of the band. But until then, both are using the name, and that's confusing, so the article should do everything within reason to make clear the situation. - Shubopshadangalang (talk) 22:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

But what you are not understanding both are not using the name under the same registration, at one time they were, but at this point in time they are not, all you have to do is go to originalasia.com or asiafanclub.com and there is no confusion, or look at the compilations. There should be a brief history explanation about this on a separate wiki page for Mr. Paynes registration of that different ASIA, If a settlement changes that (which I doubt) you can deal with that at that time, but at this current time, confusing fans to believe these two ASIA are currently connected is misleading. Recent developments in registrations changed these two eras into separate institutions. Including Mr. Paynes era to the four original members of ASIA on one page is misleading and if that is the case then you must include this 1978 ASIA from the United States ASIA registration http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v71/Soles/trademark.gif in this same wiki article. http://www.barkingdogrecords.com/ASIA.info.html That era or the JP ASIA has nothing to do with us and it is not our ASIA in any way shape or form. Take it for what it's worth, I just want my link back up there where it was for a long time. Sincerely...AP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.238.124.19 (talk) 00:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC) Also... I just went to the article to see if my link was back up and the JP era is gone.... I assure you I had nothing to do with it in any manner.

What I'm talking about has NOTHING do with "registrations," or whether they are separate "institutions". Nobody cares about that. I'm talking about perception. They're both using the name "Asia" right now, and they ARE related/connected, whether the official fan club denies or not... are you going to re-write history now and say that Geoff Downes never performed for nearly a decade and a half in a band called "Asia" with John Payne???? Your suggestion that the 1978 band called Asia, which is completely unrelated, has the same amount of connection is completely ridiculous. And THIS discussion isn't about your link!!!! I'd love to hear some non-biased opinions on this PLEASE? Thanks. - Shubopshadangalang (talk) 01:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not denying anything that Geoff was in a band called ASIA with JP... That is understood sir, but where we part our differences is when you said "Your suggestion that the 1978 band called Asia, which is completely unrelated, has the same amount of connection is completely ridiculous." My point is I was being sarcastic, of course there is no connection by this 1978 United States ASIA to the current ASIA geoff IS in. My point was in the same manner, the ASIA that Geoff recorded under with JP is a different ASIA than the ASIA he is in now, in the same manner that the 1978 ASIA is not the same ASIA that Geoff is in now, all 3 are separate registrations. It may not have been like that before but this is how it is now. It is not just the Authorized Fan Club but also Dave Gallants original site as well, there are no JP CD's and there is a reason for it. I'm not looking to argue with you my friend I'm trying to tell you what I know, and if another page is created or not it will get no resistance from me, I'm just telling you what I know & I know more about this band than most here would as to what the article should state. Imagine the owner of your Mcdonald's down the street finding another registration to register the name but can no longer use the golden arches from this point onward. 4.238.124.115 (talk) 02:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)AP

Point taken, that makes sense. Sorry to jump down your throat there :) To sum up, I think that until any significant new information on AFJP comes to light, the information about the band should stay in the article as it appears now. If something changes with the use of the "Asia" name, or if AFJP begins to form a large amount of work as separate from Asia proper, then it could warrant a separate page. Discuss further if necessary, if not, let's move on. - Shubopshadangalang (talk) 15:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

further AJFP link discussion

Apparently there's some disagreement about the inclusion of the external link to the AFJP site. This is why this discussion is here, folks! The article currently shows both current states of "Asia" and "Asia featuring John Payne" and inclusion of the link to "theasiaband.com" is consistent with that treatment. Both are official sites of the "Two Bands" as described in the article. If you think that AFJP should be a separate article, and this info should be removed from this one, please DISCUSS THAT HERE. That's why we have this page. - Shubopshadangalang (talk) 15:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

That site is a "official', John Payne site and is a merchandising blog which is in violation of WP:EL for this article. the site is registerd to "DEVGEL PRODUCTIONS", which is John Payne's merchandising company ( Devgel Merchandising ). Multiple violations of External links policy. I've added a wikilink linking the John Payne (singer) article, which already incldes this link. --Hu12 (talk) 16:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe I will ever stick up for Mr. Payne, but from what I an see that site was not in violation of this policy "Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services. For example, instead of linking to a commercial bookstore site, use the "ISBN" linking format, giving readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources." Did that site primarily exist to sell products? I don't think so. OriginalASIA.com and The Fan Club are both allowed by managmant to provide link to oneshoprock.com that sells ASIA merchandise. None of these 3 sites primarily existed to sell products. I clearly state that oneshoprock is not affilated with ASIA fanclub and that no profits are made from my site in any manner but as an managment authorized official ASIA affiliate for official ASIA news photos etc, I provide the offsite merchandise link. I believe seperate page for JP's ASIA should be created, but until that time his site should be linked here or there if that page was created. Signed AP

Hu12, please let's not have an edit war without gaining a consensus here. I have no bias either way, and no connection to either "Asia"; I'm just trying to be objective and help keep the article fair. The "asiaband.com" link has been on the article for MONTHS now. I didn't originate it, and I have yet to see full justification for removing it. Even the "opposition" agrees with me on this :) I see your point about justifying additions, but this was not an addition, just maintaining the link, as it has been included in the article already, and because its inclusion is consistent with the article, so your deletion of it should be justified, since that is the change you're suggesting. Posting your reasons on the talk page, and then running and making the change, is neither "discussion" nor "consensus". I'm still not convinced that the link conflicts with the External Links policy, and here's why: The site at theasiaband.com is the official website of a band called "Asia Featuring John Payne" which includes news & information about that band, and although it does have a link to a separate web store (Devgel) at a separate address, that is not its only purpose. If John Payne is the owner of Devgel and the owner of the site, then the registration would make sense to be under the same name. On theasiaband.com, recent posts to the news items have been promoting new items added to the store, but that is not its sole purpose, and if you look at previous news items, it is clear that other items are about other topics such as band members, CD releases, reviews, holiday wishes, etc... typical band site content. As with ANY band, they DO sell things! So that, to me, seems perfectly consistent with other "official band sites", unless I'm missing something else in the WP:EL policy. Hu12, if there's some other element of that policy you're citing, can you please refer to that specifically here? Thanks. - Shubopshadangalang (talk) 18:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

"Asia Featuring John Payne" Belongs on John Payne (singer), not here. How long the link was here is irrelevent. Just because nobody noticed that John Payne's merchandising blog blatently violates our External links policies a long time ago does not mean you now have a "right" to keep it in. Policies and guidelines reflect Wikipedaia community consensus as a whole, which means community consensus is against inclusion of theasiaband.com sales blog as per below.

• Links normally to be avoided

1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article.
2. Links mainly intended to promote a website.
3. Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services.
4. Links to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising.
5. Links to blogs and personal web pages
6. Lists of links to manufacturers and suppliers.

Arguments for inclusion for theasiaband.com sales blog do not make for exemption of official Wikipedia policy.Wikipedia is NOT a "repository of links" or a "vehicle for advertising" and persistent spamming will result in those websites blacklisted.--Hu12 (talk) 18:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, point taken on justification of inclusion of the link, Hu12. But listing sections of policy does not justify how that applies to this case! I'm holding off on undoing your revision now because I don't want to continue with an edit war... hoping to fully understand your position before making up my mind, though for now, I maintain that the link should be included. You've yet to justify how theasiaband.com is any different from any other band site with respect to "products or services" or to refute that the site, in fact, serves an informational purpose about the band, as I argued above. As for whether "Asia Featuring John Payne" should be included in this page or on the separate John Payne page, as of now, the article clearly treats Asia Featuring John Payne as one of two simultaneous lineups of Asia. Per the rest of this subject of discussion, if, Hu12, your issue is with that element of the article, you need to discuss that topic here, or suggest changes to the article. Your changes to the link on this basis are inconsistent with the article, which at the moment shows two "official" bands, which, I still maintain each have an "official site". As for your note about spamming, I don't see how that has anything to do with this, since, as far as I know, no one directly associated with the link is trying to add it. - Shubopshadangalang (talk) 20:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Start a separate page for Asia featuring John Payne, and it might be appropriate. For now its on John Payne (singer). Editors make the policies here at Wikipedia, feel free to to try and change those policies if you like. Untill that time, those are the policies. What baffles me is this entire talk page is filled with disruptive discussion about low quality, crappy blog and fansite links which add Nothing to the article. Neither of these expand the article in any meaninful way, help build an encyclopedia or have added any content that benifits Wikipedia. Wikipedia's fundamental purpose is to create an encyclopedia of content, links cannot improve the encyclopedia itself. If you have content to contribute, why not contribute that. Unlike Wikipedia, DMOZ is a web directory specifically designed to categorize and list all Internet sites; if you've not already gotten this site listed there, I encourage you to do so -- it's a more appropriate venue for those links than our wikis. Their web address: http://www.dmoz.org/.--Hu12 (talk) 21:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

No, as the article currently reads, the link IS appropriate. You've yet to justify WHY you think it meets the policies listed. As far as I can see, those policies do NOT apply here, as described above. I'm not sure you're actually reading the discussion. All you've added that is useful in your last post is that you think the site is "crappy" which leads me to further believe you are biased. - Shubopshadangalang (talk) 21:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

huh?.. Policy absolutly applies. If your going to to argue that the link is appropriate and not subject to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, it's up YOU to come up with the proof for that argument. The responsibility for justifying inclusion of "any" content rests firmly with the editor seeking to include it, not the other way around. --Hu12 (talk) 03:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I already have. Once again, read the discussion above. I'm still waiting for you to provide some reason that you refute my arguments other than "policy abolutly [sic] applies". - Shubopshadangalang (talk) 04:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed per cited External links policy above.--Hu12 (talk) 07:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You left out an important part of the cited guideline above. You went straight from Links normally to be avoided to the list, leaving out the part in between that says "except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or an official page of the article subject." As long as there is a section for AFJP, I don't see any reason why the link shouldn't be replaced per the guideline you've cited. --Onorem♠Dil 11:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Hu12, I don't think you can continue to ignore the obvious fact that you're bullying this issue, blindly, and repeatedly throwing out "policy", whose relevance in this case has been refuted, as your reasons for making unjustified edits. Your contention that the link is a violation of External Links policy has clearly been refuted by multiple editors, and yet you persist, giving no counterpoints. I've tried repeatedly to remain open for you to read those arguments, and refute them if necessary. Do you need me to reiterate these reasons, in addition to Onorem's policy citation? - Shubopshadangalang (talk) 15:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thats exactly a point I made above, perhaps I didn't clarify well enough. "DEVGEL PRODUCTIONS" (owns the site), and is a part of John Payne's merchandising company ( Devgel Merchandising ). The merchandising blog ( theasiaband.com ) is not the subject of this article or an official page of this articles subject. theasiaband.com is the official website of a separate band called "Asia Featuring John Payne" and belongs on John Payne (singer) or .Asia Featuring John Payne, not Asia (band). This articles subject is "Asia", not "Asia Featuring John Payne". As long as this stand alone article ( Asia (band) ) has a foot note or "section" in it about "Asia Featuring John Payne", theasiaband.com is only indirectly related to the article's subject. Being as such, it is absolutely subject to the guidelines ( Links normally to be avoided ) as cited above--Hu12 (talk) 16:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Since there isn't an article for Asia featuring John Payne, it would be my interpretation that for our purposes, this articles subject includes "Asia featuring John Payne". I'm not sure what devgel productions owning the site has to do with anything. Is it your claim that it is not an official site for AFJP? --Onorem♠Dil 16:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and whether or not Asia Featuring John Payne should be equally featured on THIS page, or whether it should be on a separate page is the point of this discussion. As it stands, at the moment, they are both on the same page, and treated as current incarnations of the band, as noted in several sections of the article. Once again, as the page currently stands, the link is appropriate, but there's a bigger issue here, so let's talk about that first! Hu12, you obviously believe that AFJP should be a separate page, as others have expressed, but you're getting ahead of the game by editing only the link and ignoring the content of the article. If your issue is with the status of Asia Featuring John Payne in relation to this article, then argue the merits of that, and make edits to that end. I started this discussion section to talk about this very thing. So let's talk about it. - Shubopshadangalang (talk) 16:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

And, once again, Hu12 since you keep harping on this, theasiaband.com is not a "merchandising blog" as you have said repeatedly. As I stated above, that site contains other forms of information, and the store is a separate site. News items are presented in blog form, but this is not uncommon. The site's sole purpose is not only to sell products. - Shubopshadangalang (talk) 16:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, since there isn't an article for Asia featuring John Payne, under the External links policy you quoted, theasiaband.com is only appropriate under Asia featuring John Payne or John Payne (singer). I don't dispute its an official site for the seperate band, Asia featuring John Payne, however what is relevent is that its clearly not the "official" site of Asia (band), nor is it owned by Asia (band) as site registration and owneship records indicate(Devgel). Because its just an external link in the Asia article, it is subject to the guidelines Links normally to be avoided, which blogs and "sales" sites fail.--Hu12 (talk) 16:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the link is clearly not the official site of the Asia Reunion. I disagree on how clear it is that this article is not also about Asia featuring John Payne. That, to me, makes this look like a content dispute that should be cleared up instead of continuing this back and forth edit war over whether or not to include a link based on a guideline argument that isn't clear until the limits of the subject of the article are made clear --and not that it matters much...but WP:EL is not policy.-- --Onorem♠Dil 17:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. The question of the article's content should be answered FIRST. The link is a minor concern, and once a consensus is reached regarding that, the choice concerning inclusion of the link based on this criteria will be obvious. - Shubopshadangalang (talk) 17:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

To further discussion about whether Asia Featuring John Payne should be a separate page for this one (my position is currently "no, it should remain part of this page for now"), I'd like to point out a couple of examples of other similarly-named spin-off bands, and ask for others to think of some comparisons. Two that come to mind are "Starship featuring Mickey Thomas" and "Herman's Hermits Starring Peter Noone". The Starship example is an especially good one, as two incarnations of the band have recent history of simultaneously existing. And their Wikipedia pages have information about both bands in one page. - Shubopshadangalang (talk) 00:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I support the Wikipedia administrators decision/reasoning for the removal of the John Payne link. Also, to add to the consensus of-

• 156.34.220.66
• Compwhizii
• 198.164.251.53
• Fair Deal
• Nakon
• 142.166.250.216
• Ixfd64
• Blow of Light
• Cometstyles
• 99.251.226.121 (now added)

I do not wish to see the fanclub website link added to this article. It, along with the Payne link, have no place here in this page. 99.251.226.121 (talk) 17:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The fan club link is a completely separate issue. The issue here is whether the article, which currently provides information about 2 bands simultaneously using the "Asia..." name, should include both "official" website links for the respective bands. Actually the real issue is whether the article should include both bands, or be separated, which is a larger discussion, which will bring light to the choice of whether to include the link. As the article is now, the link is appropriate on these grounds.

The above listed editors have made no attempt to participate in an open discussion to refute stated arguments for the link's inclusion. Only Hu12 has openly argued against it here, and still refuses to address stated arguments that refute his own. Those below have presented reasonable arguments (yet to be refuted) for the link inclusion, and are in favor of its inclusion.

• Onorem♠Dil
• Bondegezou
• Shupboshadangalang
• (Asia Fan Club President with his various IP's)

Obviously, the discussion exists to work out these disagreements. Justification has been provided for inclusion of the content. See above discussion for that. If you have further points to add, or new information that supports your position, please add that to the discussion. - Shubopshadangalang (talk) 18:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Just for clarity, my position is simply that a consensus on what the actual subject of this article is should come before the arguments about which links to include. It seemed like the discussion was occurring backwards to me. If AFJP is a subject of the article, I think the link should stay. If AFJP is not a subject of the article, then I think the section about them should be trimmed down to basically nothing, and a See also link should be added for the new article where they would be the subject. --Onorem♠Dil 18:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

My position is exactly the same. :) Consistency with the article. But I'm open the article changing, if consensus dictates. - Shubopshadangalang (talk) 18:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Disagree, Shubopshadangalang. You challenge the reversion of your edits, demanding that others justify it. Wikipedia policy is quite clear here: the responsibility for justifying inclusion of any content rests firmly with the editor seeking to include it. Only once you have justified your edits beyond a reasonable doubt does the burden of proof shift to others.--Hu12 (talk) 18:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Hu12, I completely agree with that policy 100%, which you have noted "ad nauseum" :). And, per that policy, I HAVE justified the inclusion of this content, repeatedly, as have others, and my arguments have yet to be refuted, after my repeated pleas for you to refute them if you can. The only thing you have offered is that you disagree, and that your view is "policy applies". This is not sufficient. Unless you refute the arguments in support of the content inclusion, then they stand as uncontested, and justified, per the policy. Do you need me to reiterate that justification once again?? - Shubopshadangalang (talk) 19:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, my above response was only about the link. As for the rest of the article, and whether AFJP is featured as equal in the article, as it currently is, is a separate and more important matter. My position on this is entirely flexible. If you feel there needs to be a separate article for AFJP, then by all means, create that article, and make those changes to this article, and let discussion ensue if necessary. - Shubopshadangalang (talk) 19:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Summation of arguments for and against the AFJP official site link

I've held off reiterating the justification of this, because I'd like to see us focus on article content instead of this one tiny link. But just for clarity, I'd like to reiterate the justification for its inclusion, so we can end this once and for all.

Below is a list of numbered reasons stated against inclusion of the link, and below, with the same numbering, are reasons (all previously stated in the discussion) for its inclusion.

Reasons previously stated for not including the link:

1. The website theasiaband.com is a "merchandising blog"

2. The site is owned by John Payne's merchandising company Devgel Merchandising.

3. The link is not appropriate because the page is about "Asia" and not "Asia featuring John Payne" ; "...this stand alone article ( Asia (band) ) has a foot note or "section" in it about "Asia Featuring John Payne", theasiaband.com is only indirectly related to the article's subject."

4. WP:EL policy cite by Hu12:

Links normally to be avoided:

i. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article.

ii. Links mainly intended to promote a website.

iii. Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services.

iv. Links to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising.

v. Links to blogs and personal web pages

vi. Lists of links to manufacturers and suppliers.

5. "Wikipedia is NOT a "repository of links" or a "vehicle for advertising" and persistent spamming will result in those websites blacklisted."

Counterpoints as justification for link inclusion:

1. No, it's not. The site clearly has other information about album reviews, tour dates, discography, holiday wishes, new band members, etc. The site does link to a web store to sell products. But like any band, they do sell things. Nothing unusual here.

2. Yes, John Payne owns the site theasiaband.com. It's his band. He also owns Devgel merchandising apparently, through which he sells his music-related products. All bands exist to sell products, so nothing unusual here.

3. Not true. As the article currently reads, both bands are treated as current incarnations, as bands using the name Asia. This is evident in several sections of the article, including the first paragraph, the info box, and personnel listings. NOT merely a footnote. Each band has a separate official website. If this changes and some point in the future, and the article no longer covers both bands, then this could change.

4. I agree 100% that policy should be absolute. But the link in question does not violate any of the listed policy, and in fact, to quote fellow editors Bondegezou and Onorem, respectively: "WP:EL is clear that there should be links to official sites and sites that contain further material beyond what even the best Wikipedia article would contain." ; "You left out an important part of the cited guideline... leaving out the part in between that says "except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or an official page of the article subject." " As the article subject, as defined in #3, covers both bands, this is the case.

But, regardless, here are justifications in response to on each point of WP:EL policy raised:

i. As any band's official website, it does provide a unique resource, as it covers information and news (and, yes, products) concerning this specific project.

ii. As far as I know, no one involved in the edits to add this link are trying to promote anything. Same goes for any comments about "spamming". Motivation here is to be consistent with the article in its current state.

iii. See point #1 above.

iv. No advertising, unless you count "new items added to the store" news items as "advertising". But either way, this hardly seems "objectionable", although that is a relative term.

v. It's neither of these, as described above.

vi. Neither a manufacturer or supplier.

5. Again, spamming or advertising are not the case here.

Now can we PLEASE move on to editing content? Thanks. -- Shubopshadangalang (talk) 00:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to start an article for the upcoming AFJP studio release Architects of Time, which has been on the drawing board for three years already. Should I wait until there are more facts and before the release date? I have no idea any titles of tracks. I do know the label and producer (Payne himself). As for a separate AFJP article, there doesn't have to be one if the need isn't that great. There isn't for the The Temptations Review (a similiar premise of a later member using the name) or any of the current Bay City Rollers touring groups, yet there are ones for Martin Turner's Wishbone Ash and Mickey Thomas's Starship. The debate continues.Sposato (talk) 19:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The old Asia site has been revived for AFJP. I'ma put it up. I'm not sure what will happen to the other one. FotoPhest (talk) 15:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The two sites are now one, so I just use the asiaworld one that used to be used for all vintages of Asia until 2006. The other site has been reduced to a mirror one. The new site is still in development. There is supposed to be merchandising there, but that page is also under construction, and most bands have a section on their sites where you can buy related goods, just like the table you see at shows, so it shouldn't be an issue. FotoPhest (talk) 02:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Site Blacklisting status

Good enough, what is going on with the blacklist of my site, please see my above comments! Brarek took our side as well. What is the next step to remove it from the blacklist and reinstate. AP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.167.100.82 (talk) 15:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please share information on this blacklisting, and who to contact about its current state? Even if you believe the blacklisting is justifiable, it's only reasonable to be open with all the information. As the site blacklisting only affects this article, it should be up to a consensus of editors within the discussion on whether it's included in the article. Thanks. (AP, please be patient) - Shubopshadangalang (talk) 18:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

See WP:BLACKLIST and WP:SBL. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you . Still being patient but just want to remind eveyone that I apologize for the edit war, I may not have done things in the proper wiki policy to correct this, but again, the link should never have been removed to start with. Both sides did things the wrong way. This statrted with "156.34.225.77" removing my link only when I moved it in front of the JP era link only becaus mine was there first... for the first hour of that war only my link was removed and then after that the my space page was removed as well....and he wrote hu12 if you look at hu12's discussion page,... and that is why he is involed in it at this point. I provided the evidence that my link is an ASIA authorized internet resource. I am an official authorized affiliate to report official ASIA news, photos, & all media sources. My site IT'S NOT SIMPLY A BLOG or a forum, and contains interviews (official) and other other valuable informaton that would not be included in a wiki article such as tour photos exclusive to the fan club and other interviews and reviews approved for my site. Signed AP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.167.100.82 (talk) 18:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

"Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews."

All that is other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, "such as" reviews and interviews. That would include photos as well, "such as" is not limited to reviews and interviews (which we have) but are 2 examples of relevant content that would not be included in the Wiki article suitable for inclusion of link. AP

AP, we all know that you think you're right about including the link. And most of those in this discussion agree with you. But you have to understand that there are protections in place on Wikipedia to protect from links being added for the wrong reasons. Imagine if I was a washing machine machine repairman and tried to add a link to my business website to the Wikipedia "Washing Machine" page? Clearly, that can't be allowed, and that's why these procedures exist. You have to realize how difficult you have made this by trying to subvert the system with your website redirects, and by giving the appearance of purposefully using multiple IP addresses to appear as if you were multiple editors. It made it appear to several editors as though you were "spamming" the link, and they reacted just like they would in the "washing machine" situation I described. I believe that this was not your intention, but you must understand how it would appear that way. I know you are frustrated, but the fact is that it's a mess now (regardless of whose fault that is) and it could take a while to get it worked out. So, again, be patient, We all know your position on this, there's no point in reiterating it. And honestly, your position here can't hold much weight as you clearly have a stake in this, and you've caused aggravation to so many (including myself, but i'm editing based on fairness, not personal grudges). Please let neutral observers discuss and attempt to solve it. - Shubopshadangalang (talk) 20:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Understood, and there was never any intent to make it appear that my ISPs were from multiple sources, I lived up to all of them and explained....also I was not mondrago. Understand about the washing machine illustration and I'm sure you know that is not what my link is about, but I understand you'e giving an example of how rules are in place to prevent such things. This was started by one person who reqruited others as I have shown. The alternate address was only provided when I thought the site was lifted from the balcklist and I thought the system was gliched or it may have taken some time to clear out, I'm new to this. I thought it was OK to readd, I admitted i was not perfect in response of this, but I was not the one who was initally wrong, look at the history, it was started by one person. I have apolgized, but I was right from day one. The issue was raised as to if I was authorized, and no one had responded to bondezgodus breakdown of the wiki policy in detail. AP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.167.100.82 (talk) 21:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, i know. We all know. No need to keep defending yourself. I mean this with as much kindness as is possible, but shut up already! ;) - Shubopshadangalang (talk) 21:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd take the advice of Shubopshadangalang, and stop. Its extremly evident at this point this has far surpassed being severely disruptive. And that being so, further disruption or "Refusal to get the point" will result in your IP address being blocked from editing Wikipedia due to disrupion. Wikipedia's fundamental purpose is to create an encyclopedia of content, links cannot improve the encyclopedia itself. If you have content to contribute, why not contribute that. --Hu12 (talk) 23:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I, along with most others among this discussion, agree with AP's position, just not the methods necessarily. Just saying that the case has been made, so no need to re-state. - Shubopshadangalang (talk) 23:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no question that AP's continued postings and general behavior on the article and talk page have hurt rather than helped his position. But, the link needs to be evaluated on its own adherance to policy, not the adherance of the user attempting to post the EL. I would be interested in seeing your reply to this post. It was made over a week ago, with no reply to the points raised. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hu12, you appear to have a somewhat hardline attitude towards links with your comments like "links cannot inmprove the encyclopedia itself". Certainly, article content is the main thing we should be focusing on; and Shubopshadangalang and myself have both done a fair amount of work on the article. However, WP:EL is clear that there should be links to official sites and sites that contain further material beyond what even the best Wikipedia article would contain. All three links under contention, the official Asia fanclub link, Asia's official MySpace page and the AFJP page, have an official status and contain such further material. They appear to me to be entirely consistent with Wikipedia policy and practice, for the reasons I've given above. Bondegezou (talk) 11:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to re-insert certain external links

Proposal:
Re-insert the official Asia Featuring John Payne site, the official Asia fan club site (currently blacklisted) and/or the official Asia MySpace page.

These three external links were long part of the article, but have been removed in recent weeks, leading to an extended dispute over whether they are appropriate. The case for and against each is different, but in some ways related. Arguments for and against have been advanced above, but agreement has not yet been reached. Now that the edit warring over these links has died down, but given that we seem to be going around in circles in terms of debating the issue and given confusion over what some editors' current positions are, I suggest the following three straw polls. Let's then give it a week and see what consensus does or does not exist among editors. If there is a reasonable level of agreement, then we can re-insert links as appropriate (including having links un-blacklisted as necessary).

I have posted messages to the Talk pages of every further named editor who has taken part in past discussion of these issues (namely Compwhizii‎, CIreland‎, Fair Deal‎, A. B., Blow of Light‎, Onorem‎, Hu12‎ and Barek) to inform them of this new discussion. Bondegezou (talk) 17:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

---

AFJP site
Comments and Discussion

• AFJP should have it's own article (see Wishbone Ash/Martin Turner's Wishbone Ash) 156.34.142.110 (talk) 18:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Support

• AFJP is covered by the article and this is the band's official site. Bondegezou (talk) 12:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• See my above detailed defense of this. My support is conditional on the article remaining in its current state of featuring both bands as "current" incarnations. If AFJP becomes a separate page (with editors' consensus), then the link should go with it. -- Shubopshadangalang (talk) 14:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• I support the seperate page for the JP era, and I believe the link belongs there if and when it is created, however if these two ASIA's are currently on the same Wiki article, like they are now, then it should be here. I may be against him but I'm being fair, but I also believe his link was removed by subtefuge (knowing it's going back up, when it does it doesn't look like my site was picked on). Asia Pres
• As long as these are in-line citations, then I humbly support. —BoL 00:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
• User AndonicO, per below comments (added by Shubopshadangalang (talk)) —Preceding comment was added at 23:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
• User:Onorem, per above comments: "[in response to User:Hu12's abridged citing of WP:EL policy]: ...went straight from Links normally to be avoided to the list, leaving out the part in between that says "except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or an official page of the article subject." As long as there is a section for AFJP, I don't see any reason why the link shouldn't be replaced per the guideline you've cited." -- quote added by Shubopshadangalang (talk) 19:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Opposed

• I oppose the link as it appears to violate WP:EL. And most of the home page is trying to sell stuff. Bardcom (talk) 17:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• Not sure that it violates WP:EL, but it provides nothing useful to the article. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 17:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• I agree with the earlier statement that the Payne link should not be here and that all AFJP content removed and put in its own page. Fair Deal (talk) 02:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

---

Asia fan club site
Comments and Discussion

• (comments moved from below) 'Bold text PLEASE I ASK PLEASE REMOVE MY SITE FROM THE BLACKLIST ASAP, THE FAN CLUB HAS DROPPED OFF THE SEARCH ENGINES....A PROGRAM THAT I PAID MONEY FOR, THIS HAS COME BETWEEN INVESTMENTS FOR THIS BAND. YOU HAVE A PROMISE FROM ME THAT I WILL NOT TRY TO REINSERT THE LINK UNTIL THIS MATTER HAS CONCLUDED ON THIS TALK PAGE. THE ONLY THING THAT APPEARED WAS THE WIKIPEDIA BLACKLIST, SOMEHOW THE SEARCH ENGINES PICKED UP THE WORD BLACKLIST OR SPAM AND DROPPED IT OFF THE LISTINGS. AGAIN, I PAID GOOD MONEY FOR THAT PROGRAM AND YOU LISTED A NON PROFIT MANAGMENT AUTHORIZED SITE AS SPAM/BLACKLIST. YOU ARE FORCING MY HAND INTO AN UGLY SITUATION. PLEASE REMOVE ALL TRACES OF THE WEB ADDRESS AND THE WORD BLACKLIST SPAM ASAP, AGAIN YOU HAVE A PROMISE I WILL NOT TRY TO REINSTATE IT ON WIKI. Bold text 70.188.184.84 (talk) 11:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)AP
• (comments moved from below) I've done what I can to ask for blacklist removal, but it seems the "power players" are throwing their weight around on this, and are not making decisions based on the merit of the content, in my view. But your pleas on this page are useless at this point. If you haven't already, plead your case (as briefly and "diplomatically" as possible) here: Proposed Blacklist Additions, Proposed Blacklist Removals and on talk pages for users Hu12, CIreland and A. B.. Sorry you took offense to the "shady" comment, but, that's how they see it, and they're considering that above the value of the link itself. And, quite honestly, your attempt to redirect your link to bypass the blacklist, was pretty "shady" as it relates to spamming policy. I believe your cause was in the right, but I don't agree with that method, and that did make this much more difficult. Please let's not continue to discuss this here, unless new information comes to light. If you had a user page (!) I would have posted this there and not wasted more space on this discussion page :) Good luck. - Shubopshadangalang (talk) 16:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• (comments moved from below) You want this off the blacklist so your money doesn't go to waste? You want this so your site will show up on google? Sorry, thats spam. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 17:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

(comments moved from below) CWii, Do you realize what you just said publicly, that it is your intent that my investments plummet. This is no longer just a case of deformation of a non profit organization being labeled spam, stress, and discrimination, but you publicly made it clear it your intent to interfere with financial investments I made, not simply a case of not including the link in the article. As for the people who blacklisted it, I do not believe it was their intent to interfere with my financial investment for a non profit organization, but this post made it clear that this is what he wishes. It should have never been removed to begin with. It was not removed by someone seeing a link that didn't belong. If you look at the history of this, this started when I moved the link to the #2 slot of the external links section, this was a grudge, that requested others to join him and I have the proof, and now someone is telling me wish the site not appear in a search engine after I invested a great amount of money in a program? 156.34.142.110 we see your comment... the one who started the entire hell hole Ap.

(comments moved from below) No, I said that from your original comment it is your intent that the site get off the black list. I quote: "I ASK PLEASE REMOVE MY SITE FROM THE BLACKLIST ASAP, THE FAN CLUB HAS DROPPED OFF THE SEARCH ENGINES" and "I PAID GOOD MONEY FOR THAT PROGRAM". It seems to me that it is your primary intention is to get your site back on Google and such. That violates WP:SPAM and I will not support you spamming wikipedia. So I oppose. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 20:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• (comments moved from below) You are trying to cleverly twist this into something it is not, I will tell you that everything you type may be viewed by an attorney, think carefully about your response. That would be spam if I put the link on wiki for SE submission purposes, I was listed IN a SE program for a long time. This is about the removal from a black/spamlist to un-interfere with an entirely different program outside of Wikipedia. The blacklist is interfering with a private program. The goal of this entire argument over 2 weeks had nothing to do with a SE program, it is something that was discovered last night, I paid a lot of money for a program long before my link was in this wiki ASIA article. The argument was to reinstate the link that unjustifiably removed because I have evidence of why and how this started, and evidence that it should never have been removed. The SE program interference was discovered last night, and has no bearing effect on the argument that went on here for the last 2 weeks. The argument of the last 2 weeks was about reinserting three links for unjust removal. This grudge was never intended to interfere with money before your statement. I invested money for a non profit organization, but when it is made clear that this is what it developed into, and you state that wish to keep it that way, rather than just keep the link off wiki, you have made it clear that your interest is to hurt a financial investment of non profit organization, because the removal from the blacklist will not re-instate the link on wiki, and that was the point of the matter ...which is the primary focus, it will begin the process to heal the program, I have to jump through a few loops, but I can't do anything until all traces of the web address and unattached to the words blacklist/spam. You're not saying what this thread is about... reinstating the link... you're saying you wish to keep this on a blacklist for the sole purpose of interfering with an investment of a program outside of Wikipedia for a non profit organization. Decisions made here are interfering with a seperate program. 70.188.184.84 (talk) 20:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)AP

(comments moved from below) First, remember that there are no legal threats allowed so be careful with your words. Second, no I am not trying to interfere with your investments, I am trying to protect wikipedia from spammers. Regards, CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 20:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Good enough my friend, I also agree with you on spam issues, you think I don't get people to come over to my fan club to advertise, I don't put up with any of that crap my friend. Spam... this is what Yahoo has developed into, you go to the yahoo sites that were there from the 90's and what do you see???? A sure way to enlarge your p%^%s, that is spam. I can't believe those Yahoo sites still exist. Every once in a while I get Bozo that tries it, but I run a tight ship. This is the authorized fan club that is non profit, that has active participation by members of ASIA and management, you couldn't have anything further from spam than my website, it just ended up there over a war, people need to see this was an error and fix rather than showing off their power to win an argument. If you concern is spam, I appreciate that, but investigate my site more and you will see that it is a relevant authorized site. No hard feelings and thank you for the response. Sincerely... AP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.184.84 (talk) 21:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

(comments moved from below) CWii, as far as I see, is only saying that your justification for including the link, which relates to your investments, search engine status, etc, are reasons for "spamming" the link. Again, valid concerns, and once again, you're only making things worse by bring this into the discussion. However, other reasons, by neutral editors such as myself, have been provided in favor of the link, and the merits of the link's inclusion should considered above all. AP, if you have some sort of conspiracy theory that someone is "out to get you", then please provide hard, irrefutable evidence of that within the proper forum (which is not this talk page, regardless). If not, please, let the neutral editors discuss this. Your opinion and "victim" attitude have ZERO to do with any decision regarding your link, as you clearly have a vested interest in its inclusion, and are therefore justifiably biased. You've provided plenty of facts and resources in support of the link. If you have more of that, please tell us. In the meantime, please, if all you have to contribute is complaining about your situation, do it elsewhere (see my previous suggested links). It's not getting you anywhere here. All the best. -- Shubopshadangalang (talk) 21:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks Shubopshadangalang, you stated "as far as I see, is only saying that your justification for including the link, which relates to your investments, search engine status, etc, are reasons for "spamming" the link." But if you re read the entire text, I didn't request to reinstate the link, I requested that it get removed from the blacklist/spam because it is interfering with a private program regardless if the link is reinstated on Wiki or not. I said I would not edit the link back in until this is ironed out on this page. Sincerely...~~AP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.184.84 (talk) 21:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

My decision stands. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 22:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, so does mine. -- Shubopshadangalang (talk) 23:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, though, it's very unclear to me, being relatively new to this, whose decisions have more weight. I know that you're some kind of administrator, but how does that affect this? Is your word the be all and end all, or does it have equal weight toward creating community consensus? I'm sure I'm not the only one who doesn't understand this. Thanks. -- Shubopshadangalang (talk) 23:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• On what... please answer, are you directly accusing me & this organization of spam as you said above, are you standing by that? Please read the web definition of spam before you answer.

http://www.monkeys.com/spam-defined/definition.shtml Wikipedia placed my site on a spam list. 70.188.184.84 (talk) 23:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC) AP

This was a classic Wiki edit war over a lnk that was there for a long time and has the relevant content that would not be included in the wiki article such as reviews and interviews... SUCH as is not limited to reviews and interviews (which we have BTW).... our exclusive Vintage ASIA photo gallery is such a thing that would not normally be included in the wiki article, I have the exclusive copyright permission to post those photos. Photos that reflect 1982 and the 2006 -2007 ASIA tours mentioned in the article, that can't be included in the article due to copyright permission of the photos. This is exclusive content that the official site does not carry. Sincerely 70.188.184.84 (talk) AP

AP, whether or not you sent any unsolicited emails is not the point. Perhaps they're using "spam" incorrectly here, but the point is that you created the appearance of violating Wikipedia's policies which are intended to avoid spam, and you directly violated them when subverting the blacklist with your link redirect, as I undestand it. - Shubopshadangalang (talk) 23:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:SPAM. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 00:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Nice try but that was not an intentional redirect for spam.. i was told it was lifted from the blacklist. I will explain and the evidence is in the edit history. First of all may I state that AB just banned from editing for 3 days, I did not go anywhere near the article, I am here discussing this case in an adult type manner, the problem here we have the evidence and support. You are correct that spam is the wrong term, and that makes the wrong. To clarify, the balcklist placing had nothing to do with a redirect. Evidence will show that I was placed on the blacklist long before I copied the main page to another page in my site which was I believe /contact. If you review the entire history, I believe.. I may spell it wrong, Cirland??? (could have the name wrong) Said he removed it from the spam blacklist, but one said he still got the warning when he tried to add the link back in . When I saw he said it was removed and still got the warning I thought it was glitch or something that I had to contact wiki about (the site was removed from the blacklist why is it still restricted...added temp address for now), but since I seen it was removed from the blacklist, It appeared it wasn't restricted to be added to the article regardless of what address it went under. Sincerely... 4.238.127.99 (talk) AP

Support

• Officially authorised fan club. Bondegezou (talk) 12:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• I'm in favor of it, on the grounds that it has been proven to be authorized by the band, and is an official resource that adds to the article by providing content such as reviews. Regardless of "shady" attempts by AP to add the site, and regardless of his reasoning for wanting to add it, the merits of the link itself remain, and should be considered regardless of any grudge against the methods or reasons he has used. This is an encyclopedia, so content should be considered with neutral opinions. - Shubopshadangalang (talk) 14:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Barek, per summarizerd comments from above discussions: "The wiki... has permitted officially authorized fansite links in the past, and should continue to do so... there must be a reliable source that identifies for us what is an officially authorized site... Based on those links (links referenced by "Asia Fan Club Pres": http://johnwetton.com. "Then click links" ... http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v71/Soles/ca1200_sm.jpg ... http://hardrockcafe.narod.ru/a/asia.htm "2nd link to left " ... http://www.asiaitalianfans.it/link_utili.htm ... http://www.celebritytheatre.com/upcoming.php?viewevent=603) , plus information from the article, I do support removal of the fansite from the wiki's blacklist, then at that point adding it back into this article." Also, "the link needs to be evaluated on its own adherance to policy, not the adherance of the user attempting to post the EL. ... reply to this post.... with no reply [yet] to the points raised." -- summary added by Shubopshadangalang (talk) 18:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Support (with conflict of interest)

• (inserted indent) At that what this was before this all happened a grudge.... there was not shady attempts, I explained, I re added that when I was told the site was removed from the blacklist, so I didn't understand how long it would have taken to re-add it, so I transferred the homepage to another page on the site until the glitch (that I thought it was) was straighted out. This issue is not going away and the link should have never been removed from day one, I have aplogized and admit fault in some of my reactions, but there never should have reactions to begin with. This is like charging a guy for murder after someone broke in his house, yes it does happen, they say the guy should have jumped out of the window instead of shooting. I believe it may be possible that the removal of the JP link is subtufuge by the opposition and that JP link will be reinstated, lets talk about shady. We have sought a resolution and this is to based on the wiki policy concerning external links, not what happened after the fact. The facts were pointed clearly by Bondegezou and braek asked for a reply to these facts that were brought on the table on 2/11. This is no to be based on a vote. be realistic, the people I know I or anyone could get on the phone and people to vote... as said this was to based on facts, and based on those facts there isn't judge that will rule against against the incluson of the link when wiki policy is reviewed in regard to external links. blackisting a site that is not spam, as spam is deformation. Signed AP Also John Young ASIA's 1988 keyboard player just added to the forum, would he be on a spam site? That is deformation to me and to ASIA and to all that are interactive on the fan club! Would managment authorize spam? John Young was in ASIA when ASIA toured with the Beach Boys in88, the next year ASIA came out with Then & Now, Geoff had returned. AP

Opposed

• No. You want this off the blacklist so your money doesn't go to waste? You want this so your site will show up on google? Sorry, thats spam. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 17:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• Reason have already been beat to death 156.34.142.110 (talk) 18:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• A fan club site in a way in which you can freeload (ahem, excuse me.) I mean, spam us so you guys would be famous? I ain't gonna allow it. —BoL 00:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
• No -- self-published material and discussion forum. A source of endless disruption here on Wikipedia by an indefinitely blocked user. Enough is enough and I see no content sufficiently compelling to indulge someone who's managed to violate an almost record number of guidelines and policies:
  1. WP:CIVIL
  2. WP:LEGAL
  3. WP:SPAM
  4. WP:COI
  5. WP:SOCK
  6. WP:NPA
  7. WP:NOT
  8. WP:3RR
  9. WP:AGF
  10. WP:EDITWAR
  11. WP:EVADE
  12. WP:TALK

About the only thing positive I can say is that so far he he hasn't spammed Asia articles^{[1],[2],[3],[4],[5],[6],[7],[8],[9],[10],[11],[12],[13],[14],[15],[16]} on any other Wikipedias or other Wikimedia projects besides this one. --A. B. ^(talk) 00:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

For additional discussions (including some more opinions of this site and its owner's behaviour), see:

• Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mondrago
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive362#Linkspammer issuing legal threats on talk page
• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Mondrago
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive366#Mondrago socks an IP's
• MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#More asiafanclub spam (permanent link)
• MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#asiafanclub.com (permanent link)

--A. B. ^(talk) 00:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

(indent inserted) To the civil charge it does not apply to me "POV-pusher" Note: Comment on the actions and not the editor, per WP:POVPUSH). Judgmental tone in edit summaries ("snipped rambling crap") Belittling contributors because of their language skills or word choice (cite as WP:SKILL) Ill-considered accusations of impropriety of one kind or another (cite as WP:ICA) Starting a comment with: "Not to make this personal, but..." Lies, Calling someone a liar, or accusing him/her of slander or libel. Even if true, such remarks tend to aggravate rather than resolve a dispute. The libel is true against me, calling a authorized site spam. Vandalism was done by those removing two websites that were in the article for a long time. To charge #2 wiki does mention the "Withdrawal of legal threat" that I have done. But wiki does mention "Wikipedia's policy on defamation is to immediately delete libelous material when it has been identified. If you believe that you are the subject of a libelous statement on Wikipedia, please contact the information team." I did not add spam, I was removing vandalism of what was being removed that existed for some time in the article, the links was already there, when I re-arranged the external links section. Calling me spam, or self published material is deformation. How is it self published, when the news and information are official band press releases? The legal clause does say "Do not make legal threats on Wikipedia. You should always first attempt to resolve disputes using Wikipedia's dispute resolution procedures. (that I have done) "If you must take legal action, we cannot prevent you from doing so. However, we require that you do not edit Wikipedia until the legal matter has been resolved to ensure that all legal processes happen via proper legal channels. You should instead contact the person or people involved directly." That I have attempted that as well. To the spam charge, that is self explanatory, the authorized site that existed in the article for a long time and was removed only when the order was re-arranged, is non profit and does not fit the definition of spam. http://www.monkeys.com/spam-defined/definition.shtml To Col, (does not apply) examples of Citing oneself, Financial, Legal antagonists, Self-promotion, (it does not promote the private or commercial interests of the editor) & it is not promote otherwise obscure individuals by pointing to their personal pages. Biographical material that does not significantly add to the clarity or quality of the article. To the sock, that was explained many times, never tried to make it to appear as if it was coming from different people, I have a work PC, home PC, laptop & iphone, & I am not Modrago, as falsely charged. There wasn't personal attacks (NRA), I discussed this as I am now in an adult type manner. 3RR was over an edit war, and I was editing under the "Exceptions" clause, or, believe that was my intent, as I seen vandalism to the fan club and my space links that existed there for quite a while. 3RR should have been enforced on those vandalizing those links, rather than those restoring it, however I didn't go crying to administrators when this occurred. (NOT) LOL! Does not apply becuase this is reference to a relevant link that existed for some time in the article. To the AGF, I have assumed good faith and spoke to everyone as I do now, if anything it is the opposition that " bad faith motives are alleged without clear evidence that others' editing is in fact based upon bad faith". The Edit war charge is against those who vandalized the links that were there for a long time, actions to protect the links that are approved by the wiki external links policy were just. The evade issue can be argued on both sides on what is just to respond to false accusations slander etc, as I am now from another IP responding to my accusers as every American has the right to. What about the issue of false accusations and then banning one to respond? There is also the issue of "When blocking may not be used" & "Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators. "Administrators should also be aware of potential conflicts of interest involving pages or subject areas with which they are involved.". The talk clause is really a general guide line that basically touches upon many of the above issues in a nutshell so to say on one page, so these issues are addressed above. The redirect is clearly explained more than once above, as I was re-acting to a the removal of the blacklist, thought it was cleared to re-add but thought there was a glitch as to why a warning was still being issued when the site was re-added. The attempt to call my site spam will reveal itself to be a false charge as the charge of being mondrago. In the end, it was proven that those who opposed my link really ignored Bondegezou's break down of the wiki external links policy on 2/11. To the charge that it is a forum, it is not just a forum, we have one included in the site, and so does the official John Wetton and Geoff Downes website. The above bogus charges in layman terms, are obvious bomb launches, hoping that one lands. In an attempt to judge this on actions after the fact, rather than on the merits of the Wiki external links guideline. The charges on the both sides can be fought and debated such as the deformation of spam, self published, self promotion, vandalism of long time established links, can go back & forth for some time, maybe both sides were no angels in this matter. What happened in the end or after the vandalism of 2 links, is still not addressing the links on the merits itself, and approaches should reflect the point on what is relevant material that should belong. I ask once again to please remove it from the blacklist, I have come to find out it has effected the the google powered SE's, such as AOL etc, I will not edit the link back in the article during this time. I seek peace. Sincerely yours4.238.124.228 (talk) 11:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)AP.

I support all of that, except for the part about "vandalism". I think you're misunderstanding that as being a metaphor, when in fact it refers to a specific Wikipedia policy. "Vandalism" in this sense would be if I deleted content in an article and replaced it with "poop smells bad" or something irrelevant like that. Removing links is not "vandalism" in this sense. And, as far as the link being removed, as previously stated by other editors such as Hu12, "The responsibility for justifying inclusion of "any" content rests firmly with the editor seeking to include it, not the other way around." I believe that it has been sufficiently, repeatedly justified here. - Shubopshadangalang (talk) 15:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

(What triggered this????)I see your point, and agree that in itself is not vandalism, however in this case it seems different, if a link is removed when it is added or shortly after, correct that in itself is not vandalism, but the fact will come out that those links were there for quite some time and someone got pissed off when I just re-arrange the external links order, (this is when the edit war broke) that can be reviewed and verified in the edit history of how this started and how that person went on to rally editors to take his side. (The first side of the story is the one most often believed).70.167.100.82 (talk) 16:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)AP

• Spoke to this already. It should never have been added in the first place. Fair Deal (talk) 02:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

---

Asia MySpace page
Comments and Discussion

• I feel some of the comments below are incorrect in their understanding of Wikipedia policies. WP:MYSPACE explains that Wikipedia is not a social networking site: it says nothing about linking to MySpace pages and is irrelevant to the discussion here. WP:EL is a guideline, not policy, and contains no blanket ban of MySpace sites. If a MySpace page is used as an official site by a notable band, then my reading of WP:EL is that it would support including a link. Bondegezou (talk) 15:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• (comment moved from below) Policies cited [below] aren't relevant: WP:MYSPACE refers to what Wiki pages should be used for themselves, not external links, and WP:EL's "links normally to be avoided" which lists "Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace)," as something to be avoided, actually begins with "Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or an official page of the article subject..." Because it is the "official" Myspace page, I could see this being an exception, IF it add sufficiently to the article beyond what the other links add. . -Shubopshadangalang (talk) 18:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Support

• Official band site. Bondegezou (talk) 12:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• It's an official site and is within all policies. Myspace is neither banned nor "blacklisted". (Per discussion, changed position from "neutral" to "support". moved comments above.)Shubopshadangalang (talk) 15:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Opposed

• Would violate WP:EL. No myspace links. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 17:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• see WP:MYSPACE... adds nothing. 156.34.142.110 (talk) 18:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• Right, Myspace is a blacklisted link right now. Nope. Official ASIA site OK though, no Myspace. —BoL 00:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
• I don't MySpace links should be allowed on Wikipedia. Fair Deal (talk) 02:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

Voting does not equal consensus

The above (and below) threads appears to be contradictory to WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

As per WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY, "Although editors occasionally use straw polls in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys may actually impede rather than assist discussion. They should be used with caution, if at all, and will not necessarily be treated as binding." I have started these straw polls with caution for the reasons given above: in particular, discussion has been going around in circles without resolution and various editors have changed their positions so it is unclear what current consensus may or may not exist. I absolutely do not presume they will be treated as binding. Bondegezou (talk) 17:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

If that's the intent, I'll AGF and take your word for that; but I won't be participating, as I have a personal bias against online polling/voting. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this would not be binding. I don't think I would consider either of these as some kind of poll or voting system... The intent here is to put an end to all of the back-and-forth that has been going on, and to summarize positions, as a reference, and so all involved can use that reference to make informed decisions without being lost in the endless discussion above. The entire history of edits and discussion would have to be considered in relation to a consensus, but hopefully, everyone with strong opinions on this issues will participate here, and that the end result would be that it represents the consensus within a sufficient margin of error. I also hope that any bias would be overlooked in order to best assemble this reference. I really can't see any reason to be opposed to doing this. - Shubopshadangalang (talk) 17:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Separate Page For Asia Featuring John Payne? (summary of arguments)

I'm inspired by Bondegezou, and creating a concise call to action here. Let's get this over with so we can move on :) - Shubopshadangalang (talk) 15:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Should "Asia Featuring John Payne" be included on this page, as one of two current lineups of bands using the "Asia" name? Please add brief elements of support or opposition and add or change your name relative to your position. Discuss below if necessary.

Support for it remaining part of this page

• There is little new information about the band, separate from its shared history with Asia, as yet to warrant a separate article.
• There is a huge amount of overlapping history between the two projects, that would inevitably be redundant if made separate pages
• To avoid confusion, as the situation inevitably creates, the article should make clear that there are two bands claiming right to some form of the Asia name
• Several other bands have had spin-off incarnations using the name in such a confusing manner. Examples that include both bands on the same page include "Starship featuring Mickey Thomas" and "Herman's Hermits featuring Peter Noone"
• Further support of the idea of overlapping history is the fact that each official site splits up the full "Asia" discography between them, almost in a revisionist manner. The "Reunion" Asia site shows only albums from Asia's early history, skipping all of the John Payne era's albums, and continuing with the "Fantasia" live collection from the reunited band. Likewise, the AFJP offical site includes the omitted discrography. The logical conclusion is that both bands acknowledge the idea that the era of "Asia" which featured John Payne, is not "Asia", and is in fact the entity now know as "Asia Featuring John Payne." If it were as simple as being a "spin-off" band this would not be the case. (point added by Shubopshadangalang (talk) 23:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC))

Support for creating a separate page and removing it from this one

• The article should literally only be about one band, "Asia" and regardless of shared history or continutity, any separate band using any part of the name, should warrant a separate page.
• Example: Wishbone Ash / Martin Turner's Wishbone Ash (added by Shubopshadangalang (talk) 18:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC) per User:156.34.142.110

If your comments are not referenced below, please add them. If your comments are referenced, please adjust as necessary to reflect your position.

Editors who are in favour of keeping AFJP part of this page (at least for now):

• Shubopshadangalang (talk) 15:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Bondegezou (talk)
• User:philosopher2king 15:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 18:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• FotoPhest (talk) 02:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Editors who are in favour of immediately creating a separate page for AFJP (and removing all but a brief reference from this page):

• Barek: per comments from above discussions: "after reading more of the band's history, I also support splitting this article into two separate articles; one for Asia (band) and one for Asia Featuring John Payne. They are clearly two distinct bands, and should have their own individual articles" -- summary added by Shubopshadangalang (talk) 18:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• As already stated numerous times above... see Wishbone Ash/Martin Turner's Wishbone Ash. 156.34.142.110 (talk) 18:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Editors who are neutral on this issue

Discussion if necessary below:

• While the reunion band have released a live album and DVD, gone on a world tour, are about to go on a second world tour and release a new studio album, Asia Featuring John Payne has yet to really do anything. There has been one live album released of a line-up who were simply billed as "Asia" when they played, and there have been announcements about future planned work. AFJP would struggle to meet WP:BAND's notability criteria. As such, for now, I would argue against a separate article and, moreover, I don't think AFJP even warrants equal billing on this article. That said, they do warrant some description and, as above, I favour retaining a link to AFJP's official webpage. Should AFJP move forward with releases and live work, then that would change matters. Bondegezou (talk) 15:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• It would appear we have a consensus to keep them both on the page for now. I feel much stronger about this now, due to the "split discography" situation, as the article helps to avoid confusion, and actually represents a true history of the band (whereas the bands themselves are each participating in a revisionist history effort to a degree). --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 17:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

External links.

Just passing by, but here's what I think about the above discussion:

• The Official Asia Featuring John Payne site: Should be included. If it's "the official site" (confirmed by the band--which I understand it is), it belongs in the EL section.
• The Official MySpace: MySpace is generally not included, per WP:EL, unless there isn't a better alternative; in this case, I think the above link is a better choice link already in the article is a better choice.^{Thanks for clarifying Bondegezou.}.
• Blacklisted link: This should not be included under any circumstances; Hu12 summed it up far better than I can here. Don't even bother discussing this site anymore; not sure why I'm mentioning it, actually... · AndonicO ^Hail! 00:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
• your comment is bias and holds no merit as we see the evidence on AB's talk page...AP You stated "I agree with the article protection, but if the talk page is protected, the editing dispute can't be solved. I'll keep an eye on the page to watch for any trolling, if you agree to unprotect it. · AndonicO Hail! 00:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC") —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.167.100.82 (talk) 70.167.100.82 (talk)AP

Because the "ASIA prez" is. And to the "ASIA prez", please stop discussing the link, it won't bring you fortune, and you won't be indexed by Google. We don't want to fight anymore. If you do however, expect these to your ISP and this at a IRC channel. (Yes, I offer third opinions.) —BoL 00:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, block a user if need be, file abuse reports if that's necessary... but I don't see why this has an effect on whether the link itself should continue to be excluded from the article. If we're being reasonable about the validity of the link (which has been demonstrated in above discussion) then all we should be concerned with now is whether or not it's appropriate to the article. After all, that's what Wikipedia is for, right? And that's what we should be talking about here. - Shubopshadangalang (talk) 23:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The link has already been deemed inappropriate: there is no need for further discussion, as it would be a waste of time. · AndonicO ^Hail! 19:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

AndonicO, www.theasiaband.com is not an alternative for the MySpace page as they are for different, rival bands, both using the Asia name. That said, the article already includes another official website for the band with the MySpace page. Otherwise, I second Shubopshadangalang's comments: the validity of an edit must be determined on its own merits, not as a way of punishing an editor. The Asia fan club link was in this article long before all this blew up: I was in favour of its inclusion then, as I am now, for the same reasons. Whatever the behaviour of "ASIA prez", it's an officially authorised website with useful content. Bondegezou (talk) 17:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

We are in our 8th year, our mission was to get the original band back together, and I had big part in that, we started on yahoo in 3/2000 moved to different places and ended up with our own domain and an authorized affiliate for the posting of all official ASIA related PR material. We have a proud history of keeping the Vintage ASIA flame burning when no hope was seen and was instumental in many ways, would anyone believe, friend or foe that we have been part of a long carried out spam project? As President of this proud movement, will not allow in anyway shape or form of any accusation of spam linked to this movement. I dedicate my own money in many ways and have never accepted or asked for one penny from day one. The fan club now shows up on google in the balcklist section of wiki. You think I'm just going to sit back and leave it like that? We have given away concert tickets, CD's, LP, DVD's, picture disks, Videos, ICON CD's, all at my cost. I am a respected affiliate of this band and have spent my own money for websites, add removals, photo LPs, chat rooms, SE programs, as a volenteer of this organization. I will NOT accept these spam accusations in any manner. This is a non profit movement70.167.100.82 (talk) 19:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)AP

I just moved the discussion about your site from the blacklist talk page to the archives, so the search result should be cleaned up when google next updates their index. The link is still on the blacklist, but I hope this will address your concerns about google results. - Ehheh (talk) 19:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

External links follow-up

Based on Bondegezou's references above, it would appear that the state of each of these is as follows:

• Asia Featuring John Payne (theasiaband.com) link - clear (apparent) consensus. Link should be re-added, as consistent with (apparent) consensus to keep AFJP part of this page. If ever consensus is reached to make it a separate page, the link should move with it.
• Asia Fan Club Site (asiafanclub.com) - dead heat among editors, and at last check, still blacklisted. in my view its validity has been clearly demonstrated and should be removed from the blacklist. but there's no consensus either way, and the power lies with administrators here.
• Asia's Official Myspace page - 2 in favor vs. 3 opposed - BUT all opposed have cited irrelevant policies as reasoning, and arguments against these policies remain unrefuted. Anyone have other comments?

--Shubopshadangalang (talk) 17:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I was invited to speak to this topic but I was away and have just now replied. I think your conclusions on how the opinions and consensus showed were biased where the consensus went opposite to your personal view with regards to the MySpace link. I believe that the official band link should be the only link on this page. Fair Deal (talk) 02:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Well it's your prerogative to feel that way, but as for the comment on the Myspace link, it's quite obvious to anyone who actually reads the comments made (and the policies cited) that they are, in fact, irrelevant to the subject at hand. This has nothing to do with any bias on my part. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 03:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:EL. No myspace links. PERIOD. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 21:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

See below Compwhizii, remove the John Payne my Space link if you say no my space links, there is a reason why I'm doing this, go ahead, be fair.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Payne_%28singer%2923:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)ASIApres —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.184.84 (talk)

Compwhizii- can you please either elaborate with some sort of policy if you're applying one here, or otherwise inform us as to how you are authorized to make an absolute decision in this matter? Thanks. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 01:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:EL is a guideline, not policy. More importantly, it clearly does not forbid all MySpace links. I'm sorry, Compwhizii, but that's simply not true. Please explain how you get that conclusion from WP:EL. Bondegezou (talk) 09:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess with a week gone by without a response from Compwhizii, I'm going to take that as a "No, Shubopshadangalang, I wasn't applying any Wikipedia policy, and I have no authority to say "No Myspace links. Period" so please proceed with the normal process of seeking consensus among editors of the article, and just ignore what I said" :) --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 04:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I was flabbergasted to see the amount of discussion that has ensued concerning both bands. While I wish there was consensus, I have to say I am excited there are others as passionate about this band as I am. I've added my name to those who wish to keep AFJP on this page. My argument is that JP does have a legal right to use the Asia name. In fact, I'm not completely sure he re-sold his stock to the Asia name to the original members (there are four and I believe he owns/ed 3/4). So, if JP can legally use the name -which he is as Architect of Time will be released under "Asia"- then it behooves us allow him to be featured in this page as an equal. Surely, Asia "Featuring John Payne" is a qualifier but the band is currently touring as the "Original Members of Asia", so theirs too is a qualified use of the Asia name. If he has a legal right to the name, then he has a right to be featured on this page. ---*philosopher2king 3/17/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philosopher2king (talk • contribs) 12:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I hope you guys are enjoying this.... you think it's over... I was banned for like 2 months for reason sock puppetry/being modrago, & the report came back that I wasn't him. Aside from being singled out as well. No my space links???????, There are a 58 million of them, how many other my space links were kicked off wiki in that time period? We all know what going on here guys, I been involed in this for 8 years, & if you think I'm going anywhere think again, real good. & to the above post, you speak out of ignorance, you & nobody on this page, who either worked on it or edited it ....has HALF the inside knowledge that I have on what is going on with this band. I had a conversations with the band about the situation, so don't talk about things that you don't have first hand knowledge of. I'm an authorized official news & pres release affiliate & you banned my site over an edit war because the other guy who wanted my site gone wrote administrators here & I didn't? I worked on about 20% of the article in the past....the words are my contributions in the article. OK---*

User:ASIA FAN CLUB, I am glad to see you now have a Wikipedia account. Remember to sign your contributions with four tildes. I remain of the opinion that your website should not have been blacklisted, should now be whitelisted and should be included in the article. I also remain of the opinion that the band's official MySpace page should be an external link too. I am glad to see you were cleared of being Mondrago and, as I've said before, am happy to accept your explanations of using multiple IPs for editing and for the different URLs for the fan club website. I can see how this entire process has been hugely frustrating for you. Wikipedia can move slowly and it's often two steps forwards, one step back. I can but recommend continued patience. I guess the appropriate way forward is to again see what opinion is among editors and then look at the whitelisting procedures. Bondegezou (talk) 16:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure who Asia Fan Club supposes is "enjoying this"... anyway, I'm still in favor of adding the fan club link. However, I don't think Asia Fan Club is going to get anywhere by requesting help from administrators, as many of them have clearly demonstrated here that they are very much against him as they intend to punish his previous editing behavior (i guess i should say "alleged"... whether cleared of or not, I fear they still are tainted by this, perhaps unfairly). For this reason, I think a neutral third party should organize that effort, to which others could add their support. I have neither the interest, time, nor know-how to get this started myself. As for the Myspace link, it seems pretty clear to me that it should be added back in, as no one has provided any legitimate reasons why it shouldn't. It's not blacklisted is it? But... for fear that it might start another war - if we include the "original asia" Myspace page, we should include a "AFJP" myspace page as well, assuming they have one, to be consistent with the article. Same goes for "official fan clubs" - if AFJP were to have an official Fan Club (?) then it should be added as well for fairness and consistency. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 17:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

No my space links? I ask hu12, and those that took part against me to go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Payne_%28singer%29 and remove the official my space link? There is a reason why I'm posting this. Go ahead? IF you say no my space links you will remove it and be fair, if not this points to a conspiracy!70.188.184.84 (talk) 23:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)AP I told you Shubopshadangalang, and all the others who said if there is a conspiracy gives us some facts. When they removed the ASIA featuring JP site, it was subterfuge, they knew it was going back. Now they say no my space links on wikipedia, OK, agreed that you can't go looking on wiki fpr every my space page for violations, but one was ponted out, hereit s , they don't hve to g look. They are supposed to be administators correcting violations, OK.... you didn't have to go looking, one was pointed out, go ahead, do your job hu12, do your job Compwhizii. You're making this very easy for me. AP70.188.184.84 (talk) 16:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you run that by me again in English? --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 17:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I been involved in this for 8 years, I know what went on here, I said this was a conspiracy, I was asked that if I had any proof of it to state may case, well here is my proof, they claim no my space links, so I pointed JP's official my space page and they are not removing it. When they removed the ASIA featuring JP site here on the ASIA page they only removed it to make it look like one era wasn't being picked on, they knew it was going back all the while, and it is, that is subterfuge. Now they are supposed to be administrators, and they said "no my space links", so the JP official my space link was pointed out to them on JP's wiki page, yet they won't remove it... now we see what it going on..THIS IS NOT OVER AND THEY ARE PROVING MY CASE...& the my space page is not my site, what it has in common is it IGNORES THE JP ERA!!!! They would remove the official reunion site if they could believe me.70.188.184.84 (talk) 20:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)AP70.188.184.84 (talk) 20:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Who is "they"? Do you envision all the administrators sitting in a room together making these decisions jointly? If there are inconsistencies, you should make efforts to correct them rather than screaming "conspiracy". I'm not sure what your main point is here. What difference does it make whether the Myspace page ignores John Payne's era? So does the official Asia page, and likewise, the official Asia Featuring John Payne page claims Payne-era "Asia" albums as their own, so there's all kinds of revisionist history going on. Please enlighten us as to your proposed solution. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 20:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

You have no idea where I'm coming from. They know what I mean. They said no my space links right? OK... I pointed out the JP my space link on his wiki page, why won't they remove it? He has the official JP my space link on that wiki page. They said no my space links. I know what I'm doing, I been invloved in this for over 8 years, no not all the administrators, I never said that, it's where it started & who they got to back them on this. They can't remove the official reunion site, because that is OFFICAILY-OFFICAIL, my site & the my space are "official affiliates" so they have some room to flex muscle. So they used the excuse of no fan clubs & no my space links. If this is not coming from the other era, why won't they remove the JP my space link? It was NOW pointed out to them & they said NO MY SPACE. I don't feel the JP my space link should be removed so I won't remove it...THEY SAID NO MY SPACE LINKS...WELL THEN GO AHEAD... BE FAIR...LET THEM REMOVE THE JP MY SPACE LINK FROM THE JP WIKI PAGE IF THEY ARE FAIR AND MEANT WHAT THEY SAID ABOUT NO MY SPACE LINKS. I been involved in a battle for a long time & I'm President for a reason, I know more about this than you think, please, let them respond70.188.184.84 (talk) 21:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)AP

For one thing, any editor can remove the link. Have you already removed it only to have your edit reverted? It almost sounds like you're saying that the administrators are John Payne fans and are therefore conspiring against you because you represent the other Asia "era". Also, it's "Myspace" - not "my space". I don't understand why you're battling against the Myspace issue - that doesn't really seem relevant the fan club site issue, if that's what you're still crusading about. Are you suggesting that your fan club site should be listed because the administrators aren't consistent with their removal of Myspace links? There's never been any clear policy cited for the removal of those. Compwhizzy just pops on from time to time and says "no Myspace links" without any policy support - so, yes, they are very inconsistent with this. I don't see how that helps your case, though. Can you clarify? --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 21:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Has nothing to do with my link...I will clarify later... let me get back to the Masters for now! You're almost there!70.188.184.84 (talk) 22:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)AP

please, please, please tell me you're talking about golf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.193.27.158 (talk) 23:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice try U---- yours!!!!

I think if there's a valid Myspace link for AFJP it should be on THIS page, not the John Payne (singer) page. "Asia Featuring John Payne" is a band that John Payne is in, just like "Asia" is a band that Geoff Downes is in. Both respective individual pages should link to the band's wiki pages, not directly to their band's Myspace pages. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 00:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

A question was asked on hu12 page as to why john paynes official myspace link was not removed, hu12 responded that it fell under the except clause of the wiki policy, so if the john payne's official myspace page is relavant on john payne's wiki page, how come asia's official myspace page is banned from asia's wiki page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.238.124.230 (talk) 15:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not banned. This discussion has gone in circles about it, and no valid reason has been presented why it shouldn't be included. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 17:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I just added the Myspace links to this article. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 17:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.19.202.41 (talk) 18:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Can I please ask hu12 and other administrators why there are fan clubs listed on tom pettys wikipedia page external links section and barry manilows wikipedia external links section? If administrators are supposed to do their job they will remove violations when they are pointed out to them, as the Authorized ASIA Fan club was removed for reasons that fan clubs are not to be included. If so there are 2 voilations here. With respect I ask you to please remove the violations or please reinstate the ASIA Fan Club link to the ASIA wikipedia page that was part of this article for a long time! Hu12 pointed the except clause for the inclusion of the JP official myspace link on JP's wiki page, would not the asia's authorized fan club fall under the same clause? It appears to for tom petty and barry manilow. Thank you very much.

Respectfully yours.

Discussion elsewhere

• There is a relevant statement at User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Is there any justice left? Is this a fashi?. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

This comment does not seem related to the above

There is only one Asia. The original lineup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wetton82 (talk • contribs) 2008-04-08T03:06:34

That is your opinion. John Payne has more Asia studio and live albums under his belt than Wetton. This is a legal as well as a fan fact. Philosopher2king (talk) 03:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Users banned from discussion?

The user known as "AP" or "Asia President" (aka 66.19.201.195, 66.19.202.41, 4.238.124.230) has apparently been banned (or blocked?) from this discussion, through October, with his recent comments deleted, according to his post on my user talk page, on grounds of "trolling". Unless I'm missing something, that seems completely unfounded. The issue about the fan club site was 4 in favor, 5 against according the above post - hardly a dead issue. Either way, "trolling" would be an effort to intentionally disrupt things - not the same thing as standing by your argument, while being overly wordy and slightly annoying. You can't ban somebody for being a little irritating. Can someone involved please clarify this situation? Since it pertains to this talk page, everyone has a right to know the reasons for it. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 04:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't claim true involvement in this situation. I can however explain my reasoning behind the block. The blocked user, or yourself may request an unblocking, if you feel it unjust. I noticed the rant while on rc patrol and investigated both the users contribs, talk page, and block history. He's been warned for making legal threats, he's been blocked for spam, 3RR (twice) and blocked for being a sockpuppet. It appeared he was causing trouble to me, and was stirring up a discussion which I thought was disruptive and trollish. If I'm mistaken in my assessment I'll reverse the block with a noted apology in the log, and the user's talk page. But from what I saw he was not here to contribute constructively. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 06:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Mr. KnowledgeOfSelf, this is the ASIA Fan Club president, yes I banned for sockpuppet, but the evidence showed I was falsely banned for 2 months for that, here is the OFFICIAL investigation report that cleared me of that, there is no rule that one has to use the same PC throughout the day,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Mondrago sockpuppet means to pretend to be someone else, I never did. The 3rr rule got me banned for 3 days, twice during that edit war, so I paid the price for that then, The legal threat was way at the start of the heated edit war, I didn't know the rules then, so I read them and wiki mentions the withdrawal of the leagal threat, I did withdraw it as wiki says to do and I apologized a long time ago for that sir. Yesterday I made a post that described I was banned for 2 months for reason of sockpuppet/modrago, and I was not him. I was also falsely accused of COL, COL is Citing oneself, Financial, Legal antagonists, Self-promotion, (the ASIA Fan club does not promote the private or commercial interests of the editor) & it is not promote otherwise obscure individuals by pointing to their personal pages. Falsely accused of SPAM & other bogus charges that I explained above are false and were thrown out there just so the ASIA Fan Club is not inluded in the article. Even if they were true, & they are not, that is not judging the link on the merits of the wiki external guidelines policy, What I did wrong was lose my temper a long time ago and engaged in an edit war and I was banned for 3 days twice at that time, I am human, was banned for 3 days then and apologized for that. Since than I did not edit anything in the external links section, but wish to discuss this with those that oppose me in an adult type manner. This page was locked to grandfathered users for like 2 months, so I was unable to state my side here. The IP you banned was 70.188.184.84. Please reverse it, no hard feelings. Sincerely, 66.217.145.56 (talk)AP —Preceding comment was added at 10:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

While "AP" can be his own worst enemy, I second Shubopshadangalang's comments. Several of the past criticisms of AP's behaviour proved to be inaccurate or misunderstandings where we should assume good faith. AP is, as appropriate, discussing these comments on Talk pages rather than edit warring in article space. Bondegezou (talk) 11:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there a BAN somewhere here? Or are we talking about old BLOCKs? Or BLACKLISTing? I'm confused. — the Sidhekin (talk) 11:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a block, not a ban (people often confuse both). -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

And the block has expired? Hard to tell with these IP editors ... if not, his presence is block evasion, itself a blockable offense. But if it has expired, there should be no problem here; certainly no "banning" from discussion. Right? — the Sidhekin (talk) 12:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It hasn't expired but it has been lifted. Cheers. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 14:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, reading the logs of blocks and unblocks you've made seems to have cleared the fog in my head. Thanks!  :) — the Sidhekin (talk) 14:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Mr. KnowledgeOfSelf has reversed the block, thank you sir, I accept your apology on my page, I ask people to accept my apology for the past edit war as well, please feel free to evaluate what happened here and why, I'll be back to bring some issues to table after lunch. Thanks also to Shubopshadangalang & Bondegezou.70.188.184.84 (talk)AP —Preceding comment was added at 15:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Evaluate ASIA Fan Club Situation

I am guilty of being wordy, it's my personality, please bear with me. I was advised to bring these issues to the table, I ask neutral people to please join in with honesty, and not to be bias. What happened here at wikipedia is sort of like the blue code of silence that police go by, when they know an administrator made a call if it be bad or good, they don't got involved too much over-ride a decision. What we also have was a situation that was not fully understood by the administrators until such a time when the ASIA Fan Club was blacklisted. When this happened, it's was like an umpire that made his call, even when knows he was wrong, will not change his call. So we have that coupled with those who wish not over turn another administrators decision. I will summarize briefly.

The ASIA Fan club was part of the article for a very long time, actually was #2 in the external links section. I noticed it was moved to #4, so I moved it back to the #2 slot where it had been for a while ( I was requesting a 1st in line should hold it's spot thing. A user with just an IP address not identifying themself in any manner, from Canada, removed the long time link. I replaced it back, after about 2 hours of going back and forth, this IP address then removed the myspace link. After another hour this IP address wrote certain administrators and told them I was adding spam to the article. The administrators thought they were acting accordingly to one adding spam. So they banned me twice for the edit war, and then blacklisted the site. They acted under the impression that I was adding something new that day. They now know that I did not add the link, I was replacing it, it was there for a long time, but they made their call before they got the entire story. What I should have done was not engage in the 4 hour long edit war, but should have wrote an administrator to say that someone is removing a long time link that was in the article. The IP address I was in the war with wrote administrators, beat me to the punch, twisted facts to make it sound like I was adding spam. Now that they know what happened, but after all hell had broken loose, and they wish not reverse their call. I stated this before as you can see above, and CIreland took my side and removed the site from the blacklist, he even tried to reinstate the link, but we couldn't understand why the warning was lighting up. Being told it was removed from the blacklist I added another page of the website until it cleared up. I was then accused trying to cleverly revert a blacklist site or something to that effect. That is not true. History proves it is not the case, you can see when I added that, I was told it was removed from the blacklist, I even mentioned what I did about the other link in the open until the glitch, which we thought it was, cleared, I was open about it and did nothing in hiding. See it here! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Asia_%28band%29#Fan_club_link_blacklisting What happened was as soon as he removed it from the blacklist, someone re-listed it, and we had no idea. Yesterday I asked hu12, about the myspace links, if they are not allowed, why is one on JP wiki page he responded "As much as I agree with you, AP, that wikipedia is not the place for Any myspace links (repeat...any!), it is an official page of the articles subject and John Payne's personal myspace —and isn't prohibited by restrictions on linking. Unfortunately john Payne official myspace does belong on his specific page (any other page would be inapropriate). See the External links policies first statement within Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided section.. ("Except..." )". So this is valid under the except clause. I agree. We were also told there is to be no fan clubs. However, there is one on Tom Pettys wiki page and one on Barry Manilows wiki page in the external links section. If mine was a violation and it was reported and removed, why are not these fan clubs removed from the external links section, I have officially reported them. I don't believe they should be removed, I'm making a point. Please be fair across the board and judge my link on the wiki policy, and treat the ASIA wiki page fairly like every other artists page and treat the ASIA authorized club like those of other artists on wikipedia. Based upon the wiki policy, the "except" clause that hu12 and Bondegezou agrees validates a link to be included in the external links section. Please judge my link fairly and honestly and address each point with reason as to it's relation with the wiki "except" clause for the inclusion of a link. 1. It must be from a an authorized source, and contain relavant material that would not normally be included in the wiki article. I provided the evidence that my site is a management authorized site and is in the official biography. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v71/Soles/ca1200_sm.jpg 2. It must contain such material such as reviews and interviews. If you go to Asiafanclub.com we have official interviews with band members that are not and would not be included in the wiki article. 3. I have a management authorized reviews that was sent to me by management for publication. See the Trump Marina Press Release on the main page! 4. We have exclusive news, such as the announced Carl Palmer interview today on New Jersey's Own Rock Radio - 105.5FM) only I announced this! This was important for ASIA fans, ask yourself, are you hurting ASIA fans by withholding this information from wikipedia readers? 5. We had an exclusive live chat in the fall of 06 with John Wetton & Geoff Downes authorized by management, ask yourself, are you hurting ASIA fans by withholding this information from wikipedia readers? 6. We have exclusive professional photos that are authorized for my club that can't be found anywhere else that illustrate, what the ASIA article speaks of. Those photos can not be included in the article, remember, wiki says it must be relevant material that would not normally be included in the wiki article. Took a look at this example http://pub18.bravenet.com/photocenter/album.php?usernum=1471820109&album=49939 ask yourself, are you hurting ASIA fans by withholding this information from wikipedia readers? 7. We are a non profit authorized organization, we have given out at my cost, concert tickets, DVD's, rare videos, & two winners of the CD. Yea there were many misunderstandings, I did engage in an edit war and for that I apologize, I am human and lost my temper. It was proven as you see above I was not modrago, but was banned for 2 months for it. Ask yourself if this is relevant exclusive authorized material. If no fan clubs are allowed, then take the same action against those I reported as you did mine when it was reported. Thank you all for your time. A mistake was made here by false report and the twisting of facts, and actions were made after hell broke loose, now that we all caught our breath, look at everything for what it really is and what really happened. Please remove this site from the blacklist and put it back where it was for a long time, in the external links section. Let me go watch the Masters, I'll be back later! 70.188.184.84 (talk) 18:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)Sincerely, ASIA Pres.

"ASIA Pres" clearly has a personal interest in this manner. However, as I see it, the discussion about whether to include this link became wrongly personalised around AP's behaviour. Any edit on Wikipedia should be considered on its own merits and not be judged by who does or does not support it. As such, I will not comment on AP's position at all. Rather, I believe the Fan Club link should be reinstated. This is because the Fan Club has an official status and guidelines on external links strongly favour official links. The link is not spam, and thus I feel it should be un-blacklisted. Then I would support it being reinstated here. Bondegezou (talk) 22:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I am only commenting on AP's post above ... not on AP's past behavior not the value or lack of value with the discussed link. Specifically, before causing himself getting caught by using invalid argument, he should take a look at WP:OSE and WP:POINT. AP is arguing that his site should be evaluated on its own merits, while simultaneously arguing that it should remain because other site have similar (ie: not its own merits) - however, as the WP:OSE link above points out, that argument has in the past carried very little weight on WP. The second issue is the statement "I have officially reported them. I don't believe they should be removed, I'm making a point." - this is a very dangerous path to take if you want an argument to be taken seriously and do not wish to risk banning, as it's an admittance to making non-good faith requests to remove links to make a point - which is an issue under the WP:POINT guideline I linked above.

Before proceeding, I highly encourage AP to withdraw those requests wherever they were posted, not focus so much on comparing his site to if others are included, and to remain focused specifically on the policies WP:EL and WP:NOT and his arguments on how his site should be permitted under those policies. If you want it to be judged on its own merits (which is a method with which I agree), then all parties should do so, starting first with AP, so that others can follow suite and do the same without the distractions of other issues. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I withdraw that, I just said it the wrong way, I just don't want this band being treated different than any other artists, we caught a lot bad breaks throughout the years, I'm sorry, I just said it wrong!70.188.184.84 (talk) 23:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)AP

To address the WP:EL and WP:NOT and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOT

Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, Wikipedia is not a dictionary The ASIA Fan club is not fall under the above.

Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought Wikipedia is not a soapbox

( The ASIA Fan club is not self promoted but receives it's news, reviews, photos, banners, etc. from authorized management, ASIA is not an original thought but an authorized resource listed in the official biography.

Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files.

The ASIA Fan club is not a" Mere" collections of photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles.

Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, social networking, or memorial site

The ASIA fan club is not a Personal web page, file storage area, Dating service or memorial.

Wikipedia is not a directory for such as repositories of loosely associated topics , Genealogical entries or phonebook entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business, Sales catalogs, Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, such as "People from ethnic/cultural/religious group X employed by organization Y" or "Restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y".

The ASIA Fan club is not fall under that as well.

Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook, Instruction manuals. Travel guides. Internet guides, Textbooks and annotated texts.

The ASIA Fan club is not fall under the above as well.

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All of our announcements such as chats concerts and radio interviews are verified authorized events!

The ASIA Fan club is not fall under that as well.

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information such as Plot summaries. Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories, Lyrics databases. Statistics. Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles.

The ASIA Fan club is not fall under that as well

News reports. Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own. Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic.

The ASIA Fan club is not tabloid journalism and it's news is from the official press release source and it is in proportion to their importance to the overall topic.

Wikipedia is not censored this is describing that some wiki material may be offensive to some readers.

This it is irrelevant to the ASIA Fan club as well as the rest of the page that simply describes Wikipedia is not a democracy, bureaucracy, battleground, anarchy.

Wikipedia is not your web host / Many of the content restrictions listed above apply to your user page as well. Your user page is not a personal homepage, nor is it a blog

I do not use my wiki home page as my personal homepage or blog.

As to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:EL

What should be linked

Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.

Once again this falls under what should be linked " If you go to Asiafanclub.com we have official interviews with band members that are not and would not be included in the wiki article. 3. I have a management authorized reviews that was sent to me by management for publication. See the Trump Marina Press Release on the main page! 4. We have exclusive news, such as the announced Carl Palmer interview today on New Jersey's Own Rock Radio - 105.5FM) only I announced this! This was important for ASIA fans, ask yourself, are you hurting ASIA fans by withholding this information from wikipedia readers? 5. We had an exclusive live chat in the fall of 06 with John Wetton & Geoff Downes authorized by management, ask yourself, are you hurting ASIA fans by withholding this information from wikipedia readers? 6. We have exclusive professional photos that are authorized for my club that can't be found anywhere else that illustrate, what the ASIA article speaks of. Those photos can not be included in the article, remember, wiki says it must be relevant material that would not normally be included in the wiki article. Took a look at this example http://pub18.bravenet.com/photocenter/album.php?usernum=1471820109&album=49939 ask yourself, are you hurting ASIA fans by withholding this information from wikipedia readers? " We are as wiki states "a recognized authority, being authorized to report and distribute official logos, photos and official reviews and interviews.70.188.184.84 (talk) 01:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)AP

This sounds pretty cut and dry. The site seems to fit within all criteria for inclusion. And, again, looking at the value of the content for the article only - not the past behavior of the user requesting it. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 06:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

A lot of wiki asministrators rush block & ban, & a lot of people deserve it, so don't get me wrong, but is one going to read this step in & remove this from the blacklist? Like the other day, someone from out of the abyss out of nowhere from left field rushed here to ban me until October, that's all straightened out now, but you see my point here, is that what administrators feel that is what they are here for? To rush somewhere ban /block & receive stars for being spam fighters? No one rushes to correct something so fast when a mistake was made on faulty information & the twisting of facts on what happened that day and what triggered it. A case was clearly presented here, with the entire story based in fact with the history on the page to prove it, and an explained detailed list of the wiki policy on external links. Some administator should do what is right since it was obvious that this site was blacklisted without knowing the entire story of what happened, they were under the impression that I was some spammer trying to add a new link spam link that day. I don't see them jumping in a heart beat to correct this, and deep down in their heart they know what happened here. Someone needs to do what's right. Please, you have the entire story, I admitted fault for the edit war, I messed up there and apologized, the link was there for a long time for a reason, because it belong there! An umpire doesn't change his call and say to the manager, "you're right he was safe" this is what we have here. Please, someone step in & do whats right if you really feel it's right, and you know it is. Have a good day.70.188.184.84 (talk) 10:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)AP

Yes, I'd say it could take a little bit of time. You've made your case very clearly here, and you have the support of several editors, so I'd say the best thing you can do is wait. I'm not sure what else you can do other than pester a few administrator level people to fight for un-blacklisting the link, but I'm not sure if that's appropriate. Anyone know what the best course of action is for that? --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 21:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

They'll say I'm trolling & ban for me for 4-6 months. Like I said, I'm not painting ALL the wiki administrators with a broad brush, but it seems like they're not concerned with correcting a wrong, they run to ban/block, but this, they know I'm right, but is someone going to step up & do the right thing? This may set a precident of what is important to them in the publics view, is it anything other than spam watch/and to ban & block? Some of them read this today and so did many other people who are just watching this, will someone step up & do the right thing? What are they afriad of. You know what would have happened if a teacher said in a school in the USSR many years ago that they thought capitalism was really better system? They would be shipped off to Siberia if they were lucky. 70.188.184.84 (talk) 23:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)AP

Ok. But wait (and by wait, I mean more than a couple hours) and allow time for someone to do so. Generalizing about administrators' supposed biased behavior (even though you say "not painting all...") is not going to help either. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 05:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

There was one here that un-blacklisted it once before, so I know there are some out there that want to straighten out a wrong & make it right, but I can't help noticing that they're main concern is to ban block and label something as spam, for instance, you reinstated the official my space link (that was removed by the same phantom ip address the same day my link was removed), that was the right thing to do, did they run to do that after that case was presented after it was wrongly removed? No, you did it, I say it like it is my man. Like I said they'll run here in a heartbeat from the other side of the uninverse in worp speed to ban someone for a few months in heartbeat though. No they're not all just concerned with that, I'm waiting for the ones that will stand for the truth and do what 's right, (I know they're out there) despite they won't recieve any spam fighting stars for correcting what went wrong here.70.188.184.84 (talk) 10:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)AP

Guys come on by now, we have ASIA live webcast concert at the AsiaFAnClub.com, Enjoy the concert!70.188.184.84 (talk) 23:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)AP

Just to let everyone know I requested that the club be removed from the blacklist and my request was deleted... see the history here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist&action=history

My ip is 70.188.184.84, hu12 & AB was there in a heartbeat so no one can else can see it!70.188.184.84 (talk) 00:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)AP

Deleting your request is completely unwarranted. If they still have legitimate reasons for blacklisting the link (regardless of the user who is requesting it!!) then they need to respond as such, not sweep it under the carpet. Anyway, I undid the deletion, so it's back on there now, and should hopefully be addressed. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 01:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Because they know the facts are clear, they wish no other administrators see them. Thank you, I'm glad everyone is seeing this!70.188.184.84 (talk) 01:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)AP

hu12 and AB won't allow an unbias opinion, they are judging the link on my actions and not on the wiki external guidelines policy... go there & see for yourself!http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#Request_asiafanclub_dot_com_to_be_removed_from_blacklist70.188.184.84 (talk) 02:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)AP

And.... it's been declined. Again. Move on. seicer | talk | contribs 04:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course by the same administrator HU12, who first deleted my request, it doesn't end there, sorry70.188.184.84 (talk) 04:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Do yourself a favor and quit while you're behind. Enigma ^message Review 05:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The user has been blocked for quite a while, and any new meatpuppets will be blocked immediately, with little or no warning. See WP:AN#Community ban of self proclaimed "Asia Fan Club President". seicer | talk | contribs 05:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

So, block the user... who cares? This is about a link. Two entirely separate issues. The link needs to be un-blacklisted. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 14:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

No, they are not. And if you want to appeal the blacklisting, then you can wander on over to WP:SBL. seicer | talk | contribs 15:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Really? I'm sorry, I thought this was an encyclopedia. You know, where we consider content on its own merits. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 15:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

That's what we're supposed to do. Not quite the same thing. — the Sidhekin (talk) 16:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we can put this fan club row to bed, because the site has since been shut down. There doesn't appear to be a fan club or fan club site, official or unofficial, at this time. Either way, if the fan club was authorised by the band and/or their management, I don't see why it couldn't be in the links, though policy says this is not a links directory. FotoPhest (talk) 02:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Update: Cultural Reference

Greetings,

Wasn't sure how to go about doing this since I apparently couldn't just update the main page (only other wikipedia I've contributed to I had full access), but I saw Asia recently so I thought I'd check out the page. Anyway, back in 1992 I recall watching the Summer Olympics and hearing the intro to "Summer Can't Last Too Long" from the Then and Now album. I believe it was played as the coverage was cutting to a commercial break (or possibly coming back from one), but I can't be sure. I don't know whether or not anyone else can confirm this, but it certainly happened. Anyone else remember this?

Kryllith (talk) 21:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It wouldn't surprise me, Kryllith. Around that same time there was Mexican teenage soap opera called "Alcanzar una Estrella" (To Reach a Star) starring a young Ricky Martin, among other people- and every time they cut to commercial they would play the intro of one of the "Now" side songs. I sat through the credits a few times but the band was never mentioned. For that matter, when Cartman (and the entire "US Congress") sang Heat of the Moment in a South Park episode, the band wasn't credited either! I call shenanigans on them! : ) Philosopher2king (talk) 04:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)philosopher2king

Setlist

"The Four Original Members of Asia" quote: ...The setlist featured most of the first album as well as a couple of songs from the second..." The truth is, that they didn't do only most of the first album, but the complete album (9 tracks), adding also the 7" b-side "Ride Easy", which was not even feat. on the album. Herb66 (talk) 13:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Herb, it was a bonus track on the UK tape according to the live DVD interview, but no other stand-alone editions. Sposato (talk) 22:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Phil Manzanera

Phil Manzanera's placement is not shown in the personnel section. Thanks --Charles1957B (talk) 05:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Charles, he was never in Asia. He has been in Roxy with John Wetton once and they did a couple other albums, but that's before and outside Asia. Sposato (talk) 22:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

GOLD

Asia's release "Gold" is not listed or discussed. It is excellent. Thanks --Charles1957B (talk) 05:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Charles, it's really just a reissue of Anthologia sans Old Man Dean's imagery, which itself puts all the Geffen material into one neat little package, and is the only Geffen release still in print as a CD in North America. Maybe there could be an article for Anthologia, and the Gold cover can be shown as an alternative cover. Universal have a habit of recycling a lot of their catalogue as much as possible to turn a quick buck. If you ask me, it'd just be overkill to make an article, if you want to, be my guest. Sposato (talk) 22:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Photos

I inserted photos of OA and AFJP that are Creative Commons licenced, as per Wikipedia policy. Sposato (talk) 22:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I saw only one photo, and it was only thumbnail size, so I enlarged it-- the one midway through the article, at 2006 or so. I didn't see another. Was there more than one? We still need a band photo for the infobox. --leahtwosaints (talk) 20:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

There was only a free image for the original lineup. There isn't one for Asia featuring John Payne. If you have one, do share it with us. If not, I'll take one if I can get to them. FotoPhest (talk) 00:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

AFJPs publicity reprsentatives Serge Entertainment have sent me an impromptu photo likely taken where they had a show that is also on a few other sites, and it has been uploaded with attribution. If my request couldn't be granted, I would have had to hold out for a show to come closer to me so I could take my own pictures and licence them to Creative Commons. FotoPhest (talk) 02:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Related Acts

Because both Greg Lake and Carl Palmer of ELP have or are playing in the band, shouldn't ELP be listed as one of the related artists/acts? The same goes for King Crimson, as John Wetton was a KC member and is now an Asia member, and since Greg Lake was also in KC. Krobertj (talk) 13:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

There is, somewhere, guidance on what goes under Related Acts. I think it requires two common members... so you're right! Will go do that now. Bondegezou (talk) 11:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)