Talk:Thirty Seconds to Mars/Archive 1

"Unofficial" Track Listings

"The Struggle", another track that is officially the end of "Year Zero", has been incorrectly placed in other tracks or by itself in unofficial tracklistings. For example, it has been claimed by a few sites that "Year Zero" is only 4:38 long, and that "Anarchy in Tokyo" replaces it as the last track on the debut and is the one that houses "The Struggle" as it's end. Another has claimed that A Beautiful Lie [Advance] has "The Struggle" listed as it's last track (known as "[Hidden Track]"). These are all false, as "Anarchy in Tokyo" is not present on the official release, and "The Struggle" is not present on A Beautiful Lie [Advance].

A) The track listings are unofficial... what's the point in listing them? B) "Anarchy In Tokyo" is on numerous import releases, hence why it would be listed as the last track on numerous releases. C) Not to sound rude, but who cares if they list "The Struggle" as being last? Technically it is.

Enfestid 16:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Other

Two days ago (Saturday, December 10, 2005) I saw 30 Seconds to Mars at Water St Music Hall in Rochester. The show was Phenomenal!!! Me and my friend were by their bus and we got to talk to a couple crew members and Matt (bassist) from the band. Listening to the other bands and waiting for 30STM to play was crazy. I was so pumped for it! Some chick tried to yank Jared Leto's penis out of his pants (who could blame her?). When they finished playing I was going through withdrawl cause thats all I wanted was to hear them play again. I just have 1 question for Jared, if he dated Ashley Olsen, would he date Lauren Ashley Olsen? <thats me. That was so corny, Im just kidding....no, but seriously. ~Lauren www.myspace.com/lailoe

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jared_Leto"

Buy it and spread the word

30 Seconds to Mars are brilliant. I cannot believe they have sold so few of their first album as in my personal opinion, it is a masterpiece. I predict re-release once they gain the attention their music merits. I have not seen them in concert but will be in attendance April 16th. Their tickets are only $13??? They are playing with 3 other bands. I can't wait for the show and highly recommend their music!

Multiple Logos

Honestly, why do we need three logos? The phoenix emblem is the logo that is primarily associated with the band. The skulls logo is simply for the most recent album -- why have it on the 30STM page instead of the one for the album? The page simply does not look good at all. It does not show the progression of the band's logos. The first is not even the "original" logo... it's simply another promotional image for the most recent album.

Yes, sports teams have multiple logos. This is not a sports team though, now is it? Do you see the Linkin Park page with all of Linkin Park's numerous logos? No, it simply has pictures of the albums and bands. It is a far lengthier article as well. Look at similar articles of similar length: Adema, Slipknot, 311 (band), Alkaline Trio, Audioslave, Velvet Revolver, Blink-182, Cold (band), Disturbed, Evanescence, etc.

None have as many pictures, and they're all longer. Enfestid 02:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

"Lifeless"?

I've had a little confusion in the past with a track by the name of "Lifeless" in Limewire and Frostwire P2P file sharing networks. I've listened to it and it is quite obviously not by 30 Seconds to Mars (it's a metal song that has those extremely loud drums, screaming, ect). However, it appears very commonly when you search for 30 Seconds to Mars in one of those 2. Should this be mentioned?

Also, if anyone knows, does anyone know who the real artist of "Lifeless" is? I thought it was a good song. I'm thinkin' it might be by death metal band Shadows Fall, but I'm not sure.

The Wretched

No, it's not 30STM. And since it's not, honestly, there's no point in mentioning it. Listening all the songs 30STM didn't sing could take a while! haha

Enfestid 22:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

recent edits

There seem to be three confusions that need to be cleared up — two general, one specific to this article.

1. As soon as an editor has added material to an article, it's part of Wikipedia. The person who added it has no special ownership rights. For example, removing a section because "I added it, so I can take it out" isn't acceptable.
2. A minor edit isn't an edit that you don't think is important; it's fairly specifically an edit that doesn't involve the adding, removal, or change of content, but simply involves the format (spelling, grammar, organisation, etc.) of what's there. This isn't 100% precise, as even those changes can be non-minor, but the definition still clearly excludes, for example, removing a section and removing the caption of an image (as here).
3. The infobox gives a list of names of members; there's also a list of members that gives their rôles/instruments. The latter doesn't merely duplicate the former. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Mel, I would appreciate it if you would stop patronizing me with your comments. Also, your personal perception of Wikipedia's rules and information does not have to pertain to everyone if it comes down to personal perception. I was removing a section that was outdated. I was not removing it because I created it. I was removing it because the information given was redundant. The band members are already mentioned, and the instruments that they play are also already mentioned. Please understand this concept -- everything in that section was already displayed in other areas. I was not removing it for the sake of removing it, nor was I removing it to be a vandal or in malicious intent. I know that you understand this aspect, so please stop trying to deny it simply to make yourself look correct in the matter. You thought I was being malicious, but now you know otherwise. Your point is moot.

I understand what a minor edit is. Again, please stop patronizing me in this regard. I do not appreciate you speaking down to me as if I do not know Wikipedia's rules. I understand this concept, just as I comprehend the previous concept you mentioned as I've clearly explained. Again, this is your own personal opinion. Removing an "entire section" if it pertains redundant information is a minor edit. And let's just refer to it as what it is -- a list of names. A list of names is a much more apt title than "entire section." Yes, it is both, but you're making it appear to be something that it is not.

What the matter comes down to is one of Wikipedia's biggest problems -- personal perception of what is good for the article. I believe it's best that the list of band members is removed, as it's already there in another section.

Enfestid 17:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've edited the page to remove the list and include the instruments in the band info box. If this does not appease you I don't know what will.

Enfestid 17:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a pity that you have to be so touchy and unpleasant about it, and it's worrying that your personal view of what constitutes a minor edit is so much at odds with the Wikipedia definition. Still, although cramming all the information into the infobox looks to me ugly and more difficult for readers to use, I don't want to set you off again, so I'll leave it. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations: you can attack a member for their beliefs. Much easier than admitting your own fault, right?

Enfestid 00:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

??? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Revert Wars

OK Mel, it is readily apparent to me that you are not acting in "good faith." Your edits are nothing more than mere attempts to retaliate for a disagreement in the article. All your edits have done are change everything I have done to the article, no matter what it is.

For example, I changed the name from "Leto" to "Jared" to avoid confusion with his brother. You, in turn, changed every mention of Jared to "Jared Leto," even though his last name has already been mentioned in the article numerous times. This is a widely considered to be a grammatical "no-no" when referring to multiple persons with the same last name. You do not want to repeat an entire name multiple times for the issue of redundancy. The Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) article also does not seem to make mention of what particularly to do, so my revision was properly done. Your change of this did nothing to benefit the article.

I have no ill-will towards you, yet all of your edits have done nothing to benefit the article, and all of your edits are also made directly after mine to change something which I have done. If you need to talk to me, simply ask for me e-mail or other contact information, because this conflict is obviously not in the best interest of the article. Thank you. Enfestid 14:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

1. Your claim about my changing more than one occurrence of the name is false, as the diff shows.
2. I have explained my edits at your Talk page, even providing a link to the relevant MoS page concerning the linking of years, yet you still revert my edit with the claim that I have given no explanation.
3. You also still assume bad faith, for no reason that I can see other than that we disagree. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I gave you your years, and I gave you the name. What more do you want? Stop removing parts of my edits. This obviously indicates bad faith to me, when you can't trust that my edits are for the betterment of the article, why should I trust that your's are? Maybe if you would assume good faith as well then we wouldn't be having this problem.

I have already given you proof that the image does not need to be 200px, yet you still insist that it be that size. I then moved the logo to another part, and you changed thumbnail when this is obviously not what I intended at all. You still have given no proof about the lack of capitalization of "Progressive metal," which you keep reverting. I, on the other hand, have given you links to featured articles that have musical genres capitalized when on second lines.

Also, the period goes inside of quation marks, as do comas. I am not sure why you keep changing this and keep changing the phrasing of certain things, but whatever, I'll give you the rephrasing if that's what makes you happy. I've made concessions on my side to improve the article, when are you going to?

Enfestid 17:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Just to cite my last edit, since I've cited everything else and you still insist on changing it all... maybe it's worth a shot, however. Wikipedia:Picture tutorial -- you do not have to have a thumbnail in an article, if you merely want to resize an image.

Enfestid 17:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

And, finally, some last citing for you: Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Please see the very first section ("Disputes over style issues"), which states the following: "when either of two styles is acceptable, it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change." The style of my formatting the picture to 250px is acceptable, and the lack of a thumbnail for the logo is also acceptable. Please stop reverting them. Also, the capitalization of "Progressive metal" is also acceptable, please stop reverting it.

Also, please see the "Punctuation" section of the article regarding quotations. Thank you.

Enfestid 17:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

1. It's not a matter of your "giving me" things, nor is reverting your edits proof that I'm editing in bad faith (any more than your reverting mine proves that about you). You seem determined to make this a personal conflict; it isn't, or shouldn't be.
2. In a list of genres, why should capitalisation suddenly appear in the middle? It certainly doesn't in most articles, and it's out of keeping with normal English style.
3. You're reverting my changes to punctuation which are clearly mandated by the MoS (for example, punctuation is only to be included in quotations if it's part of what's being quoted).
4. The reason for thumbnailing images, and for not making them too large, is that it makes reading Wikipedia easier and pleasanter for those on slower, dial-up connections.
5. You quote from the MoS about disputes over style, as if only one of us is reverting; this is an approach which I've seen a few times recently: I'm labelled petty and confrontational for reverting when the other person is doing precisely the same. But I suppose it's different for you because you know that you're right? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Mel, please read the MoS Punctuation. It is not only included if it's in the quote. You obviously did not read the punctuation part, because one of the issues it clearly states when a period is included in the end of a quotation: Although the full sentence is not quoted, the sense of finality conveyed by the period is part of the quotation. It is also capitalized because it is a LIST. In a bulleted list, you capitalize on the start of a new line, no matter what. Same logic applies here.

Your opinion on #4 and #5 are null because you have been reverting what I've done. Anything I edited automatically gets reverted. After you reverted my changes, I change them back. My additions to the article are clearly in accordance with the Wikipedia guidlines -- you have no right what-so-ever to edit them when it comes to a style issue and both can be used. Please stop editing them or I will bring in a third-party to settle this dispute. Thank you.

Enfestid 16:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to hit on another one of your issues: I was trying to give you concessions in hopes that we could work these style issues out on our own. That was my entire point. I don't want to have a third-party settle the issue for us. I have already allowed numerous changes you've made to stand that are merely style differences, why can you not allow me any -- especially when you are the one who has been reverting my style to begin with? Again, please read the first section of the Wikipedia MoS. Thank you.

Enfestid 16:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

1. Where in Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Quotation marks do you find the claims that you make?
2. There's a disagreement, and each party has reverted the other; your claim is that my reverts are evil and yours good, because you wrote the original text.  ??? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Note also that referring to non-vandalism as "vandalism" in edit summaries, merely as a way of attackign another editor, is very much deprecated. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, now you are just vandalising the page. When you revert edits that conflict with the MoS and have absolutely no reason to make them, it's vandalism. I am not attacking you in any way, shape or form.

1. Examples: Arthur said that the situation was "the most deplorable [he] had seen in years." (Although the full sentence is not quoted, the sense of finality conveyed by the period is part of the quotation.)
2. I never said your's are evil. Read the section please: In June 2005, the Arbitration Committee ruled that, when either of two styles is acceptable, it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change. For example, with respect to British spelling as opposed to American spelling, it would only be acceptable to change from American spelling to British spelling if the article concerned a British topic. Revert warring over optional styles is unacceptable; if the article uses colour rather than color, it would be wrong to switch simply to change styles, although editors should ensure that articles are internally consistent. If in doubt, defer to the style used by the first major contributor. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jguk... my version was clearly acceptable, and it is inappropriate for you to change it from one style to another when there is not substantial reason for the change. I was the one who made it 250px, and you are the one who is continually reverting it -- there is no substantial reason for this change. You also keep reverting my formatting of the logo for no reason at all. Please stop reverting this as you are again conflicting with the same area of the MoS.
3. "Was" is a dead verb in the sentence you keep placing it in. Why do you insist on having it? "Leaked" conveys the meaning of the entire sentence, "was" is not even required.

Please stop reverting the article. I have already given you numerous concessions that conflicted with my edits (which you should not have changed due to the MoS statement quoted above to begin with). Next time you revert I am going to arbitration. Enfestid 15:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

After re-reading the MoS, I am incorrect about the quotation part. It demonstrated in this example:

Arthur said the situation was "deplorable". (The full stop [period] is not part of the quotation.)

I still stand by my other edits, however. Please refer to the above portion and read the MoS section referred to. Thank you. Enfestid 15:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean by a "dead verb"; the point is that things don't leak themselves, nor is the album a bucket; things are leaked (to the press, to journalists, etc.).

You have ignored my reasons for thumbnailing one image and reducing the size of the other; instead you're trying to make it an issue of mere difference of taste. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

OK Mel, I've had it. I've given you concessions on every single issue you've had. If you changed something, I let it all be except for the images. I've given you every single edit you've made except for the images, even though it is a matter of personal preference and conflicts with the Wikipedia Manual Of Style. I don't know if your mommy lets you get your way everytime you do something, but I am not standing for this anymore. You are clearly in violation of the first section of the Wikipedia Manual Of Style, and I am posting a new arbitration case.

It doesn't matter if you're doing it in good faith -- it violates the manual of style, and I do not appreciate you changing every single modification I make. You can keep claiming I'm assuming bad faith, but you are doing the exact same by changing everything I've done in the name of "good faith" -- what a riot, considering that's not good faith at all.

I have ignored your issues of the image sizes because they are personal preference, and you are changing my edits every single time I make them! I have already cited numerous instances stating that my edits are within the Wikipedia guidlines, yet you keep changing them back. Please stop reverting the page and allow arbitration to hear the case. Thank you.

Enfestid 17:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Link to the arbitration case: [[1]] Enfestid 18:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)