Talk:Mezmerize

message: Daron, Serj or both? This page says Serj, when you follow the link it is both. Please correct, if known by anyone.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.82.84.116 (talk) 23:51, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Who wrote the song "Question !"

message: The current revert war needs to be discussed on this talk page.  I haven't been following it but it seems the participants are in violation of the three revert rule. MrHate 14:20, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
:205.188.116.199 seems to be an alias of Mike Garcia, evading his ban for violating the 3RR. *Dan* 01:49, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
:And 152.163.100.138 too, who just violated the no-personal-attacks rule by calling me an "idiot" in his latest revert comments. *Dan* 02:53, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
::Gentlemen, start posting your reputable sources to get this resolved.  There's easier ways to solve this than name calling and revert warring. MrHate 08:12, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
:::OK... here are some:
:::http://www.billboard.com/bb/charts/airplay/modern.jsp
:::http://www.billboard.com/bb/charts/airplay/mainstream.jsp
:::http://www.billboard.com/bb/charts/hot100.jsp
:::*Dan* 13:15, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
::::Whoever is attacking Dtobias with the personal attacks is way out of line. The above sites are the official Billboard charts. This should close the book. 
::::By the way, Mike Garcia is obviously using aliases and alternative IPs to evade his block. Note the two different IPs though the user says "I said" to refer to the previous edit. 66.36.148.178 13:31, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. First 205.188.116.199 said "Keep it like this" in the edit summary, then 152.163.100.138 said "I said "keep it like this", idiot". 152.163.100.138 then told us "FUCKING IDIOTS" to "GET A LIFE", and when that was reverted, 205.188.116.199 told Weyes (aka "YOU STUPID FUCKING CUNT" aka "YOU IDIOT"): "I SAID "GET A LIFE"." This clearly proves that 152.163.100.138 and 205.188.116.199 are one and the same person. Please also take note of the fact that both Mike Garcia and 205.188.116.199 have used the phrase "I am getting tired of playing games with you," which imo is a sentence too particular to be coincidence. We can therefore say that 152.163.100.138 = 205.188.116.199 = Mike Garcia, which means that what Jimbo said on Mike Garcia's user page ("He will edit only under his new Mike Garcia account") hasn't been abided by. Aecis 20:41, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Revert war

message: Please understand that I am not Mike Garcia who kept reverting the edits after he was banned.
:Well, you're sure acting like him... including the insistent posting of misinformation, and the use of personal attacks against anybody who reverts you. *Dan* 16:14, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
::I am afraid that you got off on the wrong side of the world. No, I am not acting like him (Mike Garcia), I am not the real him and I am not impersonating him, or whatever. Just see this, you god damned idiot!
:::For the sake of curious onlookers who wonder what the above link labeled "this" was for, the (anonymous) writer was linking to the page about "long term vandalism alerts", on which he'd placed an entry for my own reversions of his erroneous edits; this entry was rapidly removed (not by me) because it was completely inappropriate for that page, given that my edits were not vandalism by any definition, nor were they "long-term". *Dan* 18:41, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
:::Regardless of who you are or who you are not, regardless of whether what you posted is factually correct or not, your choice of words, your bashing of other users, your attitude, your constant reverting without ever using the talk page and everything else is enough to warrant a permanent ban from Wikipedia, as far as I'm concerned. What you have done is way over the line. Aecis 17:27, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  IDIOTS! 

message: Just because Mike Garcia believes this to be true does not mean it should be in the article. I follow SOAD news very carefully and this has never been an issue, let alone being a confirmed fact as Mike Garcia seems to think it is. I would like to see a source or have this deleted. 66.36.136.123 22:54, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to learn how to stop removing it and if you do it again I have no choice but to report you or ask Jimbo Wales if he could ban you from this. Also, I can't keep on reverting you from this due to the 3 revert rule. -- Mike Garcia | talk 23:07, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you refuse to address the issue? 66.36.136.123 23:11, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Who cares about your idea? I don't deal with number IP address users who are about to be banned (like you). Just give it up with the changing shit. -- Mike Garcia | talk 23:12, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please address the issue, Mike. 66.36.136.123 23:15, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why the hell should I? Just stop coming back, please! Let this page be in peace. -- Mike Garcia | talk 23:17, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hypnotize / Mezmerize album changeup 

message: I am willing to unprotect if I have any reason to believe that this war will end.  Since I locked it on Mike's version (arbitrarily) can he provide some support for his version?  Guettarda 23:52, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, thanks for protecting it to avoid (66.36.136.123)'s vandalism. He/she kept removing the part that is in red: . The user has been slightly reported to Jimbo Wales' talk page to see if he could ban the user or not. -- Mike Garcia | talk 23:58, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I realise that. My question is, can you track down a source for that? If you can, this is simple to resolve.  If you can't, it's more problematic.  Guettarda 00:05, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately, Mr. Garcia is once again the major cause of the problem, even though he's the one who's appealing for assistance here.  While this time (unlike some of his earlier edit wars) he actually had some other users supporting his side (in fact, the version of the text being warred over now is actually the one written by me, as a more NPOV version of Garcia's original edit, which he apparently accepts but his opponents do not), he continues to use edit comments of a nature that tend to alienate even his supporters.  He tells people to "go away" as if he thinks he owns the article, and he uses obscenities.  Thus, whether he's right or wrong on this particular case, he seems to be the one most likely to get banned if the site's "authorities" pay attention to what is happening here. *Dan* 00:49, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
I'm protecting this page again.  Despite the fact that the combatants were blocked, the war has re-started.  I don't see any other option.  Guettarda 04:42, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  page protection 

message: While I was in the process of updating the Album infobox with more reviews and Label information, it was protected. Since I don't want to have to do it again, and would hate for someone else to try and update this page in the state it is currently in, I am just going to paste the entire Infobox with updates here, so when the article is unprotected it can simply be cut and pasted into the article. PlasticBeat 23:56, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for moving the Infobox to the article page! Cbing01 03:06, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: More reviews

message: ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 01:18, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Some fans believe that this album was originally supposed to be called Hypnotize, while the other album was supposed to be called Mezmerize, and the names were switched before release.
However... ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 01:43, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hypnotize / mesmerize 

message: *"The album was also believed to be called Hypnotize before rotating"
:This sentence is doubted by User:66.36.141.29, who is firmly insisting on its verification and deletes the sentence, opposed by User:Mike Garcia, who reverts it again and again. The same dispute is on Hypnotize and more information can be found on Talk:Hypnotize. NightBeAsT 15:23, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As shown above, this has been under dispute since late June.  How long do you propose we let the information stay in the article with a disputed tag before it's removed due to lack of citation/verifiability?? -- Norvy (talk) 16:24, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So long?! Aw you're right. Please delete them until a reliable source can be found then.NightBeAsT 16:57, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed 

message: Here is the source how Hypnotize was supposed to be first and Mezmerize was supposed to be last last: . -- Mike Garcia | talk 22:04, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This source is relevant to the content dispute at System of a Down. When it comes to this article's disputed sentence ("The album was called Hypnotize before rotating"), this source isn't sufficient. We know Ultimate Guitar was wrong when they said Hypnotize was disc 1, but why? Did they report the wrong info? Were the album names swapped? Was the album that was supposed to be released later, released first? The source really doesn't answer those questions, and we can't say for sure that Mezmerize was earlier called Hypnotize. At least, not with this source. Pasboudin 23:11, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's true that Hypnotize was supposed to be first and Mezmerize was supposed to be last. They got mixed up in early 2005 and then had to switch sides. -- Mike Garcia | talk 23:36, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Re: Source

message: Is it really necessary (or helpful) to have one article per track? This isn't exactly Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band is it?! --kingboyk 17:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I heartily disagree. All information that isn't actual intellectual property deserves a place on Wikipedia. If not in their own article, then this information should be in the album article. If you delete actual information off Wikipedia you are helping to destroy the very ideals Wikipedia represents. Gorman 15:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  One article per track? 

message: Which way around are the albums supposed to be?
I remember reading that they had been released in reverse order, and the way the tracks are ordered seems to support this; don't ask me where (I think it was some street press, Drum Media or something) but I definitely read that the band had said "Soldier Side blends seamlessly into Soldier Side - Intro". This seems to indicate that the album (which, interestingly enough, fits in its entirety onto a single CD) is supposed to be listened to Hypnotize then Mezmerize (but there seems to have been some sort of flame war going on back here about it? It's hard to tell because everyone keeps messing it up). There's nothing about it in the article, although it is vaguely implied that the reverse is true. Very vaguely.
So yeah! If the band have an official position on this, I would very much like to know what it is!
-Gorman 15:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Okay, definitively: 

message: Any news about sales or certifications, updates? Revan ltrl (talk) 17:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sales 

message: Kerrang! magazine gave this album five stars and was included among the reviews. Why is it gone? Revan ltrl (talk) 16:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kerrang! 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mezmerize (album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150711041454/http://www.infodisc.fr/CDCertif_O.php?debut=2694 to http://www.infodisc.fr/CDCertif_O.php?debut=2694
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:48, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Mezmerize (album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141019112112/http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20147981,00.html to http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20147981,00.html
*Added archive https://archive.is/20120301165102/http://ylex.yle.fi/lista/tuote/2502 to http://ylex.yle.fi/lista/tuote/2502
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:03, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)