Talk:Flyleaf (band)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Genre dispute[edit]

It has become quite clear to me that this is not going to be solved anytime soon. As such, I have adopted the solution that was arrived upon at Anberlin, a band with similar genre conflicts. Christian rock will be listed, but it will have a tag next to it clearly stating that it is disputed, linking to the section of the article that discusses this. I will be unlocking the article; however, if edit warring continues, all participants will be blocked. Please use this talk page for reasonable discussion from here on in, no personal attacks, no name calling. Thanks. GlassCobra 07:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a few ppl disagree with something that doesn't make it disputed. It is sourced info, it is not disputed. 78.129.175.213 (talk) 12:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is everyone happy with what I have done? I sure hope so, don't want to hurt anyones feelings. 78.129.175.213 (talk) 12:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, people disagreeing over something is the definition of disputed. I've reverted your changes. GlassCobra 12:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so everywhere on Wikipedia if SOURCED CONTENT is added, as long as a couple people don't like the truth you are going to list disputed next to it. I do not agree with alternative rock so put disputed next to it, then link it to the moron section. 78.129.175.213 (talk) 12:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the dispute before trying to override consensus that took over a month to reach. There are sources that can be found to say that Flyleaf is Christian rock and ones that say that Flyleaf dislike being labeled as a Christian band. Please do not edit war on the article. GlassCobra 13:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad that you see it my way cobra=] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.150.73 (talk) 17:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How does religion come into the discussion in the first place, surely its just circumstantial that all members are christian... plus the fact theres source 12 with singer stating she found faith. Surely it would make sense to have the 'christian' genre if flyleaf actively whore themselves as a christian band... user scorpionfoot 27/05/08

For what it's worth, I would assert that the "alternative metal" tag be removed, simply because they do not fit the criteria of metal music. Allmusic and MTV aren't reliable sources on heavy metal music. Prophaniti (talk) 17:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


isnt the song All Around Me cosidered pop? MTV considers it pop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenday21 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christian rock tag definitely needs to be removed. Christian rock really isn't even a real genre. There are bands of many different genres marketing to the Christian rock market. So Christian rock is really a marketing term rather than a genre. Genres are musicological classifications, and bands often dislike the label that describes the music they are playing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkolak (talk • contribs) 07:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever is strongly suggesting that Flyleaf be listed as "Christian rock", I highly respect your theory and I know what your reason is, but just because the members of Flyleaf are Christian or in some songs they mention Christian references, doesn't make them a Christian rock band. Please think of this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanner9461 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Am I the only one that doesn't see a reason to have the "Christianity" section? 66.58.169.123 (talk) 05:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MOS and Genres[edit]

User:Kaiba has reverted twice citing WP:MOS. I asked the following question on his talk page but he's deleted it without comment so I'm pasting it here.

If I understand you correctly, you want to replace <br> with commas? If so, where's the discussion on this? The sample template for bands at Template:Infobox_Musical_artist#Genre has <br>. --NeilN talk ♦ contribs 05:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Genre Section[edit]

I think that that section should be deleted unless someone would elaborate in the bands style...because the same thing that is listed on the section is listed on the infobox...and elaborating on the bands style would include listing DIFFERENT point of views, as in if a proffesional review states that flyleaf is emo...it should be mentioned in the section, not only emo...obviusly other ggenres too, as long as the review/site is profesional and credible...though most reviews dont stray away from calling flyleaf postgrunge, alt rock/metal, hard rock....but im just sayin 24.139.117.90 (talk) 00:55, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument for deleting the section doesn't make sufficient sense. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:04, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
well either i didnt explain myself right, or u read it wrong...i mean that if wats listed on the infobox is literally the exact same thing in the genre section, then delete the section, cuz it makes no sense repeating the same genres over again. A genre section...or musical style section isnt just listing the genres of the band..its much more than that...and the genre section in the article is an exact copy of wat is said or listen on the infobox...as in its literally pointless from an unbaised point of view to have a section that says something already written..................let me give an example............ if on an evanescence album article says that the album is alternative metal, and there is a musical style section that says only "the main genre of the album is alternative metal" and nothing else...then whats the point of making a section of it if its already said clearly? do u get me now? 24.139.117.90 (talk) 03:45, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
>.> ok then i see ive been ignored...all im saying is erase the stupid genre section cuz theres no point in having it!!! 24.139.117.90 (talk) 20:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that it's common across articles, particularly when there is confusion. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glasscobra[edit]

Since when can admins override consensus of multiple users? Alternative Rock clearly needs to be the primary genre here, almost all the sources found support that genre. Landon1980 (talk) 12:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not overriding any consensus, please read the discussion more carefully. Kaiba and Dwrayosfour were edit warring over whether alt metal or alt rock would be included in the lead sentence. I removed the genre altogether and told them that they need to discuss it here on the talk page to decide which genre should be included. However, Dwrayos continued to revert back to his version; because he was edit warring and not discussing, he was blocked. GlassCobra 13:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think GlassCobra has handled this situation well, and ought to be commended on the way he has handled this situation. Good work. Five Years 13:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hardly see edit-warring and overriding consensus commendable. Strike that, I shouldn't have said that.

You will see that many ppl will agree upon making Alternative the primary genre, and this was implied multiple times in the discussion. The edit war was clearly over between those two users, you poured fuel on the fire. You also could have discussed here first before removing something of that nature. It takes to to edit war, you were the other party here. Dwrayosrfour was not reverting to his version, he was reverting to your version that was in place directly after the article being unlocked. He felt he was enforcing a well-known consensus. Why is it that only we have to discuss changes here and not you? User Kaiba certainly did not discuss here before removing the content. Landon1980 (talk) 13:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative is the primary genre, it's true -- however, the distinction between alt rock and alt metal is apparently enough to edit war over. The edit war was over between Kaiba and Dwrayos because Kaiba did the sensible thing and stopped, because he realized he was closing in on 3RR. The point is that this was in contention and should have been discussed before being added at all if it was going to be fought over. So I merely removed it in order to facilitate discussion here. Please also be aware that it was Kaiba, not Dwrayos, who was reverting back to the version from before the article was protected. GlassCobra 13:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No according to the edit history the previous version had Christian in the lead, and the other had alternative metal. I meant he dw was reverting to the version that was in place while the article was protected, minus metal and plus rock. Kaiba's version was the new one. Check the history Landon1980 (talk) 13:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also I reverted my last change, I won't mess with it until something is decided upon here. Landon1980 (talk) 13:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I looked at this article after the protection was over, like most Flyleaf articles here, it stated 'Alternative metal' in the header. It was I who changed it from alternative metal to simply the word 'rock'. Consensus of the recent discussion is to list Alt. rock, Alt. metal, and Christian rock in the genre box, but I dont believe there was any formal consensus on what genre the opening line should have (the only thing close to that was someone saying "there are more refs for alt. rock, so that was consensus", which is a false interpretation of what consensus really is). Since it was an agreed consensus to add these three genres to the infobox, I believe adding a single genre to the opening sentence would violate NPOV, since it is clear from the discussion that all three are or could be percieved (in the case of Christian rock) as a genre of Flyleaf. Furthurmore, all genres that are listed, Alt. rock, Alt. metal and Christian rock, all fall under a broad category of rock music, so stating 'rock', instead of one of the three, in the lead will ultimately lead to the most neutral view point on the genre. When this dispute happened on another bands article, HIM's, at the time there were four or 5 genres in the infobox, including alt. rock, heavy metal, hard rock and gothic rock/metal and the agreed solution there was to simply put it under the term rock music since it is irrefutable and the most neutral. — Κaiba 14:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree with the above. The primary genre needs to be in the lead sentence. Alternative was said to be the primary genre multiple times in the past discussion. Primary genres are almost always listed in the lead sentence. Furthermore, there was no conflict involving this, you assumed that. No one expressed a problem with alternative being in the opening sentence, in fact we all agreed it would be the primary genre for this band. Landon1980 (talk) 15:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also alternative was in the article while it was protected, you need to discuss things like this here before you just simply edit-war to get what you want. It is your opinion none of the above should be listed, but you should also seek the opinion of others before doing something like that. You knew the genre of this band was, (is) heavily disputed. As for your other changes you kept insisting upon, policy is to use <br> tags in the infobox for bands, not commas. You should also familiarize yourself with Wp:MOS before you repeatedly try and enforce it on others. Landon1980 (talk) 15:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very sad when it is decided that a single genre ripped out from the three choices is plastered in the heading and called a NPOV. I wont respond to the rest of your attack. — Κaiba 16:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't sad when nearly three dozen sources support that genre, this is how it's almost always done. I am not attacking you, I am talking to you. Where did you see an attack? You saying "GET OFF MY F****NG talkpage is an attack, not my mere statement. The three genres are not the same, Christian Rock is disputed and has one or two sources that meet the criteria of WP:Source and alternative metal and rock are very similar. Using alternative rock is the logical thing to do in this case, the vast majority of our references support it. I can understand your point of view if the genres were very different, and had an equal number of references, but that is not the case at all. Landon1980 (talk) 16:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh did I say a bad word (and in non-caps, as you didn't imply)? Wikipedia is not censored for minors. And again, you cite consensus in numbers of references, I suggest you read up on what consensus really is. I also suggest you clarify what is so similar about alternative rock and alternative metal, because they are two different genres completely. Alternative rocks style origins lay with punk, post-punk and hardcore music while alternative metal evolved from alt. rock, grunge, heavy metal and prog rock. In fact, I went and looked on the alternative rock article and I couldn't easlily find a link straight to alternative metal (although if I looked at the full article I could probably find a mention of it). The only things that are similar are the names of alt. rock and alt. metal. Not only that but you stated that the primary genre is always listed in the lead? I picked three stable band articles by random to see if you have it right:
Green Day - "Green Day is an American rock band" with punk rock, pop punk and alternative rock in the infobox
System of a Down - "System of a Down...is an American rock band" with alternative metal, experimental rock, nu metal and various others listed in the infobox (wait, alt. metal? does that mean they are alt. rock too?! By your decree, they would be)
Nirvana (band) - "Nirvana was an American rock band" with alternative rock and grunge in the infobox
Nirvana is the perfect example. Grunge is a type of alternative rock, but yet both alternative rock and grunge are listed in the infobox and lookie at the lead, it doesn't say either. I rest my case.
And Nirvana just keeps on giving, it is a featured article and look at the infobox, it lists the genres as "Alternative rock, grunge" <--Commas, no? — Κaiba 16:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be using this select few while ignoring hundreds of other articles that list the primary genre in the lead. 76.177.242.179 (talk) 17:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and how many of those are articles are controlled by their fanboys? And how many of those articles are content that is featured, or even considered a good article? My bet is not many, if any at all. — Κaiba 17:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there always a big argument going on here? Why can't you all just leave well enough alone? This is hardly worth arguing over. Everyone has agreed that alternative be the primary genre through consensus. If you wish you can restart the debate I suppose, but I doubt many will want to join seeing how the debate ended just YESTERDAY. 76.177.242.179 (talk) 18:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Everyone has agreed that alternative be the primary genre" is not what is questioned. Alt. rock, Alt. metal and Christian rock all have sources. And the issue is having a single one of those listed in the beginning sentence. — Κaiba 19:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Think about it like this kaiba, you are worried about NPOV to keep everyone happy and be fair to everyone right? Well do you realize that this entire new dispute is because of you failing to discuss what you were doing and edit warring? You could have at least waited for someone to complain, leave good enough alone. 76.177.242.179 (talk) 19:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't edited the article for the genres since last night. I have been here for the entire length today discussing it and not changing it. Shut up unless you have a valid argument. — Κaiba 20:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You people are arguing over nothing! Like Kaiba pointed out, other articles have just rock in the lead. Why are you arguing over whether to put christian rock or alt rock or whatever? Just put rock. And 76.177.242.179 (aka User:Hoponpop69), you're just escalating this. Just rock in the lead is fine and there's no reason for anyone to disagree with that, unless of course you just love edit warring and pointless discussion. Timmeh! 21:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to point out that Kaiba is on nearly ever single band article there is making these same changes. 76.177.242.179 (talk) 00:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to point out a a group of diffs of me changing a genre significantly other than this article? I did so to this article and Nickelback yesterday, but I do not recall any others, unless your seeing something I'm not. — Κaiba 05:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The ones that do not list the primary in the lead for the most part are the ones Kaiba has graced with his presence. Nearly all band articles do this, no different here. Landon1980 (talk) 00:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was not the one who changed any of the genres in any of the articles I pointed out above. The fact I may have edited the article at all is of no relevance. WP:POINT dearly noted. — Κaiba 05:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Rock" in lead[edit]

Is anyone not okay with this? I'd strongly support it, if only to end this bickering. GlassCobra 14:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only person against alternative metal is Kaiba, why are we always bending over backwards for one user and ignoring the wishes of others. I like how you will not even acknowledge making a mistake yesterday, and ignore me when I ask you about it. Kaiba was the one making the change from the version restored after and before and after the article was unlocked. DW was acting on behalf of several users, it is a shame people are treated that way on here. Kaiba was making the change, and he should be the one to had to discuss on talk first. You would think that you if anyone would have supported that consensus after witnessing and mediating a month long edit war. You could have at least told Kaiba to discuss before making a change regarding the band's genre, that is what the edit war was over you know? I would have done the same thing, I have seen TONS of cases where one user will enforce consensus when someone new is overriding it without discussing it, and they certainly were not blocked. The guiltiest party in an edit war is the one seeking the change. The fact he is blocked is a disgrace to the entire community. You should have supported that consensus yourself. You could have at least not been so careless and actually looked at the edits that were made between the users. You went on for half a day yesterday how most articles contain the primary in the lead, and that you agree one of the two should be in the lead, but that you were not going to side with metal or rock. Then told me to be aware that dw was the one making the change, well that wasn't the case and you would have known had you taken the time to actually looked.Nearly all articles contain a genre in the lead, just because one person wants to edit war over it is not a good reason to do different here. Landon1980 (talk) 15:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing, what is up with the three day block? When I reported hoponpop for personal attacks, incivility, harassment, abusive sock puppetry, etc. he was only blocked for 72 hours and that made the 9th time he had been blocked for the same things, and all within not too long a period. He then made another personal attack literally minutes after the block expired, he was then reported and the admins responding failed to even warn him, one even said he was salvagable, and that he jumped the gun reporting him. I don't understand how things work around here. Landon1980 (talk) 15:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although this is unrelated to this article, Hoponpop69 seems to have just gotten lucky. Admins must think that since he has had mostly good edits, he will learn from his mistakes by getting several short blocks. I think this is a serious problem. Every time he has been blocked it has only been for a few days. Almost all of his blocks are from incivility and personal attacks, yet blocking admins refuse to give him a longer block for reasons unknown to me. However, he should receive the correct number of warnings before being reported. Hoponpop seems to be addicted to edit wars and won't settle for anything other than what he thinks should be. I am having this problem with him over Sum 41 about the genres; he refuses to discuss the issue and just keeps reverting my edits. He didn't violate the 3 revert rule, and I've already reported his activities to WP:ANI, but the responding admin just told him to discuss the matter on the article's talk page rather than on mine. I am almost ready to just report him to WP:AIV for reverting my edits without explanation or discussion. However, this isn't the place to discuss this, so if you want to discuss it further, Landon or anyone, feel free to on my talk page. Timmeh! 21:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I put "rock" into the lead not realizing there was a discussion about it. It's kinda obvious that they are rock, and its essential in the article really. Riverpeopleinvasion (talk) 21:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Landon1980, you said "The only person against alternative metal is Kaiba".. You said you wanted alternative rock in the lead paragraph.. This is only evidence that simply the term 'rock' should be in the lead which is what I supported from the beginning. So think about it now Landon, now yourself and Hoponpop69's IP are the only ones left favoring the alternative metal/rock lead, while myself, glasscobra, Timmeh and Riverpeopleinvasion all support rock in the lead. I see your so-called consensus failing. — Κaiba 22:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Either of the alternatives are fine with me, also that IP is not hoponpop's. He would be for Christian in the lead if he were still involved, trust me. Landon1980 (talk) 22:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad I can't trust you. — Κaiba 22:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why would hoponpop suddenly change over and support alternative, he hates the idea of it being in the lead, he wanted Christian in there, that was one of the things the last dispute was over. Landon1980 (talk) 22:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you so defensive about Hoponpop's views about this? Seems to me like you know a lot more about what he thinks should be in the lead than you should. Something smells fishy here. Not accusing anyone of anything, but I have a very good feeling something's not right here. Timmeh! 22:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow your one sharp tack, I am indeed a sock of him, that is why I reported him to ANI which resulted in him being blocked for 72 hours. He was since reported again, and I commented there, was certainly not for him. Landon1980 (talk) 23:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And yes Kaiba, you are the only editor that has a problem with alternative being in the lead. The others just do not want to argue about it, anything to get us to shut up. You are the only one that cares enough to edit war over it. You are the only erson to ever complain about it being in the lead. EVER! Landon1980 (talk) 22:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know hoponpop would not fight to have alternative in the lead, he spent a month fighting against it, and was blocked due to edits he made while frustrated over the ordeal. Landon1980 (talk) 23:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Call down. Now, rock covers all the genres. Be it alternative metal or hell even christian rock. Rock works for everything and there are more people for it than against it. So consensus? Riverpeopleinvasion (talk) 22:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think everyone, except Landon, agrees that rock should be in the lead. He won't give a reason why he doesn't want it there so there's no point arguing over it anymore. It's a pointless discussion. Timmeh! 22:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most all articles have the primary genre in the lead, why should it be different here? That is why I don't want it there, there are in excess of 30 sources that support alternative, just seems logical to me to put it there. You all need to quit throwing GC's name into the mix. If you will read is earlier statements he said he definitely agreed that alternative should be in the lead, he will agree to about anything just to get everyone to shut the heck up. He has to be sick of this by now, every time he thinks it is over here comes someone like Kaiba, stirring up a bunch of shit. If he/she would have left well enough alone nothing would have ever been said. Landon1980 (talk) 22:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on, but isn't alternative metal a subgenre of rock? So it covers it. Like the linkin park article, they are nu metal yet rock is in the lead. This should work here too. Riverpeopleinvasion (talk) 22:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most all articles, like which ones? That doesn't matter anyway. When there's debate over what should be there, like there is here, then a broad term that covers all the debated genres should be put in the lead, and that's rock. And stop complaining about Kaiba, you're moving closer and closer to personal attacks. Timmeh! 22:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to two paragraphs above, anything to get you to shut up is probably right Landon. It isn't like I'm exactly begging for an edit war or to disrupt anything, I saw something that honestly needed changing, and I did and now I'm here since someone has contested it. Yes, I am the only one to may care about it (even though there is a bigger majority for my change here than when we started), but it wasn't only me who reverted the other editor a couple days ago, glasscobra was also, so I am not alone, and glasscobra seems to support my change now.

Just so you see my point, I'll tell you of a little bed-time story Landon: I was also the only one to ever revert or to complain on the Triple Crown Championship article about there being a two championship belts that may or may not be a part of the honor. When I started that discussion, I was the only person who thought that and they thought I was a lunatic to start that discussion. 3 or 4 months of discussion ensued after that. By the end of the discussion, we had reached a compromise for the two championships belts to be seperated and listed seperately on the article. If you look at that article now, those championship belts are no longer mentioned on the article and if you read the talk page there is overwhelming consensus that favored my original complaint.

Just hope you know I've been in longer and harder uphill battles than you can imagine (the above story is only one of many), and I don't plan to go and hide like everyone else just so there isn't a discussion. — Κaiba 22:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GC reverted the edit because he thought the two of you were fighting over whether rock or metal would follow alternative. He didn't realize you were the one making such a change immediately after the page was unlocked without even discussing it first. He said himself, alternative metal was the implied consensus, and that the consensus made several mentions of it being the primary genre for the band. He also said that most articles like this have a genre in the lead. Landon1980 (talk) 23:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus can change, just like users opinions, and Glasscobra's latest comment says he supports rock being in the lead, and no amount of "he said this and that before" can change what he currently stated. I would rather Glasscobra comment on his feelings himself rather than you imply what he feels. — Κaiba 23:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Landon, I'm sorry if you feel ignored; however, I'm not sure what you mean about me "going on for half a day yesterday how most articles contain the primary in the lead," I believe I only mentioned it once. I do still agree that some genre should be in the lead, but I did not want to side with one of the two alternative ones being bickered over. I am supporting "rock" in the lead because I feel it would be a compromise for all sides involved without sacrificing any of the factual accuracy of the article. Now, unless anyone has a very good reason why rock should not be in the main, I would like to end this debate. GlassCobra 23:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was no one fighting over whether out of the two which should be added. The argument was over Kaiba removing alternative all together without discussing it. You still act like Kaiba and dwrayos was edit warring over whther the lead be alt rock or metal, that isn't what happened. Kaiba was removing material related to the genre out of the version that you used after unlocking the article, that version was implied to be consensus regarding genre related issues. Please stop saying they were edit warring over metal or rock and you just could not side, that is not in the least what was going on. Have you not actually looked at the edits. All dw wanted was for Kaiba to discuss first, and to understand the long argument over the genre and that alternative metal was agreed to be the primary genre. Landon1980 (talk) 23:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does his previous interpretation of old revisions matter somehow? He said he supports rock in the lead now and two other editors and myself support it as well and you have never given a satisfactory reason as to why the term 'rock' is somehow inaccurate, misleading or worth debating. The genres still exist in the infobox, its not like they are going away. — Κaiba 23:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Landon, I'm not really concerned about why they were edit warring -- the point is that they shouldn't have, whatever the reason. I have said before to multiple people that the previous discussion had nothing to do with what genre is the "primary" one, and then I am trying to facilitate a brand new debate. Can we all please forget the old stuff and move on? I just want to come to a peaceful agreement. GlassCobra 00:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Civility[edit]

I would just like to remind participants in the above debates to keep cool and remain civil. Seraphim♥ Whipp 23:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Seraphim, for your comment. — Κaiba 23:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where they are from[edit]

Now, I have lived down in Belton, TX. And I know one of the band members went to my church down there. Everyone in or around that area says they are from Temple, TX. Now you know that Belton, TX and Temple, TX are right next to each other. Before going to main stream they played at Bethel Assembly of God, in Temple, TX a few times. Now, the members are from both Belton and Temple. Why dont we say they come from the Belton-Temple, TX area. Oh, ya and on there myspace (www.myspace.com/flyleaf) it says there location is Temple, TX.169.147.3.28 (talk) 08:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly what I have just changed it to, I changed it to reflect that Flyleaf formed in the Temple and Belton, Texas regions, adding a reference to their myspace for Temple, Texas and a reference to All Music Guide for Belton, Texas. If someone disagrees, and I'm sure someone will *sighs*, tell me. — Κaiba 08:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no disagreement. That looks good to me. :) GlassCobra 13:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neither do I. I always wondered why it said Belton. Landon1980 (talk) 15:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually neither of those sources said that they formed in either of those regions, it just stated that thats where they are based in now.Hoponpop69 (talk) 15:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the All Music Guide reference does say they formed in Belton and it is well known they are from Temple, Texas as well since there are references that state a couple of members themselves are from Temple. Get consensus before you remove it again, because as it stands, when I made the change, Glasscobra and Landon agreed with the change and Timmeh reverted your removal. If you feel it should be removed, give a more satisfactory reason than 'because it is a fact' because there are obvious facts which refute you. — Κaiba 10:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I feel including both Temple and Belton is more accurate. I don't see the problem here, hoponpop, if it is sources you want there are plenty out there to back this up. This is from their purevolume page "Out of the small, quiet town of Temple, Texas emerges a rock band that is about to take the world by storm." Landon1980 (talk) 13:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I want to go ahead and let it be known that I just accidentaly signed my comment with an IP that has some recent vandalism edits, I thought I was still logged in. I am at work and some of their computers use an open proxy, and it is a bank of IP's that alot of people use to vandalise wikipedia apparently, because in the last month it looks like several ppl have used this same IP. The IP changes on this open proxy every two minutes, and tons of ppl share the same IP's. Landon1980 (talk) 14:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christian alternative rock[edit]

I think it should say Christian alternative rock because it is more suitable for this band because "Unlike Christian rock, Christian alternative rock generally emphasizes musical style over lyrical content." But I will not change it until someone says they agree or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.160.135 (talk • contribs)

I would agree with you normally, but in the case of Flyleaf, it is not clearly defined in their music or by the band themselves whether or not they would even considered Christian rock, with only a couple of references, and any 'Christian' genre would inevitably be disputed. Getting some reliable sources that state they are Christian alternative rock would be helpful. — Κaiba 19:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would discourage people from responding to this; we've gone over the Christian part several times, and I believe now we should just focus or the rock or alternative part. Thanks. GlassCobra 19:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've thought a lot about this and I don't actually have a problem with rock alone being in the lead. I only had a problem with how user Kaiba was implementing his change at first, and his condescending attitude. It probably is a good idea to do this, hopefully this will be the end of the bickering on here. I for one am sick of this. The only reason I said anything to start with is his failure to discuss it first, and the fact I thought it went against consensus of many users. I don't see the big deal of rock or alternative rock being in the lead, and I certainly do not understand why someone would edit war over something so petty. I'll agree with anything just to move on, unlike some of you I have a life outside of wikipedia. Landon1980 (talk) 00:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I have a life outside Wikipedia, but I will certainly spend all of my time on Wikipedia if someone wants to dispute something. Sorry, but I don't usually have to explain every change I make on a talk page, I just usually do the bold thing and leave an edit summary and if someone has a problem, they can leave me a message at my talk. And BTW, you aren't the first one to misinterpret my tone as meaning something else when I had no intention of doing so. — Κaiba 01:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. I realize you had good intentions all along. I never really disagreed with what you were doing; I just got the wrong idea of your intentions I guess. By the way I'm not saying you should discuss before you make any change whatsoever. It is just there was a lot of controversy surrounding this particular article. I felt that anything dealing with their genre should be discussed first. I will admit it is a good idea for this specific article, only because of its neutrality. I may be wrong, but I don't see how anyone could have a problem with this. Hopefully this will put the genre dispute to bed, or at the very least a long nap. Landon1980 (talk) 02:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, — Κaiba 03:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, well, unless anyone objects, I'm going to go ahead and put "rock" into the lead sentence, and hopefully now we can all move on and keep editing the encyclopedia. I'd like to thank everyone for keeping it relatively civil these past few days here. :) GlassCobra 15:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the members are Christian doesn't automatically classify their band as Christian rock. Tolkien and Stephen King are Christians, does this make Lord of the Rings and Carrie christian literature? --75.176.82.74 (talk) 06:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We already had this discussion, it is in the archive, if you would like to read it, it is located at Talk:Flyleaf/Archive 1. — Κaiba 08:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this entire discussion on their christianity is a joke since their music VERY SPECIFICALLY references christian themes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.254.65.58 (talk) 07:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dudes Flyleaf is a Christen/alterinitive rock band!!!!! Listen to their lyrics sometime. User:Dursely —Preceding comment was added at 18:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ATTENTION! This argument has been fought and decided already. Read the archives. Don't be difficult. And learn to spell. Jparenti (talk) 07:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What did i spell wrong??User:Dursely —Preceding comment was added at 19:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christian and alternative Landon1980 (talk) 19:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kaiba, you are wrong when you say that "It is not clearly defined in their music or by the band themselves whether or not they would even considered Christian rock, with only a couple of references, and any 'Christian' genre would inevitably be disputed." You obviously don't listen to their lyrics. "I'm So Sick" talks about wanting more than this physical world, a hole only God can fill. "Fully Alive" talks about a girl who is fully alive through Christ even though she's had a bad life. "Perfect" talks about how we can only be perfect through God. "Cassie" is the most obvious. She boldly says that "I will say 'yes'." The song says "say yes to pull the trigger." Then she says, "And I will pull the trigger." "Sorrow" talks about how sorrow will last only a short time; God will take that sorrow away from us. "I'm Sorry" is about how this world will build a "shell" around us and that only God can break that shell. It also talks about how God knows what we go through when she says "And I understand that You stood where I stood." "All Around Me" is another obvious one. It is talking about really experiencing God, or getting the Holy Spirit. It says "And so I cry... Holy, The light is white... Holy And I see You... Holy." "Red Sam" is another obvious one. It is basically just a worship song to God. "And I worship, and I worship, and I worship.You are the Truth, outscreaming these lies, You are the Truth, saving my life." "There For You" is about how God is always there for us, no matter what, and that we need to be closer to Him. "Breathe Today" is about salvation. Hence, "Big enought to fill the void inside of you, it's just a breath away." "So I Thought" is about how this world will tear us apart, but "Through all these twisted thoughts I see Jesus there in between." I just proved you wrong because that is all the songs on their album. You are correct when you say just because the members of a band are Christian doesn't mean that the band is Christian. But, in Flyleaf's case, it does. They have stated that several times. They once said something to the effect of, "We are all Christians and God is our lives, and you can't seperate your life from your music, so, yes we are." And, yes, Lord of the Rings IS considered Christian literature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.78.50.121 (talk) 22:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See the archives, we have been over all of this more than once. Landon1980 (talk) 00:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to encourage you to use your registered account to engage in disputes on talk pages. Landon1980 (talk) 00:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, FlyLeaf has a lot of Christian references in their music, but so has U2 and I don't see them labeled as "Christian Rock"? Fedor (talk) 10:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC) Yes, but Flyleaf's music is focused on God, they don't just make references to God. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.9.193.250 (talk) 15:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would just add that this past Labor Day I saw Flyleaf perform at Revelation Generation, a Christian Rock Festival in New Jersey. During their set Lacey gave a lengthy Christian testimony about her life of faith and the faith of the band. At least Lacey, and I wager the whole band define themselves as Christians playing Christian music. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.137.201 (talk) 17:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

X is a yearly compilation of Christian rock, Christian hard rock, Christian metal, Christian alternative rock, and Christian punk artists and bands. Flyleaf was on the 2008 and the current 2010 editions. That should also be an indication of the Christian rock or Christian alternative rock genres they are in. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 20:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flyleaf's music is also sold through Christian distribution channels as well as mainstream channels. While they may not know what it means to be a Christian rock band, the industry that sells it certainly does. Shall I provide some links to show that their music is sold in Christian channels and is reported on in Christian music media? And don't say that the argument is over, since and to read the archives. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Emocore[edit]

Flyleaf is an emocore band... because they have some songs that have emo influences. There music also fits in perfectly with the term emocore, because they have some elements of post-hardcore and emocore is emotional hardcore. so please comment if you think otherwise —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakeellsonator (talk • contribs) 00:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • EMO not is a culture
  • EMO not is music (wrong)
  • EMOcore obvious not is a genre of music(wrong)


Throwing policy to the wind for a second here, since when? Here is some simple math for you; emotionally driven lyrics ==/== Emo. There are more things that go into the musical categorization process than just looking at lyrical content. Back to policy, if you can find a source that says they are Emo, then add it to the info box.

Second guy… wow… where to begin? Difficult to deal with you when you A) Don’t speak the English language and B) Don't really know what you’re talking about. Some unverifiable truth for you:

  • Emo is a subculture that is better referred to as Scene. Although, Scene people take offence to being called Emo.

Now for some verifiable stuff.

Some other stuff.

  • In actuality, they have VERY few elements of Alt. Rock.
  • They are what you can source them to be.

Some advice for you, sign your posts by using four tildes, and please, PLEASE, learn to use proper English before editing the English Wikipedia.72.81.227.98 (talk) 04:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to say Flyleaf is not an Emo band. If Emo music is defined by all music that is driven by emotion and feeling, then all music would have to be considered emo because that is where good music comes from. Without any feeling or emotion in music, it wouldn't be worth listening to because you wouldn't get anything out of it, it would lack passion. So as far as their style of music goes, they have many different influences that add to their style of music, including their christian influence. They all blend together to form something between rock, alternative rock, post-grunge, hard rock(or hardcore) and i guess emo but not by stereotype.

They are in no way emo/emocore(same thing)/hardcore. There is not an ounce of punk in their sound, and those are all subgenres of punk. Please don't use genres to describe a band if you know nothing about the genre and what it means. 24.128.137.234 (talk) 07:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only way genre disagreements should be decided is by providing reliable sources, none of this argument is relevant. If you wish to dispute the Emo genre, please take it to the talk page there - Talk:Emo k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 12:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Flyleaf isn't even remotely emo. They are pure post-grunge. But, as has been said, they are what you source them to be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.217.118.246 (talk) 01:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emo is probably a sub-genre of Flyleaf's music. You guys should read wikipedia's page on emo music, and compare it to what other sites have to say (what emo actually is is often confused because of stereotypes that MUST be avoided).

TheQw 07:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by TheQw (talk • contribs) 07:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flyleaf is not emo or any form of emo music. If you listen to their music, then you would know they don't even sound remotely emo. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 20:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

umm yea they sound emo, but thats up to personal interpretation i guess :/, anywho..i was just gona reply over here to the emo as a subgenre thing<wich is really old topic, but im just continuing...emo is NOT a subgenre of punk, emo is simply a minor subgenre of alternative with punk inclinations, but there are lots of Emo-pop bands like owl city and never shout never who are infact emo-pop and not punk, and emo-emo is closer to punk, but doesnt nescesarilly needs to be punk, because if you listen to emo and emo-pop music in general the ONLY thing in common is the vocal style, and the lyrics dont nescesarilly define the genre, anyways sorry for bringing the topic back again, i just felt i needed to clarify some things 24.139.117.90 (talk) 02:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the actual meaning of the word flyleaf should be put in[edit]

i agree the band is quite ace

but the true meaning of the word 'flyleaf' fly·leaf –noun, plural -leaves. a blank leaf in the front or the back of a book. [Origin: 1825–35; fly1 (n., in combination: something fastened by the edge) + leaf]

Needbeef (talk) 23:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can link to the Wiktionary term of it. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 00:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Emo tag[edit]

The source for "emo" doesn't say emo once on the entire page. How can it possibly be a reliable source. I'm removing the tag until someone can find one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.234.42 (talk) 07:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i found a amg REVIEW that clearly says that flyleaf is an emo band...not a tag, it actually says it, briefly, but it still does, the exact term used is emo-metal, wich i find true, since singer lacey mosley definetly has the emo-style vocals, and if anyone has read flyleafs lyrics its very emo, like the actual emo, not emo-pop like paramore, hey monday, fall out boy, and all time low, i mean emo as in my chemical romance, and red jumpsuit apparatus, and btw just to clarify, if a band/musician sings emo music that doesnt make the artist or band members emo themselves, so im gona go ahead and put the emo genre in the infobox, if anyone doesnt like that i put it there, well then too bad, its reference and unless you give me a good explanation independent of your personal opinions then im gona keep fighting on the discuss page until a reasonable cause for takin it off the infobox is given! i dont mean to be mean, but come on people, wikipedia is about facts not opinions, and btw, its IN THE REVIEW in amg that states that flyleaf is emo<emo-metal> wich is a much more reliable source than the alternative metal tags at the bottom . OH!sorry i responded so late to the section, its just that i didnt wana create a new section, and if anyone finds this aggresive, then sorry, im trying to be assertive, anywho wtv, im gona put it know.. 24.139.117.90 (talk) 02:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Band history needs to be edited[edit]

Did they originally have a different name? Under "Band history" it does not state when they stopped being called Passerby and started using the name Flyleaf.

TheQw 07:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheQw (talk • contribs)

Farted? What?[edit]

Umm...under Memento Mori (2009-Present) it says that some songs were "inspired when they farted, by a self-help book called The Purpose Driven Life." (Something to that effect). It was cited as source 14, which does discuss a Purpose Driven Life, but I saw nothing at all about farting on there. Anyone got any clue where this came from?

~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 3nails4you (talk • contribs) 16:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Faith section.[edit]

What is this supposed to be? "They had [Christian Band Tours with Korn], Their faith influences their music..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by T-Money92 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since nobody has explained this poor edit, I've undone it manually. Fyrael (talk) 22:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Genre dispute[edit]

If you look-up flyleaf cd's at walmart (the world's largest seller of CDs) the genre is rock with subgenre heavy metal. I believe that should be taken into account. I don't know why people feel the need to make up 8 million sub genres. The music is just rock, get over it. It's not country, it's not R&B. Those are real genre differeces.--Brian Earl Haines (talk) 19:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hiatus?[edit]

Should it be said that the Band are on a Hiatus due to lacey's Pregnancy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.123.135.237 (talk) 11:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If a reference can be found, yes. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reference?[edit]

One of the things I added a while ago was that Blankets of Worms was changed to Bucket of Words by request of the president of their label. I'm not sure how to reference that since Sameer said it in a chat on their website. --Ice66Breaker 21:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the chat was archived, you can reference that. If not, it may have to be removed if a reference can't be found. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:53, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is Kristen May really an actual member of Flyleaf?[edit]

This isn't a fan rant or anything. On the statement released by the band concerning Lacey Sturm's depature, it says "In order to continue on with New Horizons, Sameer, Jared, James, and myself have selected Kristen May, formerly of Vedera, to assume lead vocal duties for future tour dates." I've seen comments like this on other websites. Is Kristen an actual member of the band like it's stated on this Wikipedia article, or is she just a touring singer? (like Floor Jansen is for Nightwish) --Ethan1994 (talk) 14:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's my understanding that she's currently just a touring replacement for Strum, but the wording is intentionally ambiguous. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:51, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adding the Between the Stars album page[edit]

Hey, is there someone who can add the new Flyleaf album page? We now have the official track listing, when the album will be released, their first single was released a few weeks ago, and its being released through Loud & Proud Records. All the sources are on the main page. I just need someone to make the page because I don't know how haha. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ijoshiexo (talk • contribs) 23:01, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand. I looked for an article titled Between the Stars, but I didn't see one. As a result, there's no way we can add the new album page to this article. Are you suggesting that you want to create the article? The question is, does it have any third-party references to support its notability? I'm talking about discussions in reliable sources, reviews in those publications, indications that the album has charted on some national chart or something else, similar. Without that, the album would likely not last long so it's best to wait for something like that before adding an article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:34, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Members/timeline format[edit]

Hey there – I don't understand why my edits to the band members/timeline sections are being reverted. The way that I have edited the page is how nearly every band article out there appears. Walter Görlitz, I understand that you want to protect/preserve the article, but there is honestly no reason why the timeline can't have a subsection, etc. It's not "incorrect". Please consider this. Regards, 4TheWynne(talk to me) 02:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because adding "members" to a section that is about members is redundant.
And adding a heading for a timeline is not necessary at all. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. In fact, this seems like another article that doesn't even really need a timeline. Do we really need a visual to breakdown a single change over the course of a decade? Sergecross73 msg me 23:39, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flyleaf homepage.[edit]

Change the image and description to a recent photo. It's way outdated and they switched singers on 2013. Graffiti Heart (talk) 21:14, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A new image is needed. Wikipedia:Finding images tutorial. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:28, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified January 2016[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Flyleaf (band). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:52, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified February 2016[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Flyleaf (band). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:08, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Flyleaf (band). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:03, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Flyleaf (band). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:43, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Flyleaf (band). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Flyleaf (band). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:38, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Flyleaf_(band)&oldid=1204889326"