Dhmartens
Syntax-UK is a Hoax. Syntax Band is an American Band founded in 1982 by Doug Martens, Eric Martens, Dale Beggs, and Greg Shore in Des Moines Iowa. and can be found at www.syntaxband.com and on iTunes. There can be no other legitimate Syntax because of the Trademarks. Please verify the song "Pride" is by "Pride" the song "Destiny" is by "Destiny" and the song "Bliss is by "Bliss" Theire is no trailer on any of the shows listed that show "Syntax".
Pride/Destiny/Bliss are "Work Hire" and do not belong to "Syntax"
IMDB states (no mention of Syntax): Soundtrack (8 titles) 2008 Le juge est une femme (TV series) – Une vie dans l'ombre (2008) (performer: "Pride")
2007 The Invisible (performer: "Bliss")
2007 Law & Order: Criminal Intent (TV series) – Privilege (2007) (performer: "Pride" - uncredited)
2006 Bones (TV series) – The Woman in the Tunnel (2006) (performer: "Pride" - uncredited)
2006 Conviction (TV series) – Pilot (2006) (performer: "Destiny" Conviction theme)
2005 The Inside (TV series) – New Girl in Town (2005) (performer: "Bliss")
2004 Driv3r (Video Game) (writer: "Destiny" / performer: "Destiny")
2004 The O.C. (TV series) – The Proposal (2004) (performer: "Pride")
Hide Music Department (1 title) 2010 The Storyteller (short) (composer: theme music)
The Syntax article alleges "Destiny" In Time 2011 soundtrack, yet of the 25 songs it is not listed or included because it is a "work hire" song.
You would think a charting song would be included in the soundtrack.
http://www.songonlyrics.com/soundtracks/in-time-2011-soundtrack-list-tracklist.html
listing:
In Time (Original Motion Picture Soundtrack) 1. In Time Main Theme 2. Lost Century 3. Dawn in Dayton 4. The Cost Of Living 5. Mother Times Out 6. Zones of Time 7. Welcome to New Greenwich 8. Waking Up in Time 9. An Hour Ahead 10. Ocean 11. Abduction 12. Whatever We Have To 13. Mother’s Dress 14. Clock Watching 15. Sylvia Shoots 16. Backseat Love 17. Giving It Away 18. Rooftop Chase 19. You Saved My Life 20. Surrender 21. To Be Immortal 22. Leaving the Zone 23. In Time Choral Theme 24. There’s Still Time 25. In Time Main Theme (Orchestral)
Syntax-UK references to "Sony BMG" on the internet are false, the company does not exist.
There is no "Syntax" listed under any Sony artists
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Sony_BMG_Entertainment_artists#S
My conclusion unless evidence is presented otherwise is that "SYNTAX UK" is a Hoax http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_hoaxes_on_Wikipedia
July 2013 edit
Hello, I'm Amaury. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made with this edit to Syntax (band), because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Amaury (talk) 00:03, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
SYNTAX edit
It seems that you have a problem with the wiki page of the UK duo Syntax. They really exist and are notable. Otherwise they wouldn't have a wiki page for years.
I have their album Meccano Mind. You can find it on Amazon for example: http://www.amazon.com/Meccano-Mind-Syntax/dp/B0001FT2H6/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1373105505 They have a site here: http://www.syntax.uk.com/
It's not unusual to be more bands with the same name (see Oasis for example). But to be included on Wikipedia, these bands MUST BE NOTABLE. If there are 10 bands named Oasis, only the the most relevant (the UK rock band, an 80s English music group, a 70s American rock band) have a wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oasis_%28disambiguation%29 The American rock band was formed first, but they're not more relevant than the UK band.
Your American band is basically unknown and not notable. Instead hijacking the legit page of the UK Syntax, why not try to open a new page for the American band at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syntax_(US_band) ? Even if I bet it will be deleted...
| “ | Please verify the song "Pride" is by "Pride" the song "Destiny" is by "Destiny" and the song "Bliss is by "Bliss"". | ” |
It may be true, probably they have some problems with registering the name Syntax in the US because an obscure American band was first and wants to use this name until the end of time. Same problem for bands like The Charlatans and Suede.
| “ | There can be no other legitimate Syntax because of the Trademarks. | ” |
The UK duo probably have a trademark in the UK. It could be more bands with the same name (see my Oasis example). If there are trademark conflicts, these don't prevent the UK Syntax to have their page.
| “ | IMDB states (no mention of Syntax):... | ” |
IMDB could be edited by anyone. Does that make them 100% accurate? I guess no.
| “ | Syntax-UK references to "Sony BMG" on the internet are false, the company does not exist. There is no "Syntax" listed under any Sony artists
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Sony_BMG_Entertainment_artists#S |
” |
Do you realize that the link you posted is a wiki page, so editable by anyone? It's not here yet because nobody added it yet. See their Amazon page for Meccano Mind - Label: Sony Bmg Europe, ASIN: B0001FT2H6.
I recommend you to stop messing the page of the UK band if you don't want to be banned. This wiki page for the UK band existed for years. You saw it only few days ago? Deepblue1 (talk) 10:48, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
December 2020 edit
Hello, I'm Falcon Kirtaran. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Syntax (band), but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. FalconK (talk) 04:19, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Syntax (band) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. FalconK (talk) 04:42, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. —ScottyWong— 07:03, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Dhmartens (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am sorry I violated the rules and I have read the procedures to make the encyclopedia more accurate by using talk pages and seeking consensus among editors. I promise to not engage in a edit war. I will systematically prove every fact. Thank you for your consideration.
Decline reason:
We aren't interested in you systematically proving every fact. You don't seem to understand how Wikipedia works. Yamla (talk) 10:30, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.