Talk:Bleed Like Me

Protected
Protected due to edit war over content.

Please discuss your differences civilly and arrive at a consensus on the page content. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:21, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, as far as I can see, this is an open-and-shut case. The current revision is correct. The album is being released everywhere in the world by Warner Brothers on April 11th 2005, except North America where it is being released by Geffen on April 12th. Therefore, the current revision, which reads 'Released: April 11 2005' (April 12 in North America)' and 'Label: Warner Bros (Geffen in North America)' is correct.


 * Mike's version (see history) states: 'Released: April 11 2005 (Europe) April 12 2005 (USA)' and 'Label: Warner Bros (Europe) Geffen (USA)' is technically correct, but the album is also being released in Austrailia, Asia etc. by Warners on the 11th and the Geffen releases covers all of North America (not just the USA) and comes out on April 12th. Therefore, Mike's version does not give as much information as the current revision (and is actually slightly misleading as readers may think that the album is not being released in Asia, Austrailia, Canada etc.). Simple. 81.174.247.96 14:58, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So far, so good. Now could Mike explain why he thinks this is inaccurate? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:05, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the current version. Acegikmo1 19:14, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If Mike doesn't reply by tomorrow evening (UTC) I'll unprotect. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:18, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Done. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:45, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Protected again. Mike, please justify your changes. I'm not letting you have yet another edit war over this. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:08, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Mike doesn't seem to want to talk in what seems to be one of the silliest, most pointless edit wars I've seen around here. He's also accused others of "vandalism" for no good reason, just because they don't agree with his version of the wording.  Perhaps a different wording would satisfy everybody, like "This album will be released on April 11 in most of the world (including Europe, Asia, and Australia) and on April 12 in North America (including the USA and Canada)"? *Dan* 14:54, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I think that wording is redundant. If Mike cannot mount a substantive argument against the wording, he should stop changing it or be banned from editing the article.  Acegikmo1 18:31, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Well I won't be blocking or banning anyone for disagreeing about stuff, but I am asking Mike to stop reverting to his version without explaining why it's better than the other one, which seems to give more complete information. I'll unblock again and if he reverts I'll go to RFC. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:52, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Diagreement is fine. But continuous reverting without explanation is not.  I see a problem because album comes out in the next few days.  If the page is protected, it will be impossible to update this page with reviews, chart positions, fan reaction, the nature of the album, etc.  I think there is a consensus about the proper wording; if Mike continues to violate this without providing a proper explanation, I think we should try to find a solution other than simply protecting the page.  Acegikmo1 19:24, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mike Garcia confirms
Mike, on my talk page you make the first utterance I have seen you make on this issue since I intervened: "No, I wasn't only trying to get into an edit war again."

That is not enough. Explain yourself or stop edit warring. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:12, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Explain myself? OK. The reson why I kept reverting this page is because those IP address users may not be liking my version, please see. He also thinks that I'm the one in the wrong, but I'm not and I don't know why keeps restoring the version that isn't mine. That's why the user needs to be banned or blocked. -- Mike Garcia | talk 16:37, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Your "explanation" is not particularly coherent. Just what is wrong with the other version?  As has been mentioned by others, your preferred version is, while technically accurate, not complete; North America is not just the USA, and the non-North-America world is not just Europe.  As for a version not being yours, nothing here is supposed to "belong" to any individual; we're all supposed to be collaborating to create a well-written encyclopedia.  Certainly, it makes no sense to ban or block somebody just because they disagree with you on which version is better. *Dan* 16:55, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Unprotected
I've unprotected the article. Now the album is released people have their own copies and will want to write about it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:00, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Clean up
I think that the article needs to be cleaned up a bit with information being better organized and maybe put under headlines. Underneath-it-All 21:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Unconfirmed charts

 * Danish album chart
 * 26
 * Polish album chart
 * 36
 * Czech album chart
 * 53 Breakinguptheguy (talk) 22:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Czech album chart
 * 53 Breakinguptheguy (talk) 22:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 53 Breakinguptheguy (talk) 22:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

2012 commentary from Vig
Where in the article could the following be added: "Bleed Like Me was difficult because I think we felt like we needed to reinvent ourselves. At that point, we started at indie labels that got sold to billionaire corporations that didn’t really give a s**t about us as artists. They just wanted to make money from us and we had gotten so many opinions from people on, “All you need to change is this” or “You need to sound like this.” It's very frustrating making the record and getting that kind of feedback. Not so much from our fans, but the corporate world that we were dealing with.

(Q: Looking back, is there anything about Bleed like Me you would have done differently?) We probably should have taken a longer break before starting it. We didn’t really take a break; we went into the studio and didn’t have any songs, so we just hit “Record” and started writing a song. We didn’t make demos and it was difficult; the songs just didn’t feel very good and none of us felt very inspired. It was just so many people telling us what to do and what not to do and honestly, as an artist, you should never really listen to people like that. They put a bug in our ear and it just made us second-guess ourselves. So we worked on the record on and off for about six months and one day, I just walked out of the studio just because the vibe was getting so despondent. We took six months off before we got back together to finish the record.

I’m still proud of the record. It’s just that we lost our way a little bit and if we took six months or a year off before we started, it would have been a different-sounding record."

Or would it a better addition to the BLM section of the band's article? --Lapadite (talk) 08:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Bleed Like Me. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.garbage.com/
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.garbage.com/news/news.php?uid=107

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)