Talk:Mezmerize

Untitled

To discuss the dispute over this album's release date, please go to Talk:System of a Down. Tuf-Kat 03:17, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

Who wrote the song "Question !"

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)

Revert war

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)

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)

• Based on over 20+ reverts in the last 2 days, I have taken the liberty of protecting this page until this revert war is resolved. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:05, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

IDIOTS!

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)

RfC

OK, am I right in thinking that Dan believes the billboard.com positions should be used, but someone else thinks otherwise? I'd like to ask the other person to say what they think should be used and why, and Dan please correct me if I've mis-read your position. Dan100 17:42, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

That's what it looks like to me too, which is odd. What could be a better source for Billboard rankings than billboard.com? Tuf-Kat 18:00, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that is my position (agreed with by a number of other users), but Mike Garcia (and several anonymous IPs that may be him also, though they deny it vehemently) insists for some reason that allmusic.com is the only permissible source of chart info, and he reverts anybody who uses anything else, sometimes accompanying this with offensive personal attacks. Garcia has an extensive past history of this sort, and has in fact been banned several times (and may be under a temporary ban right now for violating the 3RR; at least, he was a couple of days ago, and doesn't seem to have returned under his own ID since). He seems to be under the belief that he owns all articles he's worked on, and has the right to be the absolute dictator over them and order others around, expecting absolute and unquestioning obedience. *Dan* 18:34, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Tuf-Kat that if this article is to list the Billboard rankings for Mezmerize and its tracks, the most appropriate source is Billboard.com. But would it be an idea to add the rankings of this album and its tracks around the world, or at least in some other notable charts around the world? (for instance the UK, where Mezmerize entered the album charts in 2nd place, behind Faithless and ahead of Van Morrison.) Aecis 20:29, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would think it would be a good idea to list other countries' charts, if somebody has a good reference for them. *Dan* 21:09, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

The problem is also that there are several charts in each country. In the Netherlands alone there are 2 main charts and I-don't-know-how-many less notable but probably equally reliable charts. So first there has to be consensus on which chart to use for each country. My source for the 2nd place in the UK charts was [1]. For the Dutch single charts, the source would be either [2] or [3]. The main Dutch album chart can be found here Aecis 21:18, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We oughta have a list at Wikipedia:Wikiproject Music of which charts we use for each country. I'm sure people would add a lot more if they knew how to find the appropriate charts. Tuf-Kat 22:17, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I think I'll go ahead and do that. Tuf-Kat 22:33, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

I propose billboard.com as the official guideline for the American charts, instead of allmusic.com ;-) Aecis 22:42, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not having looked at billboard.com closely, but I don't see very comprehensive historical data anywhere on the site. If you want chart rankings that aren't on billboard, allmusic.com would be fine -- they're usually accurate, after all, and have ranks back to the early 80s, IIRC. Tuf-Kat 00:07, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Allmusic might be the best reference for historical data; Billboard's site is the best reference for the latest current data. Unfortunately, many sites require a subscription to access some of their data. *Dan* 00:49, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Aecis, yes, that would be the correct chart for the UK (they provide the 'Top 40' for BBC Radio 1 which is the 'gospel' here). As far as billboard.com goes, well, I'm not American but always heard of billboard having the same sort of 'official' position there as the Radio Top 40 here does. Dan100 18:33, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Unprotected

I unprotected the article. The overwhelming consensus appears to support Billboard.com as an authoritative source, I agree with this. There's no reason Allmusic.com should be the only official source of chart data, especially when Billboard is the company that actually produces the charts. Please edit respectfully. Rhobite 05:06, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

User RFC

Since Mike Garcia continues to edit-war over this article, I've started a RFC on him. *Dan* 23:37, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Hypnotize / Mezmerize album changeup

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)

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)

Why do you refuse to address the issue? 66.36.136.123 23:11, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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)

Please address the issue, Mike. 66.36.136.123 23:15, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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)

page protection

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)

Well, thanks for protecting it to avoid (66.36.136.123)'s vandalism. He/she kept removing the part that is in red: [4]. 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)

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)

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)

More reviews

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)

Thanks for moving the Infobox to the article page! Cbing01 03:06, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hypnotize / mesmerize

¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 01:18, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Mezmerize" is the first disc in a 2-disc set with disc two, "Hypnotize," expected out late this fall. "Mezmerize/Hypnotize" was produced by Rick Rubin and System's Daron Malakian.

System of a Down has confirmed that Disc One ("Mezmerize") from the band's 2-disc set, "Mezmerize/Hypnotize," will be released on May 17, 2005. Disc Two ("Hypnotize") is expected to see a late fall release.

I can't find anything verifying :

"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)

Header

Edit history of the article clearly shows that there is a dispute going on. Please leave the "disputed" header here until it is resolved, thanks. -- Infrogmation 04:37, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What is it going to take for someone to start taking sides here?? I have been trying to get a dialogue going from the very beginning -- every one of my edits have asked for a discussion in the edit summary. Mike, as in previous edit wars, simply refuses to discuss his changes with anyone, including Guettarda above. He feels that his way should be accepted without any explanation whatsoever, and anybody who disagrees is "vandalizing". His edit summaries and comments are full of vulgarities and lack of etiquette. I find it disheartening that I am being treated as his equal in the name of neutrality, when his conduct is far worse and his edits have been REFUTED in a third-party examination above. I've argued my position above, why hasn't he? 66.36.138.202 17:28, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your first problem was that you circumvented the block for the 3RR, and showed contempt for our policies. Your second problem was that you reverted the edit when the page was unprotected, thus re-igniting the edit war and forcing the page to be re-protected. Thirdly, you are breaking your 3RR block again by posting here. Get a user name so that people can get to know you, respect our policices, avoid edit warring (whether your version was superior or not, edit wars are disruptive), and you will find that people treat you with a lot more sympathy. Guettarda 17:38, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I reverted it back because Mike Garcia ignored your request for explanation, and his position was refuted. I did not revert it again after that, so do not blame me for "re-igniting the edit war" because I didn't participate in it. 66.36.138.202 17:46, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To begin with, you evaded your 3RR block to revert the page. That is not permitted. Since both you and Mike were blocked, there was no way for him to answer the questions even if he wanted to, so your explanation is illogical. If your position represents consensus, then someone else will make the change. If no one else intervenes you have to consider the possibility that you have not made your case. Sam did not refute the position - it's actually quite difficult to refute what "some fans" thought. I agree that the onus is on Mike to support his position. Once his block expires, I hope he will do so.

By going back and making the edit you had made over and over you did re-start the edit war. It takes two to edit war. The information was not slanderous, it was not (AFAIK) a copyvio - there was no cause to edit war in the first place. First and foremost, you expressed contempt for Wikipedia policy. So you are the guilty party here. Mike's return was provoked. Still a bad thing, but would it have occurred if you had not circumvented your block? And does anyone really care?

This is not life or death stuff. The world does not revolve around the wording a a Wikipedia article about a single album. Get some perspective. If you want to do write about something important go flesh out the articles about the civil war in the Congo which have killed 3 million people, or something else important. All you are doing is wasting people's time and making the entire Wikipedia experience less fun. Go and see WP:LAME. This belongs there. It's a trivial and lame edit war which wastes everyone's time. Guettarda 18:04, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm the one responsible for the "some fans" wording, as an attempt to make a more NPOV version of what Garcia originally wrote; this was apparently acceptable to him, but not to the other side. As for my own position, I'm not taking any sides on this, not knowing myself what the truth of the matter may be. I do note that Garcia has used some pretty nasty personal attacks in his edit comments, something that his opponent has not done. *Dan* 18:13, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

I don't have a side either. I don't think there is one good party and one bad party in the edit war. I don't know "the truth". Has anyone suggested an RFC or something else to bring more editors in? Or just take a break and listen to the album rather than edit war about it? Guettarda 18:33, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hello. I do not know this album, but I am writing here as the person responsible for Mike. It seems to me that the statement "Some fans believe" is fair and POV. It indicates that it doesn't matter if it is true or not--just that people believe it. Mike is an example of someone who believes it, and he is a fan. Now, this can certainly be left in the article, and it is acceptable to Mike. Note that I am not condoning Mike's language. Mike, if you read this, please do not say "fuck off" to other users or speak rudely to them. It does not help you make your point. As for everyone else, I assure you that Mike, like you, wants this to be the best possible article. Please be patient and work with him. If necessary, I will be happy to try to work out a compromise. Danny 01:39, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The issue isn't whether the theory is true or not, the issue is whether anyone other than Mike believes the theory. Are there verifiable cites to anyone else believing this? If not, isn't this original research? -- Norvy (talk) 28 June 2005 17:48 (UTC)

Un-protection

Is this page ever going to be un-protected again? Like the band's page and Hypnotize. -- Mike Garcia | talk 17:28, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Sure, if you can assure me that you are done edit-warring (regardless of whether the anon returns or not) I will quite happily unprotect it. But it takes 2 to edit war, so I would like some assurance from at least one party (ie, Mike) that you will refrain from edit warring. Guettarda 19:01, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

The reason why I wanted this article to be un-protected again is because I want to wiki-link the eighth track "Question!", the upcoming single off the album. -- Mike Garcia | talk 13:14, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

That was a lie. You wanted to revert to the incorrect chart positions. Mike, why don't you want to use the up-to-date data on billboard.com? Evidence is right here: [5][6] Rhobite 05:56, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Oh god, Mike! Do you have any arguments at all? What's the good of it? It hurts your reputation here, it is reverted quickly and it is lying, deliberate misinformation, sneaky vandalism. Do you really think it is worth your time? Anyway, I won't get involved in this embarassing case. Have fun or whatever this means to you. I must congratulate you, though, this is the strangest conflict I've seen in Wikipedia so far but this one-sidedness is getting boring...NightBeAsT 21:49, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

No, Rhobite, it was not a lie! I aksed for it to be un-protected first to wiki-link the song "Question!". Then I started to change the numbers to the chart positions for singles to clearer version of what allmusic.com. Again, I was not trying to say that it is correct. -- Mike Garcia | talk 22:04, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Even though its a Billboard chart, and hence Billboard are the -only- guaranteed accurate source of the chart results? Righty.... Kiand 22:09, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Why are you adding information to articles even though you don't believe that it is correct? Rhobite 00:18, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Disputed

• "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)

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)

So long?! Aw you're right. Please delete them until a reliable source can be found then.NightBeAsT 16:57, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Re: Source

Here is the source how Hypnotize was supposed to be first and Mezmerize was supposed to be last last: [7]. -- Mike Garcia | talk 22:04, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

WTF

Why is this article the subject of another revert war?

One article per track?

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)

It is for System fans.

Although I'm not going to fully delete the articles, I cleaned up the bias on many of them. (Vance Clarend 09:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC))

They should be removed. Unless it is a single, or a song that is notable for some important reason that is noticable by people other than fans of the band, every song does not merit their own article. (Matt d84 22:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC))

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)

Okay, definitively:

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)

Sales

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

Nevermind, I checked it out myself, I'm updating. Revan ltrl (talk) 17:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Kerrang!

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)

Why the fuck is it gone? Revan ltrl (talk) 17:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:48, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:03, 27 January 2018 (UTC)