Talk:Green Day/Archive 1

message: Sex pistols frontman Johnny Rotten (John Lydon) has lashed out at Green Day, accusing them of stealing the term "punk" and reducing the political movement associated with punk into a simple musical style. He says, according to Contactmusic: "try and tell me Green Day are punk. They Are Punk they're Not plonk and they're Alot Better then me or my band ever was. I think they are True Punks."
Referring to his band's battle with the police and censors during its heyday, Lydon adds, "The government's against you, the police are on you.
"So there we are fending off all that and it pisses me off that years later a wank outfit like Green Day hop in and nick all that and attach it to themselves.
"They didn't earn their wings to do that and if they were true punk they wouldn't look anything like they do."
Personally, I agree with Johnny Rotten here, mainly because he is definately classed as punk and was one of the pioneers of the punk rock movement
--202.7.190.131 09:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Johnny Rotten slams Greenday 

message: It said Berkely Calif on the page, I found this confusing as Billie Joe Armstrong announced on their Bullet in a Bible DVD, that "Were Green Day from Oakland California, but now England is official home of Green Day". If anyone needs it, I can lookup which song and timing he says it. Thats why I changed Berkely to Oakland. --Duey Finster 20:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He may have been talking about where they are from now, not where they originated. I was under the impression they started in Rodeo. -- Simpatico 05:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

text: It could be that Billy Joe said that because at the time they were in england. He may have ment they felt like they were home, being that it was there most profitable concert (the show sold out, twice). After a Yahoo! search I found this "It takes [Billie-Joe] every crowd-pleasing trick in the book to control a crowd of 60,000 plus, and he uses them all, several times. So we get shout-outs to "England!", which is now "the official home of Green Day" (which will no doubt come to a surprise to the other official homes of Green Day that the band visited on their European tour)." Which further proves he was giving the U.K. the same treatment as all the other countries in their tour, there was nothing "offical" about it. He was just pleasing the crowd. Making once again, Oakland California, the home of Green Day --Jeffspace2002 04:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Berkely or Oakland? 

message: I find the interpretation inacurate, wanting to focus in the war when the story is not of a "boy going to war like the video". The story is of a boy who is growing up in a country really mess up, fell the sadness, get to the bad influences (Jimmy) and the drugs (Novacaine), find a girl (Shes a rebel and Whatsername) and end in na office doing paper work, and other stuff. I would edit the article myself, but i'm not very good in english :(
Really messed up country? I think ur the one on "novacaine," bud. Don't insult my home. We may have some people in congress bsing us, but our nation is still the only superpower in the world and continues to flourish.
---Wikikrieg---
:That is exactly right sir, I am also pretty sure, when the album is bought, it provides an explanation. Green Day, also has provided this kind of explanation. --Mac Davis 08:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What's wrong with being a gay liberal? St. Jimmy 14:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  American Idiot interpretation 

message: TheoClarke edited this page to change verbs describing the actions of the band from plural to singular. This, however, is unnecessary and (in circles outside the US) considered to be incorrect. It is the equivalent of changing the spelling of "colour" to "color" and vice versa. Stellis 09:18, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologise for that. I reversed a change from what I thought was a correct usage to what I thought was an incorrect one. I did not know that this was another US-English/Commonwealth-English divide, although I would be surprised to find that I favour US-usage. Please put it down to error rather than nationalism. I remembered being taught (in England) that either plural or singular verbs could be used after collective nouns but that singular verbs were preferable where they applied to the subject as a single entity. For example, "The band is a rock group" and "The band were born in Greensboro" are both correct, whereas "The band was born in Greenboro" is incorrect (unless they were triplets). To my knowledge (and I can find nothing in the edit history that contradicts this), I changed just one word, once, so you may be confusing me with someone else who made other changes (although I could not find evidence of such changes on a quick look through). Strictly speaking, though, (and I had not considered this before) this article should be written in US-English since it concerns subject that is tightly coupled to the US. —Theo  (Talk) 13:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No harm done Stellis 23:43, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collective Noun Crash Course 

message: Moved to /Genre disputes#Green Day's Punk Disputes. psychomelo(discussion) 13:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Green Day's Punk Disputes 

message: *For the IP that edited the paragraph regarding GD's 2003 master tapes being related to "The Network": Sorry, but that sounds rather unlikely that a band could release an album using someone else's master tapes. The whole thing seemed kind of POV, so I excised it from the article. If you'd like to prove your case, feel free; I'm always open to being proven wrong. I think I might have proved myself wrong, and as such I'm going to *cough* attempt to hide the evidence. >_>Mo0[talk] 22:38, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The members of the band Green Day are all members of the band The Network. There are two additional members in The Network that are not members of Green Day. See The Network for more/correct details. Stellis 23:44, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Green Day In Disguise

message: User:67.67.132.59 wrote in the article "It has also been reported in print by the band members themselves that a principal at their school once made the comment that it would be a "green day" in hell before they amounted to anything." I cannot find any original citation of this although it is often repeated so I have made it anecdotal until we have verified the source. --Theo  (Talk) 14:55, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "green day in hell" 

message: Welcome to Paradise
Basket Case
Longview
When I Come Around
Geek Stink Breath
Stuck With Me
Brain Stew/Jaded
Hitchin' a Ride
Good Riddance (Time of Your Life)
Redundant
Minority
Warning (2000)
Warning (2001)
American Idiot [Platinum]
Boulevard of Broken Dreams [Triple Platinum]
Holiday [Gold]
Wake Me Up When September Ends
(Hi, Im just wondering, does anyone know the next single after Wake me up when September Ends?)
I think the single after WMUWSE is going to be Extraordinary Girl. It's been playing in my hometown and they hinted at it during their Dayton concert in October.
:Actually, Jesus of Suburbia just came out as a single. It also includes St. Jimmy, the "VH1 Storytellers" version.
Theo, I just added a few days ago what the US sales were since on Billboard.com they have a column called Ask Billboard where they sometimes release sales figures of album. I added them all to the regular album entries. Mind you, Dookie which is certified 10x platinum hasn't even sold 8 million copies yet, so you can see how the certifications can be misleading. Warning: has also sold 1 million units, but is actually still only certified gold (500,000 sales) as is International Superhits! which has actually sold 1.2 million. If you want to check out the certifications, go to www.riaa.com and go to the certification database and enter whichever artists' name you wish and you will get the info you desire.
Actually, I've added the certs next to each album in your list.
-PetSounds 28 June 2005 19:40 (UTC)
Great job! Now we need to decide where to put this information. How about in the last column along with chart positions?—Theo  (Talk) 29 June 2005 06:07 (UTC)
I think the next single is "Jesus of Suburbia"
...and i thought the "wake me up..." video was long...
Now that JoS is out, is there gonna be another single from American Idiot?
:Nope. They are on break now, and working on their next album. --PokeOnic (Talk) 22:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Singles

message: Was about to put it back on. Will do so if owner can explain how to make the download links work without having a "corrupted file" icon appear with each link. Drdr1989 17:07, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent link removed - Drumscore 

message: "Future Plans
According to NME Shooting of an American Idiot: The Motion Picture movie is planned to start in 2006. In an interview with Billboard, Armstrong revealed that the group are still considering turning the punk rock opera into a film, in much the same spirit as the Beatles' "Yellow Submarine." Green Day are debating whether, after the end of their Stateside jaunt, they will play stadium shows in Australia and South America."
Is there any real reason that "Yellow Submarine"'s being listed here? It's a song which was turned into a film because they were contracted for another film. Surely The Wall/Tommy/Quadrophenia would be better examples, since they were albums describing a narrative of sorts which was turned into a film because the band wanted it, rather than being forced into it, which is more analogous to the situation.
:Whether or not either film was a contractual obligation doesn't enter into it as far as comparisons of how they want the finished product to be. I see your point about the Wall/Tommy/Quad comparison though... I hope it's not anything like Tommy though - the soundtrack was great but the movie sucked. Cjmarsicano 15:12, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yellow submarine? 

message: Moved to /Genre disputes#Emo?. psychomelo(discussion) 13:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emo? 

message: "...and Green Day's DVD Documentary "Heart Like A Hand Grenade", has spoken of various projects recorded at Studio 880..."
Has anyone actually seen this documentary? Maybe I'm missing something here, but there's almost no reference to it on the internet, other than cloned versions of this article. Amazon has never heard of it either. Does anyone have any solid references to back this up?...Or even back up that there was a Green Day DVD, because - other than 'bullet in a bible' - this is the first I've ever heard of anything like it. --Joewithajay 19:29, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Only parts of this documentary have been made public at this point. Reprise Records released a half-hour cut to Fuse and MTV earlier this year. The documentary was filmed over the entire album-recording process by John Roecker and is still in the editing phase. I was told this summer by a producer close to the band that it had been cut down to a 3-hour version at that point. --AHSports 15:15, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heart Like A Hand Grenade 

message: I feel dumb for asking this on this article, but how does someone get a hold of the Green Day manager, I would love to fund a concert in my hometown, but I don't know a thing about setting up concerts and whatnot. This is totally hypothetical because I don not have the money for it, unforetunatly :(
:You should email them through their website. Please don't ask for these kinds of things on Wikipedia. --Mac Davis 08:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well essentially, they sing, play drums, and guitars in an almost-rhythmic fashion, while the die-hard fans and teeny boppers alike mosh to the music. --SCC 11:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

text: On Green Day Authority they have concert reviews, which you might want to check out. Starla Dear 17:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Concert Info

message: I figured that since Jason White has his own article, his larger biographical info was probably more appropriate there. I decided to be bold and move it. -Le Scoopertemp [tk] 02:16, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good stuff! fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:18, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jason White 

message: Many long-time Green Day fans felt uncomfortable and even threatened when American Idiot was released. The music was much more accessible, and was occasionally mistaken by less-cultured music fans (who had previously been oblivious to Green Day's work) for the "boybands with guitars" style of Busted and McFly. This was viewed as particularly insulting, as some would argue that such boybands exploit the very things that made Green Day popular, mimicking them in a contrived and insincere way.
I removed that statement since it was entirely unsupported and fairly opinionated. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 18:50, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I just removed a statement also. I had asked that it be cited a while back, in one of my 50 other comments, but with the recent merger of the comments, I'm too lazy to look it up. It should be in the Punk dispute thing, unless someone deleted it. The statement I removed was "About two months later, they played a high school party with the Lookouts in a remote mountain location near Willits, California, where Tré and Kain Kong of the Lookouts lived and attended school. Only five kids showed up for the party but they left after the first song, and there was no electricity in the house and the toilet didn't work, so Sweet Children had to play using a generator and candlelight. But they played, as Lookouts singer/guitarist Larry Livermore put it, "as if they were The Beatles at Shea Stadium."" There are also several other biased and uncited statements in the "Lookouts: the beginning (1988-1992)" section, and unless more of them are cited, I will delete them in the next week or so. Merry Christmas GD fans! Gold Stur 19:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  statement removal 

message: I have removed the entire green day hoax statement since it is entirely unsourced. It should only be re-added if a proper source can be found for it. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 06:19, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  green day hoax 

message: Moved to /Genre disputes#Criticism. psychomelo(discussion) 13:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: I have removed :Image:Greendayold.jpg and :Image:GreenDayTracks.jpg since they have no fairuse rational, they should be re-added though if a good rational can be found. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 00:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  non fairuse images 

message: The following were moved here from the main page. If any of these have a compelling argument relevent to Wikipedia:External links, here's the place to put it. - brenneman(t)(c) 03:01, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I put the "Nothing Nice To Say" cartoon link about Green Day's pullout on the wiki as I felt that it would be relevant to the article. I still feel that way, for the record. Perhaps it could be linked as a reference to the paragraph about their pullout when the article is unlocked? -- Cjmarsicano 03:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: The article states, "It was also the top wedding song for that year, ironically, seeing as how the song was written as a bitter kiss-off to the other party after a nasty breakup."
The popular interpretation is it is about suicide, maybe add that into the sentance to change
"It was also the top wedding song for that year, ironically, seeing as how the song was written as a bitter kiss-off to the other party after a nasty breakup. Another morbid interpretation of the song believes it deals with suicide."
:I've heard several times Billie Joe Armstrong say that as with Wake Me Up When September Ends, the song is kind of mourning his father's death. --Mac Davis 08:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Meaning of Good Riddance

message: This article has been protected from editing for ten days over a petty dispute about whether the group is punk or pop punk. If there is no substantial agreement on either then I suggest that it would be wrong to state either. Without much personal familiarity with their music beyond the obvious, I'd hazard a guess that like most good music acts they tend to transcend any genre labels people might care to put on them. So I'm unprotecting and if I catch any further warring over these labels I'll be inclined to get medieval on the perpetrators. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the "warning", but this is exactly why there was a compromise for two genres reached after much discussion as you can see. Drdr1989 19:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Seems people are vandalizing the page again, maybe it should be protected again? --predatorfreak 21:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the vandalization will stop until Green Day are irrelevant, which won't be any time soon. We'll just have to keep an eye on this page and revert everything. *sigh* -- Simpatico 06:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

text: My goodness, surely if it's going to cause such pathetic problems then it's not worth mentioning at all.Liss 16:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprotecting

message: Albums titles are italicized while song titles have quotation marks. There are problems with this throughout the article (sometimes they are correct, sometimes not). -- Simpatico 10:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotations vs Italics 

message: Where would be a good place to mention this  ?
*Too trivial to mention, IMO. Also, Diggle sounds like an ass - if he has no idea who they are how can he have any opinion about them? Shallow... -- Simpatico 06:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: * I'm assuming they had a conversation, whatever happened during it I don't know but I assume it was long enough for Diggle to obtain an opinion Johhny-turbo 08:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Steve Diggle incident 

message: These are about the most exaggerated, tenuous interpretations of Green days music. And the person who wants these to be in the main article obviously shows their true agenda when they say ‘The song American Idiot also provokes an anti-American message’. Stop trying to colour a an entry on a factual encyclopedia with your own agenda that is so obviously to taint Green day’s reputation just because they have made an album which demonstrates against the neoconservative agenda of war and unilateralism and the media which unquestiongly supports these policies.
:i don't know if you've read it yet, but this issue has previously been discussed on this talk page. scroll up to see it.--Alhutch 21:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Green Day being accused of being neo Nazis 

message: I'm putting up semi-protection on this article. It is such a target for unregistered vandals that as far as I am concerned, it is the only way that most admins' and contributors' energies to be devoted to writing and expanding the Wiki, rather than cleaning up after the random shitting of anonymous wild animals.
No, I'm not an admin (yet), but as long as I have the ability to type the sprotect template and be bold, I'm going to look out for the encyclopedia. Cjmarsicano 17:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Putting the sprotect template on the article does not semi-protect the article. It makes people think the article is semi-protected, but it doesn't actually do anything.--Alhutch 17:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then I highly suggest that a momement, petition, or whatever other protocol is greatly in order to prevent any and all unregistered participants from altering the Wikipedia, because I'm tired ot seeing every other edit to many of these articles be a reversion of some juvenile asshole's vandalism. Cjmarsicano 18:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: the article is now semi-protected.--Alhutch 18:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I would be happy to semi-protect the article for a while if that is the necessary course of action. Please do not try to do this on your own, however, since you are not an administrator. Thanks,--Alhutch 18:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protection 

message: Green day is no longer with Reprise records. They are on Warner Bro. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.160.171.111 (talk • contribs) .
Reprise and Warner bro. are the same. --Dwnsjane 01:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seriously. Look at Bullet in a Bible, released as recently as November. It still says Reprise Records because they are signed with Reprise, a part of Warner Bros. Records. Remove from the main article, or I'll do it if I'm not lazy. --Guess Who 00:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Label 

message: Moved to /Genre disputes#Green day punk rock? ha!. psychomelo(discussion) 13:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Green day punk rock? ha! 

message: I really think that people should know what is going on with the band and how they are fairing in the studio, recording the new album. Thus I plead to have this section in the article as many bands has it. I don't think it's so much and such stupid explanations that Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball are stupid for me. I just want to have a smooth "new-album" section where people will be able to know what is going on with the new album. We are not talking about things of speculative nature. Yesterday, I only put up things which bandmembers said and which were said according to their website, so I really think that they were removed harshly and unjustly. Thus I plead for the reinstatement of this section and I really think that there should be one, where information will be put, when new facts have emerged about the new album.
:Thanks for your attention. Painbearer 09:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are able to find some verifiable sources about the next album and properly cite them, then there should be no problem with this section. However, the Cigarettes and Valentines article is littered with point of view, original research, and does not cite a single source. It's a very bad article and should not be linked to until it is cleaned up. Jtrost (T | C | #) 12:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball applies here since it undoubtedly is going to be speculative. The only exception to this I can see would be if a verified interview or something discussed their future plans and even then I doubt that would be enough for it's own section. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 00:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Next album section 

message: I removed the link to this site, it can hardly qualify as criticism when its arguments read:
10. They suck.
9. They suck ass.
8. They suck smelly ass.
7. They suck smelly, crusty ass.
6. They suck smelly, crusty ass with bits of corn in it.
5. It might be more fun to eat your own intestines than listen to them.
4. They claim the music they play is punk rock, but it is really better described as a lot of crap.
3. Your mom likes them, because she likes bands that suck.
2. Your granpa is in the band. He is their fluffer.
And the #1 reason to HATE Green Day
1. They exist, therefore they should be hated.
The only thing it would be famous for, would be the horrible design (which most of the Geocities websites are notorious for, anyway). So what I'm suggesting is that if it's so essential to fling dirt at Green Day, write a little section of well-flowing prose, I'm sure it will be received much better.
And what's a 'fluffer', anyway...? --Obli (Talk)? 23:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine. I will write a paragraph called Criticism against Green Day. psychomelo(dis)c(ussion) 00:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I oppose writing a paragraph againt Green Day since there is almost no legitimate criticism of them that can't be grouped into one of the other sections and we don't need to give these whiny trolls their way by rewarding their behavior on this article. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 01:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I Strongly Agree with Pegasus1138. Please read the "Thanks for all your efforts" section on Obli's Talk Page. --Andy123 01:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Seeing you're more involved in this than I am, I trust your judgemnt on this --Obli (Talk)? 01:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Why did this discussion even start? From my point of view (ha ha) it looks like a load of nonsense to me... It's only a shame we can't tag external webpages with speedy tags. Kareeser|Talk! 02:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's criticism for every band on the planet, so I don't see why we should add a criticism section. It seems rather redundant (no pun intended).Starla Dear 17:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  That 'famous' website criticizing Green Day 

message: Have you seen "St Jimmy" videoclip?
:I've seen it. I think it was taken from the Bullet in a Bible DVD.-Zingazin 18:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My questions about GD 

message: The article lists different join dates for both Billie Joe Armstrong and Mike Dirnt. Did they join in 1987 or 1988? It is not clear in the article. Perhaps somebody could fact-check for me? Kareeser|Talk! 17:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Last year in October Billie Joe said they were a band now for sixteen years, which would be 1989. However, if they started playing together when they were fourteen that would be 1986. I'm not sure if he considers the Sweet Children days, but they were playing together then. I don't know when exactly Sweet Children ended and Green Day started, though I think it was right before they released 39/Smooth. Basically I'm not exactly sure about much, which doesn't answer your question : | Starla Dear 15:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  When did they join? 

message: Moved to /Genre disputes#Genre again. psychomelo(discussion) 14:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Genre again

message: AdelineRecords.net's homepage confirms the uncited statement in "The Network" section about sources close to Green Day not wanting The Network to perform on the AI tour. I have no idea how to cite sources in an article, so could someone please cite it? Thanks :]
Acidophilisation 00:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Network 

message: Moved to /Genre disputes#Green Day are not punk they are stinky pop. psychomelo(discussion) 21:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Green Day are not punk they are stinky pop 

message: Although it does contain horns, which many ska songs also do, I do not believe it should be called a ska song.
:I agree. It's riffing on Mexican folk music, not ska. That's why the horn players would dress up in mariachi outfits during shows. WesleyDodds 01:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "King for a Day" 

message: The section on American Idiot says that St Jimmy and Jesus of Suburbia are two different people. Green Day have said that Jesus becomes St Jimmy during the song Are We The Waiting (that it's like his descent into madness) and that the Death of St Jimmy is him turning back into Jesus. St jimmy 18:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does the article say that? Because yes, you're right. --Switch 06:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stuff about American Idiot 

message: I was looking thru the history of the article back to April 16th or so, and saw a lot of weird edits and vandalism. I suggest the article be semi-protected. Wikipeedio 14:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page protection 

message: Stop capitalizing it. Look at the album's cover! It is not capitalized. Wikipeedio 17:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  nimrod IS NOT CAPITALIZED. 

message: I'm assuming the unsourced info in the early days section comes from the episode of VH1 Driven about the band. Trouble is I only saw bits of it, and we really need to source it. Can someone who saw it help out? And how do you source television documentaries anway? A lot of good information was presented in their Behind the Music episode. WesleyDodds 09:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  VH1 Driven 

message: Are the Green Day's photos copyrighted (on their official website)?
--Mataga 16:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If they are on Green Day's website, then they probably are copyrighted. I'm not sure whether they could be used here or not... Wikipeedio 14:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos 

message: Would anyone be against me archiving this talk page? It's starting to get so long that it's annoying. WIKIPEEDIO 13:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, that has absolutely nothing to do with what I asked. However, what you asked was discussed on a different page, I believe. I think it was on the Genre Disputes page, but I'm not sure. Anyway, there has already been a discussion on it and the majority said that it doesn't belong there (I think.) WIKIPEEDIO 17:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving