Talk:Disturbed (band)

B-sides section

Yeah so, i created a B-side section after the discography, to stop people from coming in here and going "My friend found this song and he says its disturbed, but it's not on any of their albums so i wondered if it was really them" etc..65.43.214.196 14:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Last Paragraph/Disturbed songs in video games

The last paragraph of this article (Disturbed has since garnered a more respectable reputation...) really sucks and needs to be re-worded. Whether or not the band has "garnered a more respectable reputation" with anybody is an issue of debate, and the paragraph seems merely to be an excuse to list what games the band has songs on the soundtracks of. There already is a list of Disturbed songs on game soundtracks so i'm deleting that horrible last paragraph.65.43.214.196 13:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

New Propositions

Twsx and I have talked a lot on MSN Messenger, and we have, more or less, come to the conclusion that a compromise could be possible. He takes a more conservative point of view on the issue, since he would prefer if the article stayed as it is. However, I am not favorable on the status quo for this article. I feel that it would be inacurrate to ommit this information from the article.

I make the following propositions:

• To put the term mallcore in a different way. Example: "is often said to be closely linked to the mallcore culture."

• To put it as a different section of the article, but as having its own, separate section.

• To use a different term instead of "mallcore". However, I doubt there is a word capable of replacing it.

• To use the original proposition but clean up the Mallcore article in a way that doesn't offend the band.

I am looking forward to hear other Wikipedians' opinions and reactions for these new propositions.

--Zouavman Le Zouave 16:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You don't need to exchange the word mallcore, you need a way to mention the disagreement (which without a doubt exists) without having it say "omg this band sux", which is in any way the case as long as "mallcore" is used, since mallcore describes an opinion, not a genre. - - 'twsx'talk'cont' 19:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

So you propose that the word "Mallcore" shouldn't be used in the statement. I am okay with it, since Wikipedia labels it as degrading. Could the following statement be okay with you?

"...and there is much debate on whether the band should be considered metal. Many extreme metal fans, for example, would not consider Disturbed's music as "true metal". --Zouavman Le Zouave 20:35, November 29, 2006 (UTC)

Change "metal" with "heavy metal", and find something for "true metal" as this is very vague. Other than that i guess i'm fine with it. Would like to hear some other opinions though. - - 'twsx'talk'cont' 21:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I purposely wrote "metal" instead of "heavy metal". I didn't mean to say that extreme metal fans did not consider Disturbed as heavy metal, but that they didn't consider it as any form of metal what-so-ever. As for "true metal", I think I can clear this up a little bit:

""...and there is much debate on whether the band should be considered metal. Many extreme metal fans, for example, would not consider Disturbed's music as what they call "true metal".

Is this okay with you (or any other Wikipedian that might be reading this)? --Zouavman Le Zouave 21:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. I could get behind that statement. It's not a perfect statement, it might be a little non-NPOV with out mentioning someone stating it should be heavy metal, like Disturbed's website or the article on the band at allmusic.com. However, using the term 'metal' with a band like Disturbed, who I think we all can agree is somewhere in between metal and hard rock, will always cause problems, mostly with metal fans. That being said, Zouavman Le Zouave, your statement will work well until a better term can be found, if at all. As far as a better term for 'true metal', how about just using 'metal'. Also, to improve the NPOV, arguments for each side of the dispute could be presented after the statement. Hope this helps. - AidanPryde 21:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Aidan. I think the "true metal" is ok with "as what they call" in front of it. Since you reminded me that nothing is definite and it all can still be changed or enhanced, i agree with the statement as you have given it Zouavman. Feel free adding it. - - 'twsx'talk'cont' 22:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I am glad we have come to an agreement. I am going to add the statement today either at around 10:00 (GMT) or after 17:00. Thank you for your cooperation, if any changes were to be made, I would gladly participate in the discussion and would be open to a variety of solutions. Thank you again, --Zouavman Le Zouave 07:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Zouavman directed me here for the sources on the "extreme metal" line, and I don't see any, besides an agreement that that sentence is acceptable. Can someone direct me to the document where the ruling body of this mythic, unified faction of extreme metal fans state they do not consider Disturbed to be true metal? That said, perhaps I place the citation needed tag in the wrong place. It would work much better after the words "extreme metal fans." PhantomOTO 00:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to have a "united" point of view for it to be recognized? I have the sources listed above, and Encyclopaedia Metallum shows a universally accepted point of view in the community that uses this encyclopedia (this community being the extreme metal fans). --Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me! • See my edits!)} 02:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not necessary to have a united point of view, but this is a plain generalization. It's akin to, but less offensive or important than, saying, "Most black people love fried chicken." Also, Encyclopaedia Metallum being an extreme metal source? Just because we present a different view on the origin of metal and which early heavy bands qualify as metal, doesn't mean we're biased towards extreme metal, are a part of the extreme metal "community," or cater to said community (and I'm in a position to say that, being a moderator, and in contact with the people who run EM). Don't let someone else's opinions or statements (which were intended to defame the website and its owners) about EM taint your judgement. EM is NOT a website primarily directed towards extreme metal fans, and what is written there cannot be used to determine what a large, fragmented community believes, especially if you're claiming that the viewpoint in EM is universally accepted. PhantomOTO 03:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

So what do you propose? Do you want the statement to be changed around, deleted, left as it is? The statement does not say "Most extreme metal fans", but "Many extreme metal fans". It would be an euphemism to say that some extreme metal fans do not consider Disturbed's music as metal. It is not a generalisation, it is a statement stating a fact, and this fact is supported by a number of sources. You said it yourself: "It's not necessary to have a united point of view". I have 11 sources that back up this point of view shared within many individuals in the metal community (not only the extreme metal one). I have reached an agreement with twsx, but if you want to add changes, I am willing to find another agreement with you. Thanks in advance for your cooperation, Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me! • See my edits!)} 21:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I would write it as such: "There is still much debate on whether the band should be considered heavy metal, as many fans of the genre do not consider Disturbed a part of it." This seems efficient, says basically the same thing, but removes the part I find objectionable. I do not disagree with the statement that many metal fans do not consider Disturbed to be metal, but rather the "extreme metal fans" specification. PhantomOTO 21:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes I think it is better like the way you proposed. ^^ Sorry I hadn't checked the page earlier... I hadn't noticed there had been edits going around here... Thanks for reminding me! I think that it would be better to replace my statement with that of PhantomOTO. --Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me! • See my edits!)} 22:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The way that line is now is much better -- who's to say only black and death metal fans don't agree with the label? There are tons of Maiden fans that utterly detest this band as well. Nice job on the rewording there. --Ryouga 20:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

This sentence needs major reworking: "Disturbed was originally founded as a nu metal band, but are now regarded as hard rock or heavy metal." Talk about POV -- there are plenty out there who will agree that they always have been a nü metal/mallcore band. I really don't know why this sentence was ever created. --Ryouga 21:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Fails WP:WEASEL

This sentence that seems to have been added by a bitter death metal or similar fan simply isn't NPOV, vertifiable or factual. There is no evidence to prove that genuine heavy metal fans (ie- people who specifically were fans of the original bands in the 1970s) have a problem with Disturbed or any other similar bands which make up part of those subgenres.

"There is still much debate on whether the band should be considered heavy metal, as many fans of the genre do not consider Disturbed a part of it."

There is clear use of WP:WEASEL words with "many fans of the genre", yet no vertifiable citations. Whether teenage fans of part of another (commerically un-notable) subgenThere is no evidenceThere is no evidencere death metal (that alot of the original heavy metal fans argue is unrelated to heavy metal itself) dislike the band or not really has no place in an encyclopediac article (especially the opening section) of a million album selling act.

Removal of the tags placed before these issues have been brought within Wikipedia policies that I pointed they fail, will be considered simple vandalism. - Deathrocker 23:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

There is also no evidence that only "Extreme Metal" fans have a problem with Disturbed or any other similar bands which make up part of those sub genres. Claiming that is a non NPOV and extremely bias. You're basing it all on what you personally think and feel. Like PhantomOTO said on the Mallcore talkpage, you seem to think that the fans the styles are warring factions, when to the contrary it couldn't be farther from the truth. When are you gonna realize that just because you and your buddies think "Extreme Metal" genres aren't unrelated to heavy metal, it doesn't mean all do. There are many who while not fans of the genres, still consider them related. There are also many who are fans of more traditional metal and fans of "extreme metal" (myself included). You seem to base a lot of your edits regarding metal on personal opinion and not fact. Inhumer 01:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I also know of many Traditional Metal fans who hate Disturbed and like bands, and do not cosider them metal. Inhumer 04:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

"ie- people who specifically were fans of the original bands in the 1970s" Quit acting as though these are the only metal bands in existence. The sentence was a result of editorial consensus, as Inhumer said, and the way it is now is fine as well. It really isn't vandalism to restate something generally agreed upon here. "You seem to base a lot of your edits regarding metal on personal opinion and not fact." Bingo. "that alot of the original heavy metal fans argue is unrelated to heavy metal itself" Isn't that weasel words right there? Manowar, who invented this entire "true metal" thing, state that death and black metal are both genres of true metal. Here's a cite for you: "I like all extreme metal, I like all death metal, I like black metal, I like all of that. As long as it's from the heart and it's pure and it's heavy, it's good. I don't like any of this nu metal shit, it's just complete shit." -- Joey DeMaio, Manowar.[1] --Ryouga 04:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Try this one too:

On the fact that die-hard heavy metal fans may not see Disturbed as being quite heavy enough: "We probably have too much melody going on or we're not quite as turbulent or caustic. While I really love that type of music, it's not what we try to do. If we have to place things in context, we're more hard rock than heavy metal these days."[2] Are you done yet? --Ryouga 04:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Manowar formed more than a decade after heavy metal, they had nothing to do with its origins and their music is made up of entirely different characteristics that that which is defined on the heavy metal music article. Their sound is closer to power metal than real heavy metal like Deep Purple or Black Sabbath. Ozzy Osbourne (he was only in a little band that invented heavy metal) has made quotes very favourable to the band in question; so unless you can come up with something pertaining to real heavy metal that disputes Disturbed's connection, then it is false information.

As far as "concesus", the people on this very talkpage who are stating oposition to the band in question are related to extreme metal as per their pages. You claim to listen to death metal such as Morbid Angel, Inhumer claims to listen to grindcore (as well as predominantly extreme metal bands as per a link on his page), that is a point of view coming from extreme metal fans; it is not the people who were part of the encyclopediac movement described in the heavy metal article from the 1970s. (and it is not "POV" to associate users preferences to extreme metal bands when it is stated clearly in their own links and pages.) The two have very different characteristics, and this is all explained in their specific article.

I do listen to A LOT of "Extreme Metal"(a term I hate), but I do listen to my fair share of Traditional, Power, and Doom Metal bands, and like the page says its only a partial list. Also, preferring a certain type of music doesn't stop someone from having knowledge about other types of music. Inhumer 05:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

"You seem to base a lot of your edits regarding metal on personal opinion and not fact."

Incorrect, my edits do not contradict the heavy metal music article. Some of the extreme metal fans who edit Wikipedia that have come over from EM, who are here mainly to try and deface nu-metal article's connection to heavy metal and attempt to loud death/black's are non encyclopediac and POV. I always hold factuality in mind when editing ANY article, period.

But to you, anyone who doesn't agree with you is an Extreme Metal fan or as you have put it, a "extreme metal kiddie." Inhumer 05:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Regardless, there is still use of weasel words, and uncited information.... those are Wikipedia policies that must be followed. "If death metal fans dislike a band they can claim anything they want about said band on their article" however, is not a Wikipedia policy.-Deathrocker 04:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

So, because I listen to Grind, it means I can't also listen to Traditional Metal? Thats some strange logic.Inhumer 04:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

You may not take us seriously because we listen to some extreme metal, but I cannot take you seriously if you think heavy metal is restricted to a group of bands from the 70s that reject the label (Deep Purple (who have some metal releases, ex. Machine Head), Led Zeppelin). Alas, this is irrelevant. I think it is dumb to argue that Manowar is a power metal band, since they are about as power metal as Judas Priest is/was. Regardless, the second cite I have placed there is more sufficient than your random opinianated blather. --Ryouga 05:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, EM members came over when YOU start attacking the credibility of the site on its article simply because they don't include Led Zeppelin on the site. Inhumer 05:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

You have also done nothing to support your claim(s). You have done nothing but use libel and tried to defamate(not sure if thats a word) Ryouga and I by saying that because we like "Extreme Metal" that we try to use bias in articles and have little knowledge of the topics at hand. You seem to do that alot when you have nothing to back up your claims with. Inhumer 06:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I should add: how is it justifiable to label Disturbed "heavy metal," yet claim Manowar doesn't belong to "real heavy metal."? And don't cite the Wikipedia article as a source, that's just stupid. For all we know it may contain information you placed in it to hold true to your own views. --Ryouga 06:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be overstepping things a bit with all of your comments, squire. I have not stated anywhere whether I personally consider Disturbed to be "this" or "that", if you want my personal opinion on what style of music they play... then feel free to ask. Don't put words or opinions in my mouth that I didn't voice, as you have done several times while addressing me.

My comments were only in the interest of keeping this article within the NPOV policy... and were in regards to the POV sentences in the article, which were unsourced, had weasel words, and were only added because you and similar editors hate the band.

In regards to Manowar, try reading the power metal article, notice how they are mentioned as important and their characteristics are far closer to those mentioned in that infobox. Their musical characteristics are not a sum of, "Psychedelic rock, Blues rock and Hard rock" which is stated in the heavy metal music article. (a featured article, heavily sourced, which had extensive reviewing for it to be even considered "featured" in the first place, factually considered among the best on Wikipedia[3]) - Deathrocker 07:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

1. Manowar, Mercyful Fate, Judas Priest, and like bands all contain proto-power metal elements in their riffing and lead play. Neither are power metal bands. 2. Heavy metal originally and disputably may have consisted of blues rock elements, however the NWOBHM abandoned most of this element (I'll take it you don't listen to much metal outside of the hard rock and trad. bands?). On top of that, traditional metal and hard/blues rock have nothing to do with Disturbed anyhow, so I'm not getting your point with being so adamant to keep this band from receiving criticism from metal fans (which is now clearly cited). I do not wish to hear anymore of your totally erroneous outlook on what heavy metal was/is any longer, I just hope for everyone's sake you realize that the article is now fine and free of POV. If something "major" comes up, take it to talk before dismissing it as "simple vandalism." As you can tell, no one here is actually agreeing with you, so continuing on like this won't get anyone anywhere. --Ryouga 23:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no "disputably" about it in regards to heavy metal containing a blues elements, its as factual as saying Adolf Hitler had a mustache. Unless you are 14 year old, totally oblivious to the history of heavy metal and think Slayer invented it.

And... what does NWOBHM have to do with anything? They don't define heavy metal, just the same as new wave didn't define punk rock. NWOBHM is essentially a subgenre that mixed foreign elements not found in pure heavy metal (like punk) but mixed it with the sound of the original bands, they were derivative.

I'm sorry to say, but your edits don't make you come across as the sharpest knife in the draw. Attempting to debate with you seems to be pointless, as you don't have the faintest idea what you are talking about, are are probably just looking for attention. (as per your attempts to drag up month old debates on the EM page when that article was already sorted) I just hope you get a clue what you are talking about, for your sakes, if you are going to continue to edit articles pertaining to heavy metal... without adding your inane POV. - Deathrocker

Continued

While I realize that articles must be consistent with other articles, using a Wiki article as a main source for another Wiki article should be avoided at all costs, period. Especially when it comes to music articles, as most Wikipedia music articles are atrocious. Ours18 06:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

If you consider the majority of Wikipedia music article, that the community has worked on to be "atrocious" then why bother coming here? Doesn't make sense. - Deathrocker 08:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it makes perfect sense---because they need to be fixed. Ours18 08:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree on this point, they come off as extremely bias, we had someone on here part of WikiProject Metal, who disgustingly, tried to submit the slang term "Mallcore" as a legitimate article with a picture of Disturbed featured, not once, but twice. The elitist POV emanating from many of the music WikiProjects is hurting the NPOV of articles as they continually show very little respect towards musical genres and bands they deem "unfavorable". There are quite a few music articles that desperately need NPOV, the Disturbed article itself having recently survived two POV attacks.Revrant 12:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Again. --Ryouga 22:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

What are you "agreeing on", Ryouga? You are one of the very people who have been attacking articles of band's you consider "mallcore" and adding a POV bias. I wouldn't call your edits "elistism" though, more a lack of historical knowledge on the subject of heavy metal music. - Deathrocker 03:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm agreeing on the fact that these music (specifically metal) articles are biased and incorrect, probably due to the editing of arrogant users such as yourself, whose only arguments comprise of insulting others without citing any referable sources. --Ryouga 03:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Exactly - and that is the only thing close to a source our friend here has used in his argument(s). This page is much better the way it is now, and was better with the "many" rather than "some," as that is probably truer anyhow. --Ryouga 07:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Lets have all this bickering end now since the opening is worded better now. Inhumer 08:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I've included the entire point I was trying to get here with the cite, rather than the way it was before. It now states that die-hard heavy metal fans may not find them heavy enough (acknowledged by the band and asked by the interviewer) and his full reply. There should no longer be problems. I also reworded the nu metal/hard rock/heavy metal sentence, to make it less of a statement, since it is not a wholly agreed upon topic. --Ryouga 22:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Deathrocker, stop following me around Wikipedia and making personal attacks on me every time I edit a music page. Why is it that you only took issue with the unsourced statement after I compromised and removed the "extreme metal fans" part? Please, let's not have every metal-related article on this site become a place of petty, egotistical, childish bickering. Also, if you're going to edit pages related to "extreme metal," don't sour every discussion with insults aimed at the genre and the people you perceive as incorrigible die hards. PhantomOTO 03:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I presume that was your attempt at comedy? You think I'm following you around Wikipedia, priceless. Please show diffs to prove this attempt at self-relevence on your part... you can't, because you are commiting baseless slander....

Also, you are clearly following my edits around, that is what 90% of your edits have been so far[4][5][6] you even signed up to follow my editings in the first place over from Extreme Metallum[7]... that is a rather worrying/sad statistic, but relitively amusing at the same time IMO... also, refrain from vandalising my comments to talkpages (such as this one) without my persmission,[8] this falls under simple vandalism and is not acceptable on Wikipedia, mk? - Deathrocker 06:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC) Now that you mention it, this page was never this heavily reverted until the statement was changed -- honestly, it is fine. Quit reverting. --Ryouga 03:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Will you two guys, especially Deathrocker, stop already? The way the article is at this very moment seems fine to me. The debate is stated, but no unreferenced statement is made. I think that reflects all views fair enough, so please leave it like that, i beg you... - - 'twsx'talk'cont' 16:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the ordner of the genres in the box should be alternative metal, nu metal (, heavy metal, hard rock), any objections? - - 'twsx'talk'cont' 16:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd say go with hard rock (since this is what they call themselves) first. Then alternative, nu and heavy metal, of which the order doesn't matter too much. You can change it to whatever. --Ryouga 20:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

You can't possibly call them hard rock over alt. metal.. - - 'twsx'talk'cont' 00:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

This is not my personal opinion - I just figured it made sense since that is the label they use. But if you want, you can put alt. above. Doesn't make too much difference. Alt->Nu->Hard rock->Heavy metal or something like that. --Ryouga 05:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I, personally, would omit heavy metal and hard rock, and just go with alt. metal and nu metal. Hard rock and heavy metal are stated in the article as a sourced opinion, but i wouldt add them in the genre line at all. Since i think alternative metal is what describes their style as it is now the best, and they without a doubt have been casual nu metal in the first and partially the second album, i would edit it to "[[Alternative metal]]<br/>[[Nu metal]] (former)". But, i would like to hear one or two or three opinions/objections/approvals before i do so.. - - 'twsx'talk'cont' 15:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I think a sourced opinion is a bit more valid when it comes from the band's lead singer. I think hard rock ought to stay, and perhaps remove heavy metal, since while Disturbed might fall into "alternative metal" or "nu metal," they don't have much to do with "heavy metal," be it the 1970s bands or post-Judas Priest brand. PhantomOTO 03:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Does the order of of the genres in the info box honestly matter?Inhumer 05:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it does. The way it is now, it lets a visitor understand that Disturbed is mainly a heavemetyl/hardrock band, which is untrue. I changed the order now. Didn't remove the 2 genres yet. - - 'twsx'talk'cont' 18:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm up for the removal of "heavy metal." --Ryouga 19:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Disturbed have even less to do with the origins of hard rock than they do heavy metal. Last time I checked this band sounding NOTHING like Aerosmith for example. This is where the bias of other users sets in, and what I meant by the death metal comment at the very start, alot of people related to Extreme Metallum like to pretend any band which isn't br00tal and hasn't got ties to hardcore, is just "hard rock", when that isn't factually their characteristics. One of these bands are the odd one out.

AC/DC

Aerosmith

Disturbed

Van Halen

Disturbed sticks out like a sore thumb, because their characteristics are entirely different. - Deathrocker 06:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

You know, Hard Rock bands continue to form to this day. Or did they stop forming in the 70s like how you think Traditional Metal bands did? Inhumer 07:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

You know, some bands do continue to form to this day, in a style which's characteristics are those defined in hard rock, the same can be said for heavy metal. Or is any band formed after 1980 that isn't derivative of hardcore, a part of "hard rock", like you think? Even though the characteristics of Disturbed have as much to do with those mentioned in "hard rock"'s infobox as they do with "polka". - Deathrocker 07:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, don't call someone a vandal for removing one of your comments when you did the exact same thing to one of my comments on this very talk page. Inhumer 07:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Please don't lie, I have not removed a single one of your comments on the talkpage, nor do I have need to. PhantomOTO, blanked the very opening part of what I was stating was wrong with the article, I proved this with a diff, thus he commited blatant vandalism. - Deathrocker 07:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't lie. [9] Inhumer 07:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

As you can see by the two versions, I was making corrections and expanding what I had wrote.[10] Notice how sometimes there is an "editing conflict" when trying to save work, and it has to be copy and pasted and edited again. That is likely what happened.

I have no need to blank any your messages, as anything you type that is incorrect I can disprove with a reply. PhantomOTO's removal was deliberate, and a blatant attempt to remove the very opening which explained what the problems with the article was. - Deathrocker 07:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

no, you had edited what I had said because you left in words I had written and wrote around them. Inhumer 08:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

No, notice how there are two comments by you... with different times.

Your older comment: 04:44

Your other comment: 04:47,

When I added my corrections: 04:48[11] - Deathrocker 08:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)