Talk:Nickelback/Archive 2

Genre change

Nickelback is post-grunge alternative rock band.POST-GRUNGE not metal,fuckin alternative metal.cccccccc

Genre change

Now I am well aware that hordes of Nickelback fans who are convinced that they are a hardcore grunge band will come to my house and rape me, but I added the genres pop rock and alternative rock to the genre list. I didn't remove the post-grunge label. I simply added those genres to cover their odd, poppy radio friendly songs. I'm open to suggestions though. The Wiki Priest 06:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you f***ing insane, Nickelback is not a Pop Rock band they are a Post-grunge, Alternative Metal, Alternative Rock, Hard Rock band and thats final if you dis-agree with me then go to all music.com and look at their pag, there radio friendly songs are just part of the post-grunge and alternative rock style, alternative rock and post-grunge is radio friendly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.180.59.72 (talk • contribs)

I totlly disagree with your claims that Nickelback are metal. Thats just ridiculous. Seriously though, man; Those songs like "Photograph" and what not cannot possibly be classified as post-grunge or even a power ballad. Time to revert some edits until I get a more accurate genre which covers the aforementioned songs. The Wiki Priest 06:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

the only guy i agree with is the last guy. the previous 2 are retards. nickelback is not/has not ever been a pop rock band. and alternative metal?!!! wtf?!!! they are not metal at all. i'm willing to accept hard rock, personally, i would just say post-grunge, alt rock, hard rock (somewhat), and maybe acoustic rock, since the acoustic guitar is present in many of the songs. Itachi1452 20:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the genres should be alternative rock, hard rock, post-grunge

Alternative rock had a citaiton requested a whiel ago, and none was provided so it was taken down. Besides I don't realy see why they would be considered an alt rock band at all, what would they be the alternative too? Their style of music fits in with the mainstream rock that has been popular for years.Hoponpop69 02:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

well, yeah. they're really mainstream, and mainstream rock is mostly comprised of alt rock. but with nickelback...yeah, alt rock. but i'm also a little hesitant since the main reason they're mainstream is because their songs are all based off actual mainstream songs, only they made the songs sound rock-influenced. the few original songs they have aren't that alt rock, since they lack the melodic tone, and just sound boring kinda...Itachi1452 21:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

They are hard rock, rock, and melodic rock

I also think that they do a lot of Chrisitan rock for example from 'if everyone cared' they repeated "Singing Amen, I, I'm alive Singing Amen, I, I'm alive" a couple of times which may not seem to straightaway imply that they are a Christian rock band but rather suggest it in an indirect way. Other quotes suggesting that they are Christian rock include "Oh oh oh Oh god I" Photgraph "Heaven's gates won't open up for me With these broken wings I'm fallin' And all I see is you These city walls ain't got no love for me I'm on the ledge of the eighteenth story And oh I scream for you Come please I'm callin' And all I need from you Hurry I'm fallin', I'm fallin'" Savin me

"Please God, don't let him pull it How could you put us through it? His brother watched you do it

How could you take his life away?" Side of a bullet

These are all from their newest album as well which shows them to still use terms referring to God etc. One more thing to note is that almost all their songs have refrence to God.

So i think that besides whatever genre you guyz think NIckelback should be, i also think they should be Christian Rock. Hamster-Skill 00:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Christian Rcok bands are bands whose purpose is to sing about god, and help spread his message. Nickelback on the other hand likes to sing about sex drugs and rock and roll. Nickelback isnt christian rock. Purplepurplepurple 19:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I think Nickelback SHOULD be counted also as Alternative Metal. Many of their studio songs have an edge that is harder and use more shred than grunge , i.e. "Because Of You" and "Side Of A Bullet". Some of their songs have a similar sound to some of the nu metal bands (not saying that Nickelback is nu metal, because that would be very wrong).

honestly, please, just please, remove alternative metal. the only reason they're called that is their tendency to explode into choruses, but they have a distinctive lack of power chords. 66.57.12.148 22:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• cough* Whoever says Nickelback isn't Alt-Metal needs to go listen to some studio tracks rather than judging from singles alone.

Number one, they're not Christian rock because THEY'RE NOT CHRISTIAN. And number two, How the HELL are they alternative metal? Bandgeek100

Side of a Bullet, Animals, and many other studio tracks could answer your question. Besides, they do have a sound that's heavier than Alice in Chains, and they're Alternative Metal. BreakerLOLZ 03:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Nickelback is not heavier than Alice In Chains. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GrimReaper39614 (talk • contribs) 21:31, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

FACT. Nickelback is NOT post-grunge.

FACT. Nickelback is NOT hardcore.

FACT. Nickelback is NOT metal.

FACT. Nickelback is NOT alternative.

FACT. Nickelback is SOFT ROCK!!!

Two or three songs DO NOT dictate their musical style. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.214.173.127 (talk) 00:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

As the great Billy Joel once said - It's still rock 'n' roll to me. Gemfyre 14:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to quote from Nickelback's Biography Webpage. (Official)

"Over the years, Nickelback's music has appealed to listeners of pop, hard rock, alternative and metal. A number of seemingly disparate celebrity artists have also embraced the band, including ZZ Top guitarist Billy Gibbons and ex-Pantera members Vinnie Paul and the late Dimebag Darrell Abbott."

Personally, I think their music is terrible, but a genre can just as easily be defined as by who listens to the music than what can actually be heard in said music. So, I call it pop, but Rock, Alt, and Metal are all still, legitimately, on the table. Konraden88 12:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Genre - why do you all feel the need to 'classify' this band? I'll tell you why - it's not about how good they are, it's not about style of music, no it's not even about where the band fits into contemporary culture. No, rather it is more about YOU than anything else. The whole Genre label thing is about how a particular band fits into your life and musical taste. Heaven forbid that if you are a grunge lover that Nickelback be 'classified' a heavy metal band, or if you are a metal fan, they be classified as soft rock. What? If they were you can't still enjoy the music? The arguments posted here are weak, and have absolutely nothing to do with the band itself - it is about YOU. The bottom line is, when you tear away all this other garbage, that this band is a rock and roll band - period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.81.58.24 (talk) 09:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Allmusic says they're post-grunge, alternative metal. Post-grunge covers softer rock (Feeder) and harder rock (Foo Fighters), and Nickelback are somewhere between them in terms of heaviness. Ok, maybe they're not alternative metal, but they're certainly alternative rock. Any other subgenres are due to people intepreting Nickelback in different ways methinks. 88.109.249.19 (talk) 18:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

lead/rythm guitar?

Is it true that Chad plays rythm guitar and Ryan the lead guitar? As far as I know Chad does all the solo's? 84.80.214.87 14:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

not sure...with a lot of bands if the singer has a guitar, he's not the lead [or she] . it wouldnt make sense to have a secondary guitar solo though =/ Inuxshinedown 20:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

No, It is not. Chad and Mike each do solos. Chads concidered the lead guitarist tho.

Criticism

It raises ONE point of criticism ("How You Remind Me of Someday") and then all it does is mention a bunch of people who don't like them. Criticism sections are supposed to explain WHY people criticize them.--Foot Dragoon 05:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree 100%, infact, if there is no objects by say, Monday, im removing the other two paragraphs. --Ferdia O'Brien 02:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't remove it, it's perfectly valid as that mp3 has made the rounds a number of times, and their songs really do generally sound the same. Plus they have no talent and anyone with decent music tastes knows this band is total crap. That might sound subjective but it's really not, it's a fact that this band sucks and are derivative of all the crap "alt rock" (whatever that means) bands that came out in the late 90's. Fermentor 07:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

In fact, the only reason I came here was in hopes that something negative was said about this terrible band. If anyone wants proof I can link to the video where the lead singer gets a rock thrown off his head in South America. I'm totally against throwing things at bands when they're on stage even if they are really terrible, but I'll make an exception for Nickelback. Fermentor 08:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

That's stupid, you're not here to improve the article, or any of wikipedia. So don't post on talk pages! X( Savagepine 01:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't remove that, I removed the other paragraphs that are virtually the same point, and don't even think of putting the POV crap your spouting into the artical. Ferdia O'Brien 16:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

WE NEED TO NOTE that "How you remind me of someday" is not that accurate, as someday is sped up in the song while how you remind me is not.

If you guys think that the Criticism section is that bad, why don't we just take it out? Raven23 03:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, I have ALREADY cut it down to just the point about "How You Remind Me Of Someday", and I'm LEAVING that. --Ferdia O'Brien 16:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The Criticism section needs to be expanded, mostly because criticism is out there and the band is universally detested by critics. Why isn't there anything about when they were booed off the stage and rocks were thrown at them?

Why isn't the section on criticism being expanded? This band is loathed by critics and even the general public. This is not just a personal vendetta against a mediocore band --User: Unregistered

I mentioned in the critisim section about the two songs in How You Remind Me Of Someday being edited so they run in sequence in case people get the wrong idea and assume they are both identicle.The Neverdoll 08:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed the single comment in the critisism section, because it was obviously vandalism. If someone wants to revert back to a sane version of the critisism section, be my guest. Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver And The Vandal Watchman (Talk) 15:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I just did it myself, it turned out it was only a single act of vandalism that cause the change. Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver And The Vandal Watchman (Talk) 15:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

THe criticism section needs to be in here, because this band is criticised and without reference to that the article is biased. There are plenty of live links to articles and reviews to choose from without having to go on about "How you remind me of someday" However there is hardly any point even mentioning considered critiscm in this article it will be deleted straight away--84.57.54.138 05:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)Nighthawkx15

• Actually, by adding a criticism section, you bias the article, putting a negative slant on the band. Leaving it out leaves the article unbiassed, adding niether praise nor criticism. Also, this is an encyclopedia, and an encyclopedia would NOT contain criticism. Purplepurplepurple 03:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

That's the worst logic I've ever heard. The last user was right - there are many open critics of the band, and silencing that doesn't make it go away. It ought to be at least acknowledged somehow. Plenty of in-depth articles acknowledge major critics of a topic. I'm really disappointed that someone edited out the criticism section, seems very counterproductive. I'm not going to add it in, but it should be restored or something.

Rob Shepard 08:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• If you're going to add criticism then you will also have to add positive comments as well, or the article is negativly biased. How is that a bad logic? It's just the opposite side of YOUR opinion, which is why you think it's bad. Perhaps a "reception" section would be good for this article--we could mention both the legions of fans and off the charts sales, and criticism could also be mentioned.Purplepurplepurple 00:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm adding my support to the redevelopment of the criticism section. It is horribly written, and even includes a link to Youtube in it, which is instantly bad in itself. As if Youtube don't already have enough links to put them at the top of Google searches. -58.175.32.232 22:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

When CNN actually writes articles about this band and why they are so hated and criticized (but still commercially successful), and the band takes constant criticism by listeners on the internet and radio DJs who are angry about having to play Nickelback songs, it gives me just a SMALL HUNCH the criticism section is entirely relevent and should be expanded on. All that remains of it now is a biased stance on "How You Remind Me of Someday" which uses weasel words to attempt to bunk said criticism. There was no "heavy editting" of the songs, either, just the removal of two lines to even out the choruses. As far as genres go, Pop Rock is a must, Metal or Alt Metal is a must NOT. Face it, the sound of this band is blatantly commercial pop and contain little to no metal influence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.6.84 (talk) 16:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Why Attack This Band in Particular

Why do people attack Nickelback in particular? Sure, they're not particularly great, but I can name at least ten artists who are just as bad or, heaven forbid, even worse. Nickelback is more boring than actually unlistenable.

I think the hatin' on Nickelback is just a trend. Every time period has sucky bands. Find some music you like and leave the stuff you hate the heck alone.203.131.167.26 05:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I don't it, if there so bad then why do they have two tracks that spend 10 weeks+ at No. 1 on the Main Stream Rock Charts? Theres one a couple bands who can say that. --Ferdia O'Brien 15:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Commercial success has NOTHING to do with talent. There are dozens, or even hundreds of musicians that have more talent, but don't sell as many CDs. And there are less talented ones who sell more. There is no correlation between the number of CDs a musician sells, and their talent level, NONE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.211.217.191 (talk) 22:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. For people like to get on their high horse and slag the band, that is their perogative. But obviously many people like them for their albums and songs to be so successful! --216.129.12.197 16:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

i know why people hate nickelback (seeing as how i'm one of them). if they weren't so mainstream, we wouldn't have hated them so much, but because of HOW ORIGINAL THEY ARE. look, people always say that all their songs sound alike, and i'm not too hesitant to disagree, plus lots of their melodies were recycled from old songs and other artists. yeah, i mean, they're not really ulistenable, just kinda...annoying after a while. i hate Hinder more, because they had the nerve to then rip off nickelback. well, if i was to say nickelback was original in any way, i'd say that they were the first band to copy off so many other bands and make big money off it. Itachi1452 00:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Popularity only further enhances people's wants to hate them, because they aren't good in particular anyway. Basically, if they'd only of sold 1/10th the albums they did now they would be getting much less criticism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.224.115.184 (talk) 01:47, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the whole point: people criticize them because they wonder why such a mediocre band sells so many albums, and scores so many hits. If you ask me, it's a hyped band that is particularly popular with people that do not really know or appreciate the *original* grunge music. Because if they did, they would see how much of a rip off much of the bands these days like Nickelback really are. Just my 2 cents... RagingR2 12:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

If nickelback is so bad, why were they the number 1 ticket selling band in the world in 2006? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.7.227.38 (talk) 14:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion on this page should be intended to improve the article, not to discuss what we think about the band's music. Feel free to discuss whatever you feel is incorrect in the criticism section of the article but leave discussions about their quality and originality for a fan site or a blog, not an encyclopedia. SWik78 19:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

"If nickelback is so bad, why were they the number 1 ticket selling band in the world in 2006?" So all of a sudden 'sales = quality', does it? Stupid twat, ofcourse not. 'sales = quality' is just a shitty loophole used by idiots to gain a questionable 'upperhand' in an argument with people who believe that how 'good' a band is is subjective —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.142.9.128 (talk) 19:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Put the real facts!!!

http://www.roadrunnerrecords.co.uk/artists/Nickelback/

!!! Nickelback have sold 25 million albums worldwide !!!

Current record 'All The Right Reasons' has now sold over 7 million copies worldwide

'All The Right Reasons' debuted at #13 in the UK album charts last year and achieved Top 10 status in over 7 countries, inc No. 1's in Canada, Australia and the USA.

Last single 'Saving Me' reached #1 on the UK TV airplay charts.

Nickelback appeared in the top 50 selling artists of the 21st Century in the UK Music Hall of Fame.

Nickelback have sold over 1.4 Million albums in the UK!

They have BPI certified Triple Platinum, Gold and Silver albums

Album 'Silver Side Up' peaked at #1 in the UK album charts, and 'The Long Road' at #5.

They played to over 400,000 UK fans earlier this summer supporting Bon Jovi on the British leg of their Worldwide Stadium Tour.

'All The Right Reasons', hasn't left the Billboard Charts' Top 20 since it's October '05 release!

Touring trade publication Pollstar revealed that Nickelback ranked 3rd behind only U2 and Bon Jovi in worldwide ticket sales for the first quarter of 2006.

First single from All The Right Reasons, 'Photograph' became one of the first songs to sell over 1 million downloads!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gzarrillo (talk • contribs) 20:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

Nickelback's song "Saturday Night's Alright for Fighting"?

That should really be changed to "Nickelback's cover of Elton John's "Saturday Night's Alright for Fighting""

Rick951 19:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Fixed Nickoladze 20:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Nickelback Christian rock band? Hamster-Skill 00:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Nickelback = Christian rock band.

I think so because many of their songs like savin me and if everyone cared include a number of themes related to God and christianity. Although they might not admit it, i do think that Nickelback falls under the Chrisitan Rock genre.Hamster-Skill 00:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, just listen to "Animals," the lyrics are like basically straight from the bible.

"Animals" having lyrics coming from the Bible? I don't think so. If you're talking about "alas, the devil needs a ride", it's use as a figure of speech for the person, knowing that he's doing something wrong. And the whole song is about two couples who get in trouble for sneaking out of their houses, and get caught in the end. It has nothing to do with Christianity there.

And aside from that, I wouldn't classify Nickelback as a "Christian Rock" band, even for "Savin' Me", and "If Everyone Cared". They're more "Hard Rock" along with "Post-Grunge". -Goldenfox17-

Can Someone Provide A Link To Find Worldwide Sales I'd Like To Look Up Someone Else's Sales Thxs I Noticed Nickleback as the worldwide sales listed

Basically, they're not a Christian band because all the members are not Christian. [[User:bandgeek100]] 17:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

topic order

you know, putting the criticism section first to demolishes the neutrality of this page, IMO. Somebody should reorder the sections, maybe putting discography, or a history about the band first. Generally I see criticism sections at the bottom of pages. Purplepurplepurple 20:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This page needs way more meat to, theres way to many tables in this article.
Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver And The Vandal Watchman (Talk) 18:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Genre Change

If I were to pick a genre for Nickelback, I think it would be a four letter word that is a synonym for something that comes out of your butt.

Cute, but ultimately useless suggestion. As a wise man once said, " Don't hate".Kyalisu 21:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Nickelback's song "Saturday Night's Alright for Fighting"?

By all means, Nickelback is not Christian Rock. If we left it up to Nickelback to preach the words of the lord to us, we might as well all go to hell. Chistian Rock is something that needs to involve a relevant intelligence of what you need to do to go to heaven. What Nickelback does is not heavenly. They have taken the minds of millions of people by making them listen to their **** music all over the radio. I just wish my ears would explode every time one of their songs comes on. That's why I don't listen to the radio anymore. Of course, few of the bands I like are even on the radio. People need to realize that not every good song is played on the radio. Infact most of the bad, talentless ones are. Nickelback lacks the talent that many other bands posess such as Dillinger Escape Plan.

A little professionalism would be nice...

What's with all the juvenile comments?

This is supposed to be a website referencing facts, not immature attacks on a band.

I agree with you. This site isn't about basing. It's about info, and researching. -Goldenfox17-

Did you seriously just use the acronym "WTF" when referring to immaturity? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.207.75.251 (talk) 17:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Info missing

This article only had information about awards, sales, and releases, until I restored the "Criticism" section. It also needs some biographical information, like the history of the band, the source of the name, etc. -- Beland 15:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, someone forgot to mention that they are absolute bullshit musicians 172.142.9.128 20:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

You can't NOT have alt. rock...

Post-grunge, one of Nickelback's genres, is rooted in alternative rock. In fact, it's actually impossible to be a post-grunge band without being alternative rock, because of the song structures. Alternative metal is there, but alternative metal is too heavy to allow a song to be post-grunge. Alternative rock needs to be there as well. I know there've been arguments over the fact that there are no citations for alternative rock, but if you're not gonna put it under genres, then post-grunge needs to be removed immediately. It simply isn't possible to have it for a non-alt. rock band. James25402 18:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• If altrenative rock and post-grunge go hand in hand as much as you say, then you only need to list post-grunge, because alternative rock will go without saying.Purplepurplepurple 20:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, not really. They have alt. rock songs that aren't post-grunge as well. You can be alt. rock without being post-grunge, but you can't be post-grunge without being alternative rock. James25402 01:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I like Nickelback but why is Alternative Metal up there? idk, i kinda always thought bands like KoRn or System Of A Down were alternative metal but i guess i was wrong. Havent seen any of their videos on Headbanger's Ball for some odd and apparent reason. Can't till their next album and you wikipedians can label them as Metalcore. or Christian. or both lol.165.166.192.159 00:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

They are the most jackshit mainstream artist since Britney, and NOTHING about their sound is 'alternative'. They are alternaitve to alternative = sellout. Go listen to soundgarden, or anything apart from this shite 172.142.9.128 19:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Reception

I think that instead of a criticism section, we should have a reception section, noting both good and bad things about the band. We could include "How you remind me of someday" and other such criticism, as well as move some of the info on awards they have won to this section. Otherwise the criticism section stands out and seems to put a negative slant on the band. Purplepurplepurple 21:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there any chance we could do something about all the tables below the section while were at it?
Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver, Reformatter And Vandal Watchman (Talk) 09:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

IMO, it kind of makes sense that the criticism section is like that. I think it would make sense for a band who has a overwhelming amount of criticism over good reception, which is something that is a big part of how people view them. 63.224.220.8 14:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, they get just as much good reception as criticism. Their videos continue to top charts, and almost every song from their last CD gets airplay. The media nowdays just plays up negative sides more because thats what gets ratings.Purplepurplepurple 19:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I think 2 months is long enough to wait for a responce so I made the change myself. I moved the tables to there own article (Nickelback_awards), and I fixed a few smaller problems while I did it. Ferdia O'Brien (Talk) 14:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

This article is not neutral

If there is a criticism section, there should be a Praises section. If there is no praises section, the criticism section should be removed. I mean, if they are getting so much airplay, they must be doing something right, right? --I hope I was helpful 10:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Exactly what I've been saying. however, nobody that works on this article seems to care.Purplepurplepurple 16:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• • I do. Smokizzy (talk) 17:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

No, because the band sees very little artistic praise, only commercial praise. I challenge you to find ONE BAND more criticized for unoriginality and lack of creativity than Nickelback. This is why the criticism section is entirely RELEVENT; they are WIDELY criticized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.6.84 (talk) 16:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• In any case, Wikipedia discourages Criticism sections. According to this page, they take away from the neutrality of the page, and, as I suggested on a previous topic on this page, criticism should be placed in a "Reception" section. I understand that the criticism is relevant, but that does not mean that the commercial success of the band is to be ignored (especially since in today's world, it all comes down to money).Purplepurplepurple 01:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

"(especially since in today's world, it all comes down to money)" Stop listening to mainstream radio, and you'll be pleasantly surprised 172.142.9.128 20:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

They are not christians.

Just because there are a few lines that seem religious, doesn't mean they are. So stop.

(And if this is deleted, it just shows how much POV there is here.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.214.173.127 (talk) 00:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

EMO

WTF? Are you kidding me? Can I please delete this? Cubs07ftw 03:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Again.

Well, someone totally screwed up the article. BreakerLOLZ 20:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BreakerLOLZ (talk • contribs) 01:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)