Talk:Hypnotize (album)

Untitled

To discuss the dispute over this album's release date, please go to Talk:System of a Down. Tuf-Kat 03:18, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

Please stop removing the information from this page, 66.36.148.190 (or should I say The truth about Hephaestos?). If you continue this one more time, I have no other choice but to report you and I think you do deserve a ban from this repeated vandalism. As I told you at your talk page. -- Mike Garcia | talk 3 July 2005 14:05 (UTC)

Hi, Mike. Please feel free to add your source to the article. Thanks! 66.36.148.190 3 July 2005 15:25 (UTC)

Are you insane? Please grow up and leave because you shouldn't be here vandalizing any page (especially this one) and I am not threatening to ban you. But you will be banned when me, Dan, MrHate or others report you. -- Mike Garcia | talk 3 July 2005 18:07 (UTC)

He's not vandalizing, he's just asking you to cite your source. Deltabeignet 4 July 2005 03:59 (UTC)

Yes, he did vandalize the page (see [1]). I don't care what he's doing or what he wants me to do, why? Because, I really don't have to deal with anonymous users like him, especially when he refuses to stop vandalizing or removing some information that is right or not before threatening to violate the 3RR (three revert rule). -- Mike Garcia | talk 5 July 2005 20:56 (UTC)

What he's doing is not vandalism. He just does not see a reasonable reason so believe that such a fact is true and thus asks you to cite your sources before accepting it. --DB0 09:25, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Category

Please add the category of upcoming/unreleased albums ([[Category:Upcoming albums]]) when the article is unprotected. Thanks!!! secfan 10:37, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Unprotected

This article shouldn't have been protected for so long--particularly in the period of fan anticipation of the release. I've unprotected and apologise for our lack of vigilance in leaving it this long. I've added the category requested by User:secfan. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:43, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but what about Mezmerize? It has been protected for a long time? -- Mike Garcia | talk 17:24 August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism is back (again)!

An anonymous vandal (66.36.133.229, similar to the previous anonymous vandal 66.36.148.190) is vandalizing the page by removing the sentence that says "The album was supposed to be called Mezmerize before rotating" twice. If this happens one more time, I am going ask a moderator to lock it, so his/her vandalism can stop. He/she has begun unconvinced with what I said: "It's true that it was supposed to be called Mezmerize" when I was reverting the vandalism. -- Mike Garcia | talk 20:46, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I have settled for compromise language (I don't think the mistaken beliefs of a few fans merits inclusion) but you have to have it 100% your way. If you would please add a source it would be easier for all. 66.36.133.229 22:43, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

You see, this is why you should not post here. Especially when you keep removing the information I reverted. So stop vandalizing the article. You either do that or leave here and take your behavior elsewhere. I am sorry, but the sentence you kept removing has nothing to do with whatever you want me to do. I am getting so tired of your attitude. -- Mike Garcia | talk 22:58, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

We've already been over this in this article before, and what he's doing is NOT VANDALISM. I have seen no proof anywhere that says that this album was supposed to be called Mezmerize and the other one Hypnotize. If you can give us a credible source for this, maybe it would stop happening. bob rulz 02:35, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

True, it might be useful to assume good faith instead of calling it vandalism, not least because Wikipedia mustn't be original research and verifiability is important, so anyone insisting on claiming "The album was supposed to be called Mezmerize before rotating" is better off citing reliable sources if they don't want to lose the sentence.NightBeAsT 15:50, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

It's just a sentence. Someeone can simply change it to "The album was believed to be called Mezmerize before rotating". There. No harm done. --Ultrasound 05:04, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Believed by whom? I've never heard that before reading it here. If one person believes it to be true it doesn't mean that it belongs in an encyclopedia article. If we had a source this would be much, much, much easier. 66.36.144.40 05:26, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

This report is for the other anonymous vandal (66.36.130.216): Please stop removing the same information that has been removed and restored a couple times on this article by the famous anonymous vandal (66.36.148.190/66.36.133.229). It is considered vandalism. -- Mike Garcia | talk 22:42, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

This is for the other anonymous vandal (66.36.152.26): You need to stop removing the same old ifnormation too otherwise I will report you, so don't have me do it. -- Mike Garcia | talk 03:14, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Re: Source

Here is the source how Hypnotize was supposed to be first and Mezmerize was supposed to be last last: [2]. -- Mike Garcia | talk 22:03, 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 supposed to be called Mezmerize 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 23:10, 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 23:37, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Bro, who cares. Mezmerize has already been released, stop thinking about the past. Your acting like a stubborn little child. The media doesnt have full knowledge of events. Only the band does. Someone should have removed that "..was supposed to be released.." bit on both articles a long long time ago. By the way, the band didnt mix it up, they had packaging and album artwork all prepared. They even styled their website prehand. This can only show that there was some sort of planning before. --Ultrasound 14:52, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Nu Metal?

"We are not an Armenian band, we are not a heavy metal band and we aren't nu-metal. We are System of a Down. People always seem to feel the need to put us into a category, but we just don't fit into any category. We are what rock music has evolved into." -Daron Malakian[3]

Please stop changing the genre. Daisy_suitepee

• You know, this is funny. I always had this idea for a great scene in a movie. A reporter (from some music magazine) is interviewing four guys with eye shadow and trenchcoats, indecipherably screamed lyrics and ridiculously distorted guitars:

Reporter- "So, what genre would you place yourselves in?"

Guitarist- "I find that genres only put people in cages."

Drummer- "Yeah."

Lead Singer- "I don't think you can put us in a category. Our music is... what it is. No genre fits us."

Bassist- "If you had to pick just one... I'd say jazz fusion. With elements of blues. And neoclassical folk."

Reporter- "Um... what about 'death metal'?"

Anyway, there is no reason why we should live by Mr. Malakian's statement. Besides, if this is really what rock music has evolved into, you can shoot me now. Why Deltabeignet 04:20, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Here we go again!

This page has now been locked up tight to avoid Pasboudin's trolling. I am so tired of this user getting me into an edit war. -- Mike Garcia | talk 02:41, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Maybe you shouldn't threaten to kill other editors. Just a thought, Mike. Rhobite 02:54, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Mike Garcia, I see no reasons for your selfish reverts. The compromise that was agreed to that simply stated "Hypnotize was originally thought by some to be released before Mezmerize, but Mezmerize ended up being released first" or something to that affect is not only more gramatically correct than the other sentence (as was stated below), it gives out the exact same information in a less conflicting, less "controversial" way.

Not to mention that you broke the 3-revert rule. bob rulz 03:21, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Mike Garcia: Ungrammatical

I just noticed this page in Recent Changes. It looks like lately User:Mike Garcia has been editing the page to read as follows:

According to MTV.com, the album thought to be released on these dates for 2005: January 18; March 1 or 15 and April 26 when the album was rumoured to be first and Mezmerize rumoured to be last. Later in early spring, these reports were not likely to prove true and then the albums switched by opposite: Mezmerize on first and Hypnotize on last.

I dare any native speaker of English to parse that paragraph — it's simply meaningless. The last non-Garcia edit looks like a good summary of the facts, and it's even in English! I don't know how this revert war got started, but Mike Garcia's latest edits look awfully close to vandalism. --Quuxplusone 02:43, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Mike's edits are not vandalism, but they are also not helpful to the article. It's unfortunate that the article is now protected, including this unreadable paragraph. Rhobite 03:12, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Grammatically, most verbs would go in the passive form, and "by opposite" sounds quite strange to me. (As a non-native speaker however I don't even know what the correct phrase would be.) However the full paragraph is not very useful IMO (it might sound useful because it is about a recent album and a future one, but try to imagine something like that on an article about an album of the past decade), I think the compromise above is better.--Army1987 13:58, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I decided to edit the page despite the fact that it is protected. All I have done is rewritten Mike's paragraph due to its poor grammar. I also removed the list of uncited dates ("January 18; March 1 or 15 and April 26") - it's not clear where these dates come from or what they represent. This is an instance of WP:IAR. It's better to edit a protected page than to let it sit there with an unreadable paragraph. Rhobite 20:08, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

sec vs. s

The edit summary reads:

WP:ALBUM convention is to use sec as the abbreviation.

Actually WP:ALBUM#Table reads:

 | Length = ? [[minute|min]] ? [[second|s]]

And this is consistent with the SI standard (see second article). No need for this odd notation. --Army1987 14:16, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I was going by the sample infobox on the WP:ALBUM page. You're right, the code uses the s, but the actual infobox (taken from Dirt) uses sec. Furthermore, the vast majority of album articles I've seen use sec instead of s. I figure it's simpler to conform with current standards than going to all those articles and fixing them. --Dalkaen 22:19, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Unprotected

I see no good reason to protect this article at the moment. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 20:54, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Errrr... you mean besides the revert war brewing up? Sasquatcht|c 00:05, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Yep, I think I probably screwed up there. Mike has evaded blocks in the past and I should have realised he would probably do so this time. Oh well, I'll reprotect (or someone else will) if it gets bad. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 01:40, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Mike is still evading his block and ordering Pasboudin to leave in his edit summaries. Could someone please reprotect. the wub "?!" 22:04, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Methinks it might be time to reprotect the article. Minus the irrelevant paragraph. Sorry, Mike, but this has gone too far.—chris.lawson (talk) 04:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Let's vote

Since it seems impossible to achieve consensus as to wheter keep that paragraph (MTV.com initially reported that the album would be released in the first quarter of 2005, with Mezmerize following it by six months [1]. In early 2005, these reports turned out to be incorrect: Mezmerize was released first, the band announced that Hypnotize would be released in the fall.), let's vote for it.--Army1987 21:08, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep as is, or minorly edit:

1. Mike Garcia | talk 21:20, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete:

1. Rhobite 22:05, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
2. It's not relevant. Should we describe every mistake and wrong prediction ever made about anything? the wub "?!" 22:06, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
3. Pretty much universal opposition to Mike on this issue at Talk:System of a Down, Talk:Mezmerize, Talk:Hypnotize, and elsewhere. Pasboudin 22:13, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
4. Delete per the wub.—chris.lawson (talk) 04:55, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
5. Delete. -->Chemical Halo 03:48, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
6. Irrelevant. If it must be mentioned, then certainly not in such detail. --Dalkaen^T/C 05:30, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
7. Delete. It's irrelavent and rumours shouldn't be put in encyclopedia entries. --Ultrasound 12:41, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep but majorly rewrite:

1. Army1987 21:14, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• I don't dare to touch that paragraph anymore. IMHO, we'd better keep the paragraph in its Rhobite version, or maybe even better in its shorter Norvy version (Although some sources originally reported that Hypnotize would be released first, it ended up being released after Mezmerize.), until Hypnotize is released, then use the what-will-we-expect-to-read-in-year-2015 rule of thumb. However, see also Talk:System_of_a_Down#Album_mixup_rumor. --Army1987 12:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
• Even better:

Although, in late 2004, some sources[4] reported that Hypnotize would be released first, it ended up being released after Mezmerize.

or:

Originally, it was unclear which half of the double album was to be released first. In late 2004 some sources, such as MTV.com [5], reported that Hypnotize would be the first, but in early 2005 they were proven wrong, as Mezmerize was released.

--Army1987 12:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Leaked

You shouldn't tell people the album has been leaked because it encourages illegal downloading (not that i have a problem with it) and it will drag the RIAA in. --Ultrasound 06:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

We should have no agenda here other than creating the best encyclopaedia we can. If it has been leaked, then we should be reporting that, regardless of whether it encourages people to download the album, or whether it "drags the RIAA in" - not sure where you think they'll be dragged in though. KeithD [[User_talk:KeithD|(talk)]] 23:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Soldier Side (song) redirects here

This article's AFD debate was inconclusive; as the article merely duplicated information here, I made the editorial decision to redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 02:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Promo Poster

Does anyone see any reason to keep that tour poster on the page, seeing that the album has been released now anyway? It's not really a great quality scan, and I think it's a bit distracting. If no one objects, I think I'll remove it in a few days. Thebogusman 02:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

tracks

i thought that every track from Mezmerize accompanied a track from Hypnotize, wasent there a former revision of this page that had a list of accompanied tracks? what happend to it?

--Joe dude 23:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

No. --Macarion 00:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Joined artwork

Does anyone have a picture of the joint artwork with hypnotise?

I think that the hypnotize page should have a new section, that highlights the similarities between this and Mezmerise. For those who are not aware, the inside artword combines, behind the dic of mezmerise, it a picture of the hypnotize dic, and behind the hypnotize disc is a picture of the Meznerize disc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SJZ44474 (talk • contribs) 00:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Song articles

Since many of the songs are not popular, yet have respective articles, propose we post warning flags at each one which is an unneeded song.

billboard debut

The claim that "System of a Down [is] the only band, other than The Beatles, to have two albums debut the top of the charts in the same year." is incorrect. Numerous artists have done this, included Guns N' Roses Use Your Illusion I am removing the refrence from this page. Stuph 06:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, not entirely true, as Use Your Illusion I and II were released on the same day, and therefore could not have both debuted at #1, to my knowledge they went #1 and #2. Aside from that, I can't find evidence of other bands besides the Beatles and System of a Down to release two #1 albums in a calendar year, DMX did do it, however. Matt d84 16:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

House of plastic

What is the "House Of Plastic" song?! I've never seen that anywhere. --213.158.196.100 21:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)