Talk:Alex Day - Knowledge (XXG)

2119:

Also, the original caption wasn't "lying" - a pretty strong accusation, don't you think? - when it said that he was stepping out of the Tardis. He could have been stepping out of it, and stopped to have this photo taken - to mark the occasion. Or he could have been about to step into it. Or he could be just standing there - which is your interpretation. I don't think it's so clear, or so important, that it required changing the caption. Of course Knowledge (XXG) articles are not primarily humor pieces, but that doesn't mean they have to be humorless, especially when we're talking about the caption to a photo which itself is meant to be a bit humorous. I'm not saying your new caption has ruined the article. I just think it's better to discuss such changes before making them, unless we're talking about defamation or vandalism. It's more polite to discuss such style changes first, and it fits in better with the Knowledge (XXG) spirit of consensus. Contrast this with the change you made today, where you updated the fiveawesomeguys channel statistics. That was straight-forward and practically automatic. It was an excellent improvement to the article, and it required no discussion here. In any case, I would like to at least shorten the new caption by removing the Doctor Who part from it. We can leave your change from "stepping out" to "standing in front". If some reader doesn't know what a TARDIS is, notice that

3305:

would thus be considered more notable, but none of which are mentioned. Since this article has a problem of bloatedness I'd like to formally request its removal. (I also wouldn't consider the fiveawesomeguys channel, now defunct for four years, or the BBC Switch videos (also defunct) to be 'notable' but recognise how their view counts and reputation respectively might make them so.) EDIT: Just read the 'multiple issues template' section above and that's exactly what needs to happen. Can't someone just rewrite this so it says 'Alex Day is an unsigned musician who got to number 4 on Christmas Day 2011'? And then only include other information when it becomes absolutely necessary to detail that one fact; YouTube is necessary to explain how it happened, Chameleon Circuit/Sons Of Admirals possibly to illustrate prior attempts ... but that should be all.

3758:"Alex Day, one of the accused, has been a friend and housemate of mine for the last seven years, and during the period that I lived with Alex I did become aware of instances in which he’d cheated on his girlfriends. While this did make me very uncomfortable, the major regret I have about our relationship as friends is that I feel I was too lenient with him about what he was doing. We talked a few times about his cheating, and I let him know that it was something I disapproved of, but ultimately I left any further decisions up to him. I’m ashamed of this, in hindsight. I had urges to talk to his girlfriends about what was going on, but I never found the courage to do it personally. I didn’t want to spoil mine and Alex’s friendship, or our living situation, and so I let it slide. I never want to be that person again." 3072:

if I'm now to give it the benefit of the doubt that there is actually some notable material, I'd like to point out just how difficult it is for anyone to see any wheat amongst such a vast accumulation of chaff. No wonder it has attracted so many AfDs. The swathes of poorly supported and unsupported material and great list of overwhelmingly unreliable refs does the article no favours and screams out, whether rightly or wrongly, "fan site" or "vanity page". A sizeable bowel movement of the dubious material may result in a leaner, much smaller but more credible article that could finally convince me, and others, of its notability. This could have been done a long time ago and, if it had been, might have saved us all a lot of time repeatedly arguing about the merits or otherwise of the article.

2024:"It may be slanted towards recent events. Please edit this page to keep recent events in historical perspective." Much information has been added to the article since then, and the style and the structure of the writing has been improved to diminish the recentism-feel it had. Third, "The notability of this article's subject is in question." The issue of notability has been addressed in great length and detail on this discussion page, and there have been NO contributions to this discussion which have made ANY argument that the subject does not meet Knowledge (XXG) notability standards. The discussion has gone on for more than a month now. There seems to be a consensus that this subject is notable enough to merit an article. 1921:) and it says: "Do not delete factual information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer". and the infromation that i added is 100% factual , that's exacrtly what happened. i'd saved the links to alex's YT videos in my history, which is how i new them. dunno why he deleted them, youll have to ask him that. but hell tell you taht what i put was right. and i was just trying to add some trock info "to keep recent events in historical perspective", like it sais at the top of the page. and i think it makes more sense to mention how trock managed to get mentoined in issue 401 of DWM - atm, it just says that trock was mentioned in the letters page, but it doesnt say how it managhed to get there 3248: 2360:. This can be fixed. There are other sources we can cite. The question is whether we want to keep that information in this article at all, considering that Eddplant is mentioned only once, in passing, and is not the actual subject of the article. If we do want to keep the real-name information in the article, I am proposing that we update the citation, and then move his actual name out of the main text of the article, and into the footnote itself. Without objection, I would like to do this today or tomorrow, and then move on. It seems to me these are the options: 2950:"notable", as well as deplorable, is the deciding factor. Wiki isn't a site for fans/haters to pick and choose you gets an article. Usually it's the fans you start them in good faith but with lack of knowledge of how to use reliable sources, and the haters who AfD them in questionable faith who become savvy at the guidelines and decidedly wiki-lawyer them to death. Personally, I don't watch Alex, I simply don't like the AfD trolls - so given the choice, it's more amusing to counter their unproductive AfDs and watch them cry havoc about it. 778: 757: 4173:, especially since the BBC is generally seen as a good, impartial source. There are two sources, not one, both of which include quotes and information from other places such as Charlie. There are a lot of other places which prove the allegations, however are unreliable so can't be placed there (such as tumblr posts). Also, it's needed for article structure; the two paragraphs are related, but unrelated to the larger section, so surely they should be put in their own subsection? It looks better that way. -- 1937:

editor got published. As you said, letters were published because letters were sent, which is the usual way that sort of thing happens. Also, I think it's generally understood that musicians and other performers promote themselves and their careers, in various ways. I'm not sure it's really necessary to state that in the article, or document it. It more or less goes without saying, doesn't it? On the other hand, if some musician or performer had achieved some success

1014: 1134: 875: 993: 729: 667: 643: 299: 612: 3988: 3167: 3081:'s final comment in the Afd debate that "many people are arguing to keep on poor grounds and making personal attacks", I feel disinclined to touch it with a barge pole at the moment since I imagine the rigorous excisions I would execute would not be well received by the minority in the debate who seemed to drop the A of GF without a second thought. Please can the promised rescue commence? 72: 32: 1108: 1274: 4038: 3784: 3697: 1348:

on several television shows - as well as his YouTube popularity. I wouldn't overstress his YouTube work, because even without it, I think he would merit at least a small Knowledge (XXG) entry. I think the article contains ample citations supporting his notability. For that purpose, at this time, these twelve could be considered the strongest:

677: 3337:

Early life (include Chameleon Circuit here), and then Musical career with some sort of emphasis on his Mainstream success (getting a song in the top 10 UK charts as an unsigned artist). Maybe break out Media with YouTube and Television. I'm going to take a crack at cleaning this up in the next few days.

4168:

The allegations completely changed his career and life; it led to a gap in content from him, a huge loss in fanbase, his deleting of his channel, and if you search for his name on Google, the vast majority of links are referencing the allegations. They are pretty much attached to him now. Therefore,

3336:

page) and a lot of the material in Media and Television needs reliable sources or should probably be deleted. Reading the above talk page, it looks like a lot of this was included to avoid deletion. It's probably mostly redundant now. I think this page makes more sense with a structure something like

2677:

I propose that we reduce the number of sources that are cited to a maximum of about four, and keep the ones that are most notable. The Drowned in Sound one definitely needs to go, as it's apparently not very well sourced (apologies, I think it was me who added that one), and the Digital Spy review is

1936:

I didn't remove that info because it was false. I removed it because, without proper citations, there's no way to know whether it's true or false. You'll notice that I left the one assertion that seemed to be properly supported. I doubt there will be any real problem understanding how a letter to the

1500:

I think it would be a mistake to remove an article that thousands of people expect to find here. Along those lines, I wonder if we could determine how many people actually have come to Knowledge (XXG) looking for an article about Alex Day. Could we find out how many searches there have been for terms

3304:

I'm consistently trying to remove the line under 'other video projects' about Day's interview on the CheekTV YouTube channel. It's one video, not a 'project', just shy of 60,000 views; I could name hundreds of other videos in which Day has a prominent role, all of which have more views than this and

3071:

Now that this article, for the first time, has survived the latest in a long series of AfDs I'd like to voice my support that it is in desperate need of overhaul. Speaking as someone who has nominated the article for deletion in the past and maintained my support for that position in the latest AfD,

2194:

All very good and it needed to be added, but I can't help but think the bit about the song being available on iTunes and viewable on Youtube would come across as a bit of an advertisement. I reckon the YT video could be added to the external links, but I think a link to the iTunes page doesn't agree

1347:

As for the notability issue, I'm having a hard time getting a clear idea of what has to be shown in the article. I think Alex Day's claim to notability is based on his leading role in the Trock movement, his invention of the very term for that genre, his release of several albums and his appearances

4201:

Thanks for replying. I agree, it does tidy up the article and will be willing to see it return. However, is it possible the overall wording of this section could be reviewed? I feel as if it leans more toward the side of the allegations are absolutely true, rather than currently unfounded. Examples

3202:

However, there do seem to be general problems with neutrality of this article and its promotional nature suggests this should be completely re-written, or at least unlocked to prevent its current over-egged status from continuing, given that it seems to have already been subject to complaints and a

2102:

It is my understanding that Knowledge (XXG) pages aren't supposed to be humorous, they are supposed to be informative. The new caption is not silly. It tells you exactly what is happening in the picture. I put the Doctor Who part in because some may not be well-versed in the show. I admit that that

2023:

This article has been tagged for multiple issues since day 2 of its existence. Three specific objections were raised. First, "Its external links may not comply with Knowledge (XXG)'s content policies or guidelines." That issue was resolved immediately by removing most of the external links. Second,

1497:

This is not a factor that should be used to waive the notability guidelines. But it is one of the questions that could be asked to help decide whether a person is notable. If thousands of people come here expecting to find an article about someone, that in itself is some indication that this person

3376:

Just reminding any newcomers that YouTuber relationship status' are strictly trivial and should only be put in the article should there be a 'personal life' section. Since Alex Day currently does not have this section, can we refrain from any updates on the singer's relationships, truthful or not.

3224:

song. A genre is a "form of music" - The Timelords didn't create a genre.. they didn't pursue a culture of Dr Who related music. They wrote one song. Day, and others, have create a culture of Dr Who music, and bands focused purely on Dr Who. Your argument makes a point, but it is inaccurate. Trock

3194:

The article states that "Day is the creator of the music genre "Trock"... music written about or inspired by the popular BBC sci-fi television series Doctor Who." However, a group called The Timelords (KLF under a pseudonym) had a number one single, 'Doctorin' the Tardis' in 1988, before Alex Day

2857:

Alex Day has, on two occasions, disclosed that he dislikes referring to professionals by their last names (www.alexdaymusic.com/blog). Should we change all the "Day" references to "Alex" for his and some o his followers' personal satisfaction, or just stick to the rules of the website and not take

2414:

info in the footnote, while also updating that footnote itself, since the previous source had been changed to remove the relevant information. I also made a number of purely formal edits to the article and one substantive edit concerning the release date of "Here Comes My Baby", which according to

2156:

Well, that makes sense. You make a good point, actually. I usually resist the temptation to make purely stylistic changes to articles, since they tend to turn into edit wars or interminable arguments with lots of hurt feelings. But it's perfectly true. If someone doesn't like your change, they can

3636:

Day responded to the backlash by making the video "unlisted", saying "I’m not going to take the down because I don’t want to pretend this didn’t happen - running away from mistakes isn’t how you solve them - but I have made the video unlisted so you can only see it if you have the link. I think

2477:

I'm still not totally convinced that it's entirely appropriate to mention his surname in the article; is it encyclopedic and does it increase the reader's understanding of Alex Day to give Edd's full name? Then again, the footnote option seems like a good compromise, so I'm happy to leave it like

2250:

Once again, some anonymous IP from the U.K. did a drive-by edit and changed the name Ed Blann to Eddplant - without discussing the change, and probably without even looking at this discussion page. This is an encyclopedia, not a personal website. The mere fact that someone prefers their internet

2118:

Your change still calls it a TARDIS, when of course, it is not a TARDIS. It is an old London police box. There's no such thing as a TARDIS. A TARDIS is a fictional entity. And so, as far as I can tell, your new caption is just as humorous, or "silly" as the old caption - except that it's longer.

1941:

promoting themselves, that actually might be worth mentioning in an article. Bottom line: I was just trying to keep this article up to Knowledge (XXG) standards, which generally require assertions to be documented with proper citations. And by the way, I ran this past a very well-established and

1338:

I tried to smooth out the timeline to make it more balanced between recent and remote events. But frankly, we are writing about a 21-year-old here, and most of what he's accomplished could be considered recent. So that could be part of the problem. I think I could possibly add some historical

3823:

Expanding on my previous post, I'd like to point out that a large amount of the sources cited in this article go to web pages that no longer exist. As I'm fairly new to editing Knowledge (XXG), I'm not sure whether this is okay or not, but I've decided it's probably worth pointing them out.

3283:

Alex mentions in one of his videos that he didn't invent Trock, he merely thought up the name. I think that this is notable, because we don't want to take credit away from Trock artists prior to Alex. I think the album he put together ("Trock on") should be mentioned here too? He says in the

2949:

Your comment was 100% subjective: "deserves", "that great stuff", "less well-known". There's a big difference between your personal opinion, and Wiki guidelines on notability. I don't think several terrorists or religious extremists "deserve" Wiki articles - the fact that their behaviour is

2415:

the iTunes site was May 31, 2010, rather than the date we had in the article. I removed some internal Wiki links from the lead paragraph, all of which are repeated in the main body of the article, in order to clean it up and make it read more smoothly. Hope everyone's ok with these edits.

4129:

Why is this section so prominent in the article? The BBC is the only source and it seems to dictate unproven criminal activity by Day. I am not saying the man is innocent I am just wondering why the accusations cannot be filed simply under personal life. After all, there was no criminal

3047:

necessary to include that his girlfriend once wrote a song about him, that he was once interviewed on a channel called "CheekTV", or precisely how many channel views the fiveawesomeguys channel has? The quotation in the second paragraph is also far too long, and might be bordering on a

2474:, etc.), their stage names are how they are referred to. But then, of course, that's because they're notable enough to have Knowledge (XXG) biographies, so, if somebody really wanted to learn their legal name, they have somewhere that they could check. The same is not true for Eddplant. 3425:

These aren't the kind of sources that would justify including such material in the article. "Day admitted to having been, in the past, manipulative without realising it, but denied ever engaging in underage or non-consensual sex" isn't the sort of thing one can usefully add to a

3331:

Reading through the discussion on here, it looks like this article has a few problems. In the light of Alex's recent songs on the UK charts, the article looks like it spends too much time talking about Chameleon Circuit (the section on Alex's page is almost as long as the entire

3743:. This is due to a number of allegations made against Alex on Tumblr. Charlie admitted to only having as much information as everyone else and that his assumptions are based on that information, but he said that some allegations definitely appeared "more valid" than others. 2934:

I don't think Alex deserves an article. He just doesn't have enough of that great stuff which catapulted his friend Charlie into YouTube superstardom. He isn't as beneficial or as technically innovative as Charlie, either; his blogs are shorter, simpler and less well-known.

4015:

His book, it is not the first 270 copies that get signed. Quote from his own website "The first thousand physical books will be signed and hand-numbered; the first 270 will be given the name of one of the 270 London Underground stations." Just wanted to add that :)

3022:

that I feel that this article needs a complete restructure (and maybe even a complete rewrite) to bring it more to the level of a biographical encyclopaedia article rather than Alex Day's CV. I really feel that it needs to be set out something like: Early life -:

3519:

A lot of the references for the Life and Career section go to dftba.com, a website that has stopped selling his CDs and merchandise following the YouTube abuse scandal (at his own request) and so no longer has pages with information about him or his music.

3034:

etc. etc. so that it makes logical sense to an uninformed reader. I'm also not convinced by some of the references that are used in this article, e.g. Yow Yow, Chrisbookarama.com, Buzzfeed, MeFeedia, etc. etc. – what makes them reliable sources per

2998:

There seems an enthusiasm for adding information about "nermie army", which is fair enough. However, this really needs a reliable independent source. It's disputed (someone doesn't want it there), and unsourced. Don't edit war over it, please.

2521:

A couple of days ago I added to the article another example of the Chartjackers project being mentioned by the mainstream media. My concern is that this sentence is now looking rather long and a little unwieldy. It currently reads as follows:

4152:

I have removed the header for now, but left the personal life section at the top of the article. Unless someone can provide reason behind one source based on these claims is worthy of a headline, I will encourage the page should be left this

893: 2103:

phrase could be removed. Also, the old caption was lying, for he wasn't stepping out of the TARDIS but standing in its doorway. The new caption isn't perfect but I believe it is better than the old one. I hope this answers your concerns.

3356:

Hey, there anyone from the world of Tumblr. Could we please keep everything 'Cherimon' off the pages of Knowledge (XXG). I can see the humor in it, but a lot of people on here work hard to make this article clean and factual. Thank you.

2140:

OK, feel free. I apologise for thinking that it was not really that important a detail to discuss first. With things like that if anyone does take exception it can be discussed, but I didn't expect it to be contentious.

3284:

aforementioned video that the reason he compiled this album was that he wanted to raise awareness of the genre and Trock musicians other then Chameleon Circuit. Would anyone please add these edits too the page? Thanks.

3195:

was born. Regardless of the citation, or who invented the name (or when), Alex Day cannot be the creator of a musical genre that existed before he was born (unless he, himself, is capable of time travel). Please see:

2678:

cited earlier in the paragraph, so I don't think there's any need to mention it again. Tower Review and Mashable are probably the least notable of the remaining sources, so I suggest rewriting the sentence as follows:

1416:

A word of explanation has become necessary here. For some reason, some wonderful Knowledge (XXG) admin came along and started fixing problems in this article, especially in the footnotes. He's making them look like

3629:, including fellow YouTuber Megan Tonjes who's criticism was that the things that he said were "too real" to come across as satire, and were far too similar to the things larger-bodied people hear on a daily basis 3396:

There have recently been scandolous allegations of Alex Day on consent. They could be put under personal life or a new section in the article. While none of this is reputable yet, it may deserve some attention.

2461:

That said, this is still clearly quite a thorny issue. For one, Edd would clearly prefer that he was referred to by his stage name. In all other articles that mention performers who go under stage names (e.g.

257: 3225:

isn't really a genre anyway, it's a derivative - some of the songs produced by Trock bands are pop, some rock, some synth, etc. So it's a sub-genre which is based on a theme rather one particular sound.

3504:, but as with all biographies of living people, please don't add anything to the article on issues like this, without ironclad reliable sources which exactly reference the matters you wish to include. 4103: 87: 3101:

I'm gonna go ahead and clear up the pictures a bit. Sorry for all the removals but it makes the article look kind of messy when there's too many images around. Feel free to revert if you object :)

1674:

As a solo artist, as a member of Chameleon Circuit, as a member of ChartJackers, and as a member of Youstage, Alex Day has been the subject of numerous stories by independent and reliable sources.

1917:

i see that most of the stuff that i had added has been removed, becuase some of the links i used were 'dead'. i guess thats fair enuogh, but ive just checked out a wikipdeia page on the subject, (

1153: 3902:

I have noticed in the pages history that all mention of the sexual abuse allegations levied against Day have been removed I believe these should be reinstated with the following sources applied:

1485:

to find an article about him on Knowledge (XXG), and I think there should be an article on him. But if we take Aaron Kelly as the standard of notability, then I think Alex Day is notable enough.

3019: 548: 2898: 488: 4773: 2495:

EDIT: In any case, the name is currently written on the page as 'Ed Plant', which is 100% wrong, regardless of whether we're using the stage name 'eddplant' or the real name 'Ed Blann'.

3647:

Not sure how much of this can be used, but I feel a much more balanced viewpoint of this creator's work is needed, starting with the largest amount of criticism he received for a video.

3040: 3036: 1477:

contestant seems to have a Knowledge (XXG) article - and there are no objections to the notability of these people, even when their published notices are pretty thin. Take a look at

3582:

I added the 'hiatus' section at the same time, or just after, the sexual abuse allegations were released. It included a brief mention of why he was on hiatus, but you removed it. --

2979:

It says: "TARDIR were the first band to perform Doctor Who-inspired music" But what about The Time Lords' song, Doctoring the Tardis? I think that can be categorized as rock music.

2902: 1984: 591: 533: 3664:

This suggestion was made over a month ago- can we please get on this?? This wiki article has been accused of being deliberately biased in favour of day. Let's prove that wrong.

962: 828: 4768: 3495:- for example: "allegations are made about various people, Person X responds to the general concept behind the allegations, therefore the allegations must be about Person X." 1495:. Alex Day is a well-known personality, with hundreds of thousands of fans, and I'm sure many or most of them have come to Knowledge (XXG) looking for an article about him. 3402: 4793: 924: 818: 4663: 4659: 4645: 4501: 4497: 4483: 4399: 4323: 4319: 4305: 3739:

It should now be noted somewhere on the page (perhaps in the personal life section) that Charlie McDonnell released a statement on his official blog/website saying he

1635:

Alex day has been prolific on YouTube and made unique contributions such as his invention of the popular video vlog tag game and his readings of the Twilight novel.

2916: 1988: 596: 251: 4798: 4788: 3143:

The edit made by 81.97.54.247, claims that Alex's name is Alec, not Alex (with no citation too). As the article is semi-protected, I cannot undo the edit myself.

2839: 911: 794: 938: 907: 183: 4443: 4758: 3637:

that’s a good compromise between not risking more people being hurt by the content but also not trying to hide the mistake. I’ve also taken the ads off it."

1172: 2263:

concealed, at least raise the issue for discussion on this page first. This sort of edit by anonymous IP addresses with little or no other history of edits

1230: 949: 579:) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or 2894: 1168: 1064: 428: 2234:, and not their YouTube names. Ed Blann is not a mistake. It is the correct name. Please do not change it to eddplant. It begins to seem like vandalism. 2890: 1964: 695: 571: 323: 3879:

Of the remaining references, most of them appear to be reliable, however there do seem to be blog posts and other content that doesn't appear to match

4595: 785: 762: 4808: 2763: 2742: 2722: 2698: 2667: 2646: 2623: 2603: 2586: 2566: 2542: 1054: 4262:

after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add

2436:, and there is a recent archive of Ed Blann's last.fm profile before he removed his surname that could probably be used as a reference as follows: 189: 4783: 4763: 3052:. I think this article needs a lot of work done to it, and I wish all participating editors the very best of luck in improving it. Happy editing, 3746:

He also said he regretted not standing up to Alex more when it came to Alex repeatedly cheating on his girlfriends (which Charlie was aware of).

2337:

I'm hoping that the edit I made a few minutes ago will be acceptable to all. Let's not change it again without first discussing it here. Please.

2251:

alias does not mean that this article should be censored to conceal what is documented and known to be his actual name. All the other members of

699: 2174:

The WP system has its failings, and it can sometimes suffer from way too much bureaucracy. But hey, it's good on the whole! Take care yourself.

4778: 3061: 1591:

Alex Day has appeared on two popular BBC television shows, and appears regularly in significant roles on YouTube channels with wide viewership

4813: 4803: 3680: 3549: 1983:. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if there are other concerns about the biography of a living person, please report the issue to 1854: 1827: 1800: 1729: 1690: 2259:

to make an exception for Ed Blann, aka "eddplant". Kindly stop removing his actual name from this article - or if you think his actual name

2230:

In case someone else is tempted to change it, Ed Blann is the actual name of eddplant. The article lists the actual names of the members of

1671:

Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable.

1030: 4017: 3938: 3312: 2502: 1381: 1213: 1176: 134: 3403:

http://newmediarockstars.com/2014/03/alex-day-now-involved-in-sexual-misconduct-allegations-asked-to-be-pulled-from-dftba-records-as-well/

900: 4130:

investigation, no worldwide public scandal and no further sources other than the BBC articles on his departure and return from You Tube.

694:, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Knowledge (XXG)'s articles about people. All interested editors are invited to 106:. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see 3460: 3285: 1942:

respected Knowledge (XXG) editor, immediately. He agreed that the deletions were absolutely proper. Hope the weather's good in Glasgow.

2980: 2865: 1540:

I designed this table to help me perform a "notability check" on Alex Day. In addition, it may contribute something to the discussion.

703: 4400:

http://www.webcitation.org/65l6OWqbF?url=http%3A%2F%2Fhangout.altsounds.com%2Fnews%2F144047-alex-day-releases-single-lady-godiva.html

3617:

Under the header "Reception", it should also be noted that Day received widespread criticism from fans upon his release of the video

738: 690: 653: 648: 203: 4641:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

4579: 208: 124: 3915: 3542:

There really needs to be something about this added to the "Hiatus" section. That is the reason he's on this hiatus, after all.

1491:

so much that I decided to open a Knowledge (XXG) account (something I'd been meaning to do anyway) and write an article about him

1421:, instead of mere hyperlinks. I'm studying the changes, and learning a lot from them. But this means that the footnotes no longer 4107: 3491:

go beyond reliably sourced statements by alluding to criminality or any other specific wrongdoing. I'd also highlight risks like

2007: 1922: 148: 58: 3406: 1870:

The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.

1200: 1021: 998: 178: 3638: 3622: 1889: 1858: 1804: 1733: 1698: 1621: 1599: 1389: 2123:

is linked to the Knowledge (XXG) article that will explain what it is. What do you think? Would you have a problem with that?

1161: 1146: 918: 887: 623: 4623: 4427: 3268: 1751: 1694: 1677: 1594: 1365: 169: 4444:

https://web.archive.org/web/20110715105521/http://www.popjustice.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4212

2085:

This edit should not have been made without a discussion. Unless it is justified in this discussion, I'm going to undo it.

1714:

Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city

1385: 1029:

and related topics on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

1457:

When deciding whether a person merits a separate Knowledge (XXG) article, it might be useful to ask whether readers would

1785:

Is cited in reliable sources as being influential in style, technique, repertory or teaching in a particular music genre

4706: 4544: 4190: 4062: 3967: 3808: 3721: 3599: 272: 83: 4629: 4433: 1885: 1771:

Alex Day was a member of the ChartJackers group, whose single "I've Got Nothing" reached #36 on the UK singles chart.

1361: 4589: 4403: 1845: 1796: 1725: 1373: 239: 1686: 4596:

https://web.archive.org/web/20111221075952/http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL7CCC01B887254707&feature=plcp

4447: 3057: 3994: 3173: 1969: 1339:

perspective to the section about Trock music. But that risks creating an article within the article - although, a

580: 213: 4229: 4215: 4207: 4158: 4143: 4135: 3676: 3564:

Are you sure? I seem to remember the "Hiatus" section was in the article long before the allegations appeared. --

3382: 3362: 3106: 1748:

Alex Day has appeared on two different BBC television series, in many episodes over periods of weeks and months.

1588:

Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.

1425:

like those I've listed in the section above and in the Notability Matrix below - even though they do link to the

4662:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

4500:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

4322:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

1618:

Alex Day has a large YouTube viewership and subscriber base, and also has a following in the Trock music scene.

4021: 3934: 3553: 3435:

I've revised your section heading to something more neutral, per some guideline that deals with such things. --

3333: 3316: 2506: 1397: 1194: 629: 611: 3464: 3289: 1334:

I deleted most of the external links, keeping only two of them. I think that this problem has now been fixed.

4697: 4599: 4571: 4535: 4391: 3414: 3342: 2984: 2869: 1118: 3926: 3867: 3668: 3545: 3456: 3308: 2861: 2498: 2075:

Second, it is not obvious to me how the new, edited caption is any less "silly" than the original caption.

1995: 4225: 4211: 4203: 4154: 4139: 4131: 3950:

Not sure what you mean, the mentions of allegations are there for me? It's not been edited for a while. --

3888: 3854:

26. "Unsigned Alex Day single sells over 50k in a week – more than Coldplay". Retrieved 25 December 2011.

3672: 3569: 3533: 3525: 3440: 3378: 3358: 3210: 3102: 3004: 1987:. If you are connected to the subject of this article and need help with issues related to it, please see 1855:

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/tv/s7/doctorwho/tubetalk/a158350/introducing-trock-songs-about-doctor-who.html

1828:

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/tv/s7/doctorwho/tubetalk/a158350/introducing-trock-songs-about-doctor-who.html

1801:

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/tv/s7/doctorwho/tubetalk/a158350/introducing-trock-songs-about-doctor-who.html

1730:

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/tv/s7/doctorwho/tubetalk/a158350/introducing-trock-songs-about-doctor-who.html

1691:

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/tv/s7/doctorwho/tubetalk/a158350/introducing-trock-songs-about-doctor-who.html

1643: 1307: 1239: 233: 3930: 2157:

always bring it up for discussion. This Knowledge (XXG) system is a trip sometimes, isn't it? Take care.

159: 4740: 4726: 4681:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

4669: 4519:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

4507: 4361: 4341:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

4329: 4115: 3410: 3053: 2924: 2910: 2793: 2400: 2327: 2293: 2215: 2200: 2179: 2146: 2108: 1382:

http://www.digitalspy.com/tv/s7/doctorwho/tubetalk/a158350/introducing-trock-songs-about-doctor-who.html

793:

on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

4570:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 4390:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 4270:

to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

4224:

Actually, upon reviewing the section and sources itself, I see that the section is fine as it stands.

3910: 3749: 3479:

here is the BBC one, and nothing in that short report would support a subheader like the one I removed

2356:

I've been informed, and I've verified, that the citation used as the source for Eddplant's actual name

1881: 1357: 174: 4722: 4202:

of this include the You Tubers disregarding his apology and the qoutes used seemingly out of context.

777: 756: 4474: 4296: 3206: 3086: 2940: 2936: 2420: 2381: 2342: 2312: 2278: 2241: 2164: 2130: 2092: 2034: 2003: 1947: 1926: 1903: 1520: 1508: 1478: 1442: 1406: 590:. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to 229: 1183: 99: 44: 4275: 3836:

6. Holiday, Ryan. YouTube and Chart Sensation Alex Day the Future of Music?. Forbes. 12 June 2012.

3767: 3650: 3626: 3256: 2807: 2778: 2483: 1315: 265: 3398: 3771: 3654: 3509: 3338: 3262: 3227: 3118: 2952: 2078:

Third, the new caption is redundant. The concept of a Tardis includes the concept of Doctor Who.

1651: 594:.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see 4666:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

4580:

https://web.archive.org/web/20111011000945/http://dftba.com/product/ww/Soup-Sessions-Acoustic-CD

4504:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

4326:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

4170: 3492: 3484: 3144: 1980: 587: 279: 51:

on 2014-11-09. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see

4682: 4520: 4342: 3487:

was written for - while the issue may be notable enough for inclusion in a sentence or two, we

4257: 3916:

http://erikalynae.tumblr.com/post/79384577696/i-feel-like-there-should-be-a-collective-post-of

3884: 3565: 3529: 3521: 3436: 3000: 1745:

Has been the subject of a half-hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network

1314:

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |

155: 3501: 3407:

http://nyulocal.com/entertainment/2014/03/14/sexual-abuse-allegations-rock-youtube-community/

1207: 931: 4736: 4721:

Unclear what world record he tried to break with Stupid Stupid, as mentioned in the article

4357: 4185: 4111: 4057: 3962: 3803: 3716: 3621:. After the initial backlash, Day said on his official blog it was intended to be satirical 3594: 2920: 2906: 2789: 2682:

It was also reviewed, with varying degrees of approval, by various media outlets, including

2654: 2396: 2323: 2304: 2289: 2252: 2211: 2196: 2175: 2142: 2104: 1890: