Talk:Tool (band)/Archive 1

History
I would like to rewrite the main article into a more "history"-like style, similiar to the Queens of the Stone Age, Led Zeppelin or System of a Down article, which I find very interesting to read. We would have to order the information included in the current article chronologically and maybe add quotes by the band members. What do you think about this idea? --Johnnyw 17:02, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)
 * Very smart. Radiohead, The Mars Volta, and Nine Inch Nails each have good histories if I remember correctly. So we can also use those as stylistic references. Obviously, we don't need to make references over and over to things like drugs, the occult, or even lachrymology, because those things don't have a written-in-stone part in Tool's history insofar as any of us know. The Mars Volta's page had a problem with lots of drug embellishments that were unnecessary and unfounded for a time.--Cassius987 00:50, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * This page is currently really, really poor, anything you could do to make it more readable and more informative would be great. Psychobabble 21:44, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll try to write a first revision and post it here as soon as possible. Please be patient, since I am quite busy at the moment with little time to spare. --Johnnyw 02:20, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
 * Hopefully, tonight I will be able to post a first reveision. Greetings, --Johnnyw 09:18, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

I am about to post my revised version of the Tool article. Please feel free to comment and criticise here in the Talk pages. I would also welcome any thought-out additions! Please refrain from any revert wars or the like. We are all friends here, aren't we? I hope you like it. --Johnnyw 19:30, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

Removed Paragraph
I removed a paragraph containing following text in strive of a NPOV:


 * And finally, it is advised you do not judge this band by their decal affixed, t-shirt wearing audience.

- Repabil 16:36, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Obsolete
But due to their dedication to their craft, Tool has not let their songs be broadcast in an abbreviated form.

I removed this. Tool's songs have been broadcast in an abbreviated form. I distinctly remember hearing versions of "Aenima" broadcast on our local alternative rock station (KPNT, 105.7 in and around St. Louis) as well as stations near Dayton, Ohio (103.9 in particular) that had about two minutes cut out, lowering the song to a radio-friendly four and a half or so. I could also point to Tool's allowing the bowdlerization of their songs as justification for the removal of this sentence. -- goatasaur 18:19, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)

They may be the only popular musical group to have recorded songs about the mutation of DNA and geometric plane curves

I think the line is wrong. The lyrics of Parabola dosn't refer to the geometric curve. Also LateralUs has more complex words - the spiral isn't just the DNA (their videos are something else and, my opinion, they aren't strong related to the lyrics). -- Curero 17:35, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Isn't "46 & 2" about genetic mutation? -- goatasaur 18:15, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Obviously my Tool's knowledge is limited (I know little about their previous to "LaterUs" albums). But I read the lyrics of ""46 & 2" and I didn't found any scientific information about the DNA (my also limited english tells me it's rather about changing, about the rage to found the same old sins & image in one's self). The title is more a more a metafora for how much one can change himself/herself. It's an opinion, of course. And how about the geometry? :) My only observation regarding the article is the emphasis of their "intelectual" preocupations when the songs aren't scientific at all (well, excluding all their links, of course, which are many). I repeat, only this emphasis upseted me and altough I am a Tool's fan I know my ignorance in their biography/interpretation. -- Curero 20:15, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * I dunno, the word "parable" has etymological ties to the word "parabola" and I think the title of that song has something to do with the ties between the two words, especially since the song "Parabola" is the second part of the previous song, "Parabol". The two songs were put together for the video, and were played together on our local radio stations as "Parabol/Parabola".  As far as I know, the only thing the song has to do with mathematics is the title... the lyrics (and the lyrics on Lateralus are cryptic as hell) have nothing to do with geometry. -- goatasaur 07:26, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

--Sorry for just inserting this in the middle of the paragraph, as I don't know the etiquette as far as this go, but my thoughts on Parabola are like this: In the song he sings "This body...this body holding me..." which, when compared with all the spiritual symbolism present in the music video, the song itself, and the entire album, would lead one to believe that he is saying "This body holding my spirit." If you look at a parabola, it is a V shape. Someone said that it looks like two people holding each other, but they are one being. In my mind, the parabola is a symbol of his spirt and his body being two different parts, but still one being. Hope this is acceptable. -JadeSparro

46& 2 is somewhat about genetic mutation. It is more about evolution, and that concpet is part of the cd insert, which talks about people advancing us as a species. The words specifically make reference to the Jungian concept of the Shadow, where all of our primal, base instincts are, and says that through the Shadow, 46 & 2 is just ahead of me. This, all in all, essentially says that we as humans can only move forward by exploring our baser, more primal selves, and by doing so can evolve, adding 47th and 48th chromosomes.

Just a little rant.


 * Jung is a tool, no pun intended. Psychobabble 22:48, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Six or Four Albums?
It says six currently, but to my mind it's only four since Opiate was an EP and Salival is a Live/Rarities dics?

Any thoughts before I change it to four? - Hellboy1975 1-Dec-2004

Sorry I just changed it before you posted. It is indeed their fourth album. MrHate 01:30, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

Someone's out-clevering themselves, thinking they know what everyone else doesn't (that Opiate & Salival exist) when they're the ones making the mistake by overlooking the fact that albums usually refer to LPs only. I reverted someone's categorisation of Undertow as their 'second' album a week or so ago. So, yes, you're right - 4. Psychobabble 01:34, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think you mean LPs :) Salival is a box set/compilation and Opiate is an EP MrHate 04:13, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

Band Member information
I was just thinking, the information on each of the band members should really exist in their own separate pages. Any thoughts on this before I make the change?
 * I totally agree. I'll remove the info now, as I noticed it's already on their individual pages. MrHate 02:59, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Good on ya!. Hellboy1975 21:56, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

What? (new gateway toolband.com)
"In 2005 their domain Toolband.com (http://www.toolband.com) was rerouted to a gateway to their known websites."

I'm not exactly sure what that sentence, found in the trivia section, means. Can someone clarify/edit?


 * Its home page was basically modified to show link buttons to other Tool sites when it loads up. --jh51681 22:49, May 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * It seems to be a first step in a complete redesign of the Tool websites. Maybe we could improve the understandability of that sentence, if we include a wiki link to Gateway.. "Gateway is a phrase used by webmasters [...] to describe a webpage designed to attract visitors [...] to a particular website. A typical gateway page is small, simple and highly optimized. Its primary goal is to [...] provide hyperlinks to pages within the website." --Johnnyw 16:01, 2005 May 22 (UTC)


 * The new splash page / gateway page was designed and developed by joshua davis. Source :: http://www.joshuadavis.com/portfolio_web/web_2005/tool/project.swf --Dragongrrl 6 July 2005 19:27 (UTC)

"Teleincision"
Can anyone provide any evidence as to the new album being called "Teleincision"? The only mention I can find is an obviously fake track list. Even if the title came from the horses (or the Tool's) mouth, I would still be hesitant to list it on this article, let alone create a Teleincision article (which someone has). Tool have a wonderful habit of pulling the wool over our eyes, especially when it comes to new material. If anyone has a reputable source, please list it :) MrHate 03:14, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * After a lot of research, it seems "Teleincision" is just a rumour. There are no reputable sites on the Google with the word "Teleincision" on them.  I'll wait for a bit if anyone has anymore information but then I'll VFD the Teleincision article and remove it from the Tool (band) article. Cheers. MrHate 09:08, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. In a first step, I try to qualify the entry by mentioning that it is just a rumor. If there does not turn up any more reliable info, we better remove it or rephrase the whole sentence. --Johnnyw 15:07, 2005 May 24 (UTC)
 * It's probably worth just rewording the paragraph, highlighting the fact that it's really just speculation, and given Tools track record, probably unlikely hellboy 00:38, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I believe the whole part about Teleincision should be removed and kept out of the article pending some actual evidence. Remember when Tool released names like Mummery and Encephelae pre-Lateralus and everyone jumped the gun? I bet they felt stupid... frankly I don't think Wikipedia is the kind of place we need to be speculating very much about Tool or anything else, anyways. So my vote is to get rid of Teleincision on the article... it sounds like another joke to me.--Cassius987 14:07, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I also would like to see the entry about Teleincision removed or reduced. I mean, why would you include this speculation unless it either seems plausible and has a reliable source or if it is of special interest. Teleincision has only been a fake leak, made up by someone anonymous, so why do we treat this as a valuable information about Tool? We even listed Teleincision in the discography section! I don't think that this rumor should be treated as anything but a rumor. My proposal: move/rename the entry about Teleincision to Tool_album_(2005) and treat the new Tool album on the Tool wikipage as yet unnamed. --Johnnyw 11:43, 2005 May 27 (UTC)
 * Since there seems to be a lot of editing going on concerning the Teleincision part, I tried to give it a new spin. There was way to much speculation in that paragraph. Hope you agree.. --Johnnyw 01:24, 2005 May 28 (UTC)
 * How can there be an official release date for the new album? Since, all this Teleincision-ish has never been confirmed? -- Mike Garcia | talk 16:42, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, the supposed Teleincision album that was distributed over audiogalaxy is simply a fake! Just google for it and read the comments! The files that are included in the distributed archive are bootlegs of live gigs. They include almost entirely old material! (Most of it from Lateralus.) Also, there is a very interesting news article posted on the official tool-website: commenting on the rumors spread among Tool fans. I'll therefore remove the info that Teleincision has already been leaked, because it just isn't the new Tool album, dvd or whatsoever unless proven otherwise. --Johnnyw 20:34, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)

Apparently my behavior with the Teleincision discography listing (i.e. my removal of it from the list, repeatedly) has upset some of you. Also, I got a bit incensed on my edit summary (i.e.: use of the word retard to describe people who list it as an album), and I do admit that was completely wrong and apologize. But let's decide here before someone posts it on the article again without permission: is Teleincision worthy of posting on discography? What makes it worthy? Should it be confirmed to be on the discography? I think so, since discography is a completely fact-based section of the article. And Teleincision is not confirmed, so I believe it should not be there and will continue to remove it until I am told I am in the wrong or someone actually discusses this with me and we can come to consensus about its place in the discography part in the article. If you want to make a "speculation" section and talk about Teleincision, I have no problem. But it doesn't belong in discography.--Cassius987 05:38, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Dear Cassius987 and MrHate, please be aware that Mike Garcia has requested assistance for mediation for this matter on "AMA Requests for Assitance" at AMA_Requests_for_Assistance. I replied and asked him to join us here at this discussion to see that we have quite a strong case against the Teleincsion article. He obviously does not read this discussion and seems to ignore our arguments quite efficiently. I concur with you, that Teleincison does not belong in this encyclopedia unless it is confirmed or there is strong evidence. There has been some cases like this regarding Mike Garcia, or at least I am told by others. I will keep you updated. Regards, --Johnnyw 23:27, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)
 * Interesting considering Mike Garcia himself added a Delete on the VfD for Teleincision. Regardless, it seems the AMA have dismissed his case.  I have had encounters with Mike Garcia before regarding his inaccurate information and abusive nature, however it seems it's impossible to be banned on Wikipedia... he just keeps coming back. Thanks for the heads up, Johnnyw --MrHate 02:22, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Hello everbody just an update with the new tool album "Teleincision" it is all a rumour. I got this information from tool band website on 28/6/05. Replayee
 * Here's the "news"...
 * UNEARTHLINKED For various reasons, I am switching my internet provider tomorrow and therefore might be living in the Stone Age for a day or so. Hopefully, it will be a smooth transition, and when I get back online I will give you the skinny on this "Teleincision" business that I keep getting emails about. NOW WHERE WAS I... Oh yeah, "Teleincision." If only it was that easy. Justin and Shelee's store is called Lobal Orning! Here's what one emailer wrote: ""Teleincision is the big new Tool rumor right now, but what most people don't know is that its origin was from the toolshed.down.net opinion forum." So, perhaps, we can put this one to rest?
 * Who would have thought that? I am SO surprised.. --Johnnyw June 28, 2005 10:14 (UTC)
 * OKAY! everyone! Listen! I don't know how big of a rumor this is, but I DO know that my local hastings already has a preorder sticker up for TOOL on August 23rd. In fact, I will copy and paste the email that hastings sent me back when I asked them about this:
 * "Dear Chaz, Thank you for your e-mail. I spoke to our music buyer and he says that the album "Teleincision"  originally was due out, in Hastings's Stores, August 23, 2005.  He has been recently informed that the band is still in the studio at this time. So look for signs later this year as to when you can reserve your copy.  I apologize for the misinformation in the store.  I have called them about correcting the sign. Please feel free to contact us if you should have further questions or concerns. Respectfully Yours, Amy Choate Guest Service Specialist User:Forgiste 9:54, Jun 28, 2005
 * Which obviously states that this

I'm surprised everyone missed this during their thorough research. http://www.teleincision.com
 * I'm surprised that you didn't take the time to check the registration data:
 * Domain Name: TELEINCISION.COM Registrant: Domains by Proxy, Inc. DomainsByProxy.com 15111 N. Hayden Rd., Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
 * Domain Name: TOOLBAND.COM Registrant: Tool Dissectional  23622 Calabasas Road    Calabasas, CA 91302
 * So someone anonymously registered teleincision.com, wow, now that's great confirmation to whatever.
 * The logo in the teleincision site is the same as on the fake-leak that appeared on audiogalaxy.
 * Let's give it a rest, folks... I am getting tired of this - read the official news and think about it. --Johnnyw July 6, 2005 15:21 (UTC)
 * It's been confirmed that teleincision.com was registered by a prankster at SomethingAwful.com in an attempt to mislead rabid Tool fans. --66.82.9.36

i got a magazine today (zia record exchange) and it said "new releases: tool, teleincision: 8/16"
 * The August Tool release is the vinyl of Lateralus.--Cassius987 03:55, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Lachrymology
I'm pretty sure that Ronald P. Vincent is someone the band made up. Prove me wrong or else I'm going to remove his mention, or at least add in that the band probably made him up along with lachrymology. Remember how no one can seem to find that book he wrote?--Cassius987 16:25, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Take a look at the Tool FAQ at toolshed . There is plenty of info there. --Johnnyw 01:22, 2005 May 28 (UTC)
 * Yeah but not anything that verifies the book's existance... the FAQ even suggests that the book is a red herring.--Cassius987 02:23, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I believe I have come up with a satisfactory solution to that myth. According to - an Undertow review - a information sheet has been distributed along with Undertow, which says "The number of people willing to study the science of lachrymology seriously dwindled to just a handful, and the entire cult had become virtually extinct by 1960. By a cruel (yet ironic) twist of fate, the new cult of scientology boomed, so while L. Ron Hubbard became immensely rich and moved to San Luis Obispo, Ronald P. Vincent became destitute and friendless." I remember the story about Tool in their first years being booked for some party, which turned out to be a Scientology convention. When they realized, what has happened, Maynard started making sheep noises (to illustrate their obedient "follow the leader" mind-set) and they left. In my opinion, Ronald P. Vincent is some sort of side blow to Hubbard, which seems quite likely to me.  states that the supposed book by Vincent could not even be found in the library of Congress. --Johnnyw
 * It's a joke. There's no such thing as lachrymology.  The Lachrymology article should be VFD'd MrHate 09:41, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but lachrymology is an integral part of Tool culture and plays a role in their origins, even if that role was them making it up. The etymology section, including lachrymology, stays.--Cassius987 19:19, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * My point is: could it be that this Ronald P Vincent is some kind of analogy for L Ron Hubbard, founder of Scientology and this is just a joke, to poke fun at Hubbard? Some songs off Undertow are inspired by some events related to Scientology. See F33 at the Tool FAQ.
 * I think Lachrymology is meant to poke fun at Hubbard more as an antithetical than as a comparison. Its message is very simple and doesn't encompass what looks to me like much of a scientological base. But either way, we know Tool is anti-scientology. And it is my personal belief that they would endorse the basic truth behind lachrymology as something that they themselves believe; it is evident in their lyrics. --Cassius987 19:44, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Yep, I agree with both of you. My point is, Wikipedia being a source of neutral information should mention that it is in fact made up. The information on the lachrymology article should be a part of the Tool (band) article and not seperate. MrHate 05:12, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Well educated and capable musicians
I've heard that every member of Tool is well educated. I've also heard (and think) that they're excellent musicians (technically too). But I'm not completely sure of this things. If someone could comfirm these things we could add the information to the paragraph about Danny and Adam, like this:
 * Every member of Tool is well educated they are also capable musicians (technically speaking too). Drummer, Danny Carey, who utilizes one of the largest drum sets in modern music - containing approximately 25 different percussive instruments. Guitarist Adam Jones is trained in special effects and movie makeup, directed all of Tool's videos.

- Repabil 17:45, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * Adam didnt direct ALL of Tool's videos.--Lacrymology 08:53:03, 2005-07-31 (UTC)
 * He directed every one of them except for "Hush", and he had help on "Sober" from Fred Stuhr. Everything else Adam directed on his own.
 * "Sober" and "Prision Sex" (http://toolshed.down.net/faq/faq.html D2), and if we know this, why isn't it in the article? Lacrymology 09:44:30, 2005-08-04 (UTC)
 * Right now, it reads "Although the videos are directed primarily by guitarist Adam Jones, many were created with the help of outside artists, like the interpretive dance duo Osseus Labyrint and others such as Cam de Leon and Alex Grey." in the trivia section. Edit and clarify if you wish to. I appreciate any help. --Johnnyw 10:42, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * OK, I apparently missread, or maybe didn't connect both parts. I think maybe the trivia part isn't as "intensely" read as the main article. I'll change the main part so it reflects better that he got help in his first three videos. --Lacrymology 12:13:57, 2005-08-04 (UTC)
 * OK, apparently I am even more stupid than I thought. My first comment was in response to the comment here, not to the article. The article is perfectly fine, and.. well, sorry, anyways. Learned not to talk without rereading, I guess =) --Lacrymology 12:20:52, 2005-08-04 (UTC)

Jane's Addiction?
What does jane's addiction have to do with tool? re-write the opening paragraph to something eye catching.
 * I disagree, because:
 * it's a quite precise citation which should be included in an encyclopedia since it, along with other citations draws a quite clear picture of the music which keeps the article clear of becoming POV.
 * why should we rewrite the first paragraph to be more eye catching, since this is not a promo-page but an encyclopedia?
 * even if it should be eye catching, why isn't "grinding post-janes addiction heavy metal"?
 * --Johnnyw 23:13, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Order of Names
Tool generally list themselves in alphabetical order. Should we do the same on the article's first sentence?--Cassius987 07:46, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!
Congratulations to Johnnyw who helped revamp this article in a big way and set up a GREATLY improved format. I know all of us owe a debt of gratitude to him and will continue working together to make the page even more wonderful. My ideas for now including developing some consistency rules about in-wiki linking people's and band's names, such as Danny Carey vs Danny Carey and whether or not you only highlight it the first time it appears in the article, in a section, or every time. Also, the discography needs some help getting it to look better because it is misaligned but I can't figure out how to fix this. I know Johnnyw and I will also continue to add discs to this as we think of them, but according to tooldiscography.net we've already listed all of the true singles. There are tons of promos, however. And on a final note, we need to list somehow, perhaps in the History section, what records have gone platinum and so forth and what singles have won awards such as Grammys.--Cassius987 03:38, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * And don't forget about the (visual) arts.. We are still quite neglecting this one. Sadly, we haven't even explained why there is a reading list by Tool. Also, I would like to include some more citations by Tool members, in order to keep the rest of the article nicely NPOV. Speaking of Grammys, there is that nice story when Tool came up onstage to receive the Grammy and they thanked Satan, just to poke fun at those Christian websites who reviewed their CD and declared that they are Satan worshippers.. Maybe we should list these tasks and distribute them among us? I'll try and make start on my next edit here. And thanks for your praise and your feedback, it's highly appreciated! --Johnnyw 10:02, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
 * Actually, there was one Christian website, called Hollywood Jesus I believe, that utterly adored Lateralus. The only negative comment in the review referred to Tool's use of "f**k" (but uncensored, obviously) in "Ticks and Leeches". But yeah, I definitely would like to include something about the Grammy incident.--Cassius987 16:43, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Opening paragraph
The recent changes look good, but I've NPOVed the 'outsider' narrative in the opening paragraph. Tool's music obviously isn't too weird for mainstream play as it gets a good amount of it and saying "it's too deep and engaging" for some and more "complex" than most stuff that gets played is just creating a POV narrative. Psychobabble 10:26, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * You are right about that sentence, I believe, but still Tool simply does not gain that much airplay as your edit states. Also, it does not give credit to the band's history. I'll try to find a compromise. --Johnnyw 10:57, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
 * P.S.: Since Tool hasn't released a single in many years, only promo singles, it is quite logical that airplay is not as high as let's say a new Green Day release. I tried to locate Tool in the MTV Europe 2001 charts but to no avail. So it might get some airplay, but at least I couln't find any prove that it get's much. --Johnnyw 11:28, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
 * I tried to blend your and Cassius' edit. Please review and edit as appropiate. --Johnnyw 11:08, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)


 * Compared to 90% of the bands I listen to, Tool get an incredible amount of mainstream airplay - ie. some as opposed to none. To get played at all on the primary MTV channel (which I know for a fact Schism and "stinkfist", renamed, were) and on the major clear channel stations is a sign of mainstream acceptance. I object to using the words "clashed" because it implies a largely non-existent conflict and tries to create a POV 'outsider' impression and "complex" becuase that's a subjective POV. I'll re-edit the paragraph to remove those words but I won't put it back to my first draft. Psychobabble 00:10, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Singles
Now we're back to where we once left off, with quite a few of supposed "singles" in the singles list, which as far as the usual sources I check go, being promos and NOT singles. This only confirms my very narrow subjective view regarding Tool singles, since I've rarely seen ANY EVER. According to tooldiscography.com, there are the following singles: According to AMG, there is only The semi-official toolshed.down.net FAQ states the following regarding Aenima:
 * Prison Sex
 * Sober
 * Schism
 * Parabola
 * Sober
 * "Stinkfist" was the first single off this album, but what came next?
 * Promo singles for "H." were issued; if that constitutes a single, then we have an answer. An "Ænema" promo single came out, as did a video. A "Forty-Six & 2" promo single was also issued, followed by a "Eulogy" promo single, but no new videos.
 * There are only two "official" singles by Tool, and they are Prison Sex and Sober. Tooldiscography.com seems to erroneously list the Sober singles, so I just sent them the following e-mail -
 * Hey there -

I run a website (toolcollector.net) where I display my collection, and have come across a slight problem. I am constantly using your site as a reference, and was browsing through the "Singles" section earlier...

The listings for "Prison Sex" are all correct (UK, German, Australian, UK Vinyl), however...

For "Sober," you have listed: UK (cd), UK (cd), UK (vinyl), Dutch (Tales From The Darkside).

I am only aware of three versions of Sober existing (not including Vinyl) and they are the "Dutch" (Tales From The Darkside) version, a 3-track German slimline, and the Australian cardsleeve, like the AU version of Prison Sex.

You have neither the German nor the Australian versions listed. My question is, are you positive that two UK cd versions exist, or are you mistaking them for the German and AU versions? Or do the UK ones exist as well, in which case there would be FIVE Sober singles?

I have just never seen or heard of Sober CD singles from the UK... --Ryanin 02:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * They have since replied -
 * Hi Ryan,

Thanks for the corrections.

Stores have been listing the DE and AU versions as UK singles for years. We've updated to reflect your correction. --Ryanin 19:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * This at least seems to clarify that most of these singles are promo releases only. So what do you think about adding sth like "promo single" according to where it's appropriate? It's misleading to state that Tool has released this many regular singles.. --Johnnyw 19:29, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It's really important to recognize the difference between a CD single and a radio single. A CD single is released for sale, a promo is only available under special circumstances and is otherwise distributed only to the radio. If people think it is insufficient to list the radio promos in trivia (it probably is), then someone needs to suggest a better way. We can't just lump promos and singles together. If nothing else, add a new section to the discography; however, whoever does so has the big task of listing all the Tool promos. http://toolshed.down.net/ is probably the best source for these.--Cassius987 23:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I added a chart postition list thingy -- VinTheMetalhed

Edit Vigilantism
Post here about what you want to remove before you remove, and state your reasons. We'll listen.--Cassius987 15:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for putting it all back, just one thought though, most of the stuff seemend to be related to the CD's and therefore, wouldn't the be better off moved to those articles if not there already? hellboy 09:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, after taking a quick glance, it seems that the removed trivia bits are actually included in the album articles. Since the Tool article is quite lengthy anyways, why not remove them again and insert a short note at the beginning reffering to the related album articles?--Johnnyw 14:05, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Infobox
I know Mike Garcia is sensitive when people mess with his edits so I didn't just knock his out right off the bat; but to be honest I just think it's unnecessary and in my aesthetic opinion a little ugly-looking. I liked the older edit which was: -	much better, and if we can find a way to decide between the two as a community I would like that. Again, my argument is that the new format is very large and garish and unnecessary. Whereas I'm sure Mike's will be that it makes critical information more immediately accessible. If that really is the case, I disagree, because it takes very little time to skim the opening paragraphs... also, he in terms of minor edits, the names need to be rearranged either to fit the photo or to fit the band's way of listing themselves, and the genre needs to be reconsidered. After all, our current definition of them is simply "American rock" in the intro... something again that is immediately accessible without the box. Also, active time length? That's not something that most band pages are broadcasting, is it? Even if it is... how bleh. These are just my thoughts. To Mike Garcia and whomever else might get offended... don't. There's no point in it. I simply think this is the wrong way to go with the opening of the article.--Cassius987 14:50, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Two things I would like to cover here:
 * a) "new" album infoboxes
 * b) band infobox issue according to cassius.
 * Regarding b) most of the info included here is reduntant.
 * the band's name should be clear,
 * the years active are pretty uninteresting unless the band ceased to exist 20 yrs ago and the article serves as a historical reference,
 * also the band member listing is already included in the article just a bit to the left, so the only interesting information a new viewer needs will probably be: "who is who on the photograph?", just as it used to be,
 * considering the section we dedicated to arguments about genre and categorization, we should remove this part of the box, too, since the genre is not a fact, but a matter of opinion, just like the section points out,
 * eventually, who needs to know a band's label on a first glance? whoever wants to know a bands label will probably take a closer look at the discography section.
 * To sum it up, I cannot see a good reason to keep the infobox the way it is. My proposal is to revert to the old box, although I look forward to hear counter-arguments. =)
 * Regarding a) there seems to be a lengthy debate on whether the Template:Album infobox 2 that Mike just recently used on the existing Tool albums should be deleted or not. Atm, it seems to be quite balanced. I just don't know if it's a good decision to convert the infoboxes to a template, that could be deleted anytime soon. Also, I am not much in favor of those infoboxes over the older ones. They look almost 100% alike. The only downside that I see with the "new" infobox is the usability. In Wikipedia, Images are not meant for navigational purposes, and any new user will click the small album cover to jump to the next or previous album. Since the intention of that navigational bar should be already clear (previous and next album in chronological order), the only decision the user has to make on whether to click on the image or the link. The image is the obvious choice, but the wrong one. Therefore, Imho it's rather misleading then helpful. To include a small icon of the album, for example, in a discography section is an entirely different matter (see Led Zeppelin discography for a good example). My proposal is to observe the discussion about the infobox-deletion and then act accordingly, either remove the infobox (in case of deletion) or have a vote (otherwise). Just my 2 cents.. --Johnnyw 11:06, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Tool and the Gang
I still can't believe Tool merged with Kool and the Gang. I mean I didn't see that coming. We should focus more on kool and the gang in this tool article because of the recent merge.User:69.156.93.132
 * Now that you've added your imaginary band merge to all these pages, maybe you'd like to turn your energy towards making some helpful edits? Boojum 19:40, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Hey man, I'm the one who added the thing about the band being diffucult to classify on the opening paragraph, and also this: "(see: Arguments About Genre & Categorization)."
 * I thought it would be better to add that to the front page to avoid genre issues User:69.156.93.132
 * I'm only disputing the claim made by 69.156.93.132 that "Tool merged with Kool and the Gang". This is one of a number of pages from last night that claimed this; most have been speedy deleted by now.  I'm always nervous about erasing someone else's edits on a talk page, though.  Boojum 01:36, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Well yo dawg, I love tool, I don't know what I would do without them. I stayed up all night tripping on dextromethorphan hydrobromide and in conclusion I have to say that 'Kool and the Gang' is an awesome joke which has lost most of it's humor because of this article. Maybe this discussion about a simple joke that 'I' as a complex organization of atoms in binary form(true/false, yes/no, 1/0) has put on an internet encyclopedia, is the end of the reality as we know it. Would this mean matter will begin to dissolve revealing a civilization of higher beings in a alternate reality that advanced in technology to the point of developing atoms, elements and then cells. Which would mean this one cililzation created life on earth and in the universe as an expiriment or possibly a joke or maybe their entire society is based around us, all they do is monitor us and tweak us to their specifications and nothing else. This would make one ask a few questions: Who created the higher beings who created us? Who created the beings who created them and so on and so forth?
 * Or maybe I should just listen to tool a little bit more...
 * ...I did it for the lulz User:69.156.93.132

Discography
Also, the discography needs some help getting it to look better because it is misaligned but I can't figure out how to fix this. I know Johnnyw and I will also continue to add discs to this as we think of them, but according to tooldiscography.net we've already listed all of the true singles. There are tons of promos, however.--Cassius987 03:38, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Done! --Johnnyw 13:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment on reading list
We are still quite neglecting this one. Sadly, we haven't even explained why there is a reading list by Tool. Maybe, we could combine the info about visual arts, the reading list (and dissectional.com) in a single section that covers their influences, inspirations and so on? I think it would be hard to seperate these topics from each other.. --Johnnyw 10:17, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
 * This would fall well under a section that talked about Tool's influences. It might be more journalistic at this stage, however, just to link to an outside website that lists the book guide. But I really appreciate the reading list being on this article just because of the wiki links to the books, so I'll be sad to see it go. I'd like to find a way to keep it. But we must maintain the article's integrity first.--Cassius987 02:06, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Add citations to history
Also, I would like to include some more citations by Tool members, in order to keep the rest of the article nicely NPOV. --Johnnyw 10:17, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)

Nu Metal
Okay people, lets set this straight once and for all. Tool is not fucking nu metal. Please revise this now. Tool is a psycyhedelic metal band. Simple. --anonymous


 * Where did you get the impression that they're listed as nu-metal? I don't see it? hellboy 04:34, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, if you read the section carefully, it read that Tool influenced bands of many genres of music, including nu-metal bands, which is extremely true. Not liking the nu-metal affiliation is NO excuse to remove it from the page. Danteferno 10:15, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I was the one to secondly revise the nu-metal link. I replaced the vandalism with heavy metal, if I remember right (I haven't even checked to see what I did or if it's still there, it's been a day or two). To be honest, I WOULD like to see some cited examples of Tool's influence in the specific genre of nu-metal, just because I don't know too much about that. I do know that heavy metal suits their influence fine, but nu-metal may as well, I just don't know. That's why I didn't preserve it in my edit. I'm not really going to make a case out of this one, but it does seem odd to me to put nu-metal up before heavy metal, which is a more obvious influence. Just prove me wrong.--Cassius987 04:44, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The discussion on the List of Nu metal musical groups and especially the nu-metal article, itself, would be a pretty good start for cited examples. Let me know if there's anything mentioned you disagree with, and why.--Danteferno 06:55, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * First of all, thanks for pointing this out, I wasn't aware of these discussions until just now. Before reading these arguments, my opinion is as follows: I do not think that Tool is a nu-metal band, but I do see that Tool of course could have had quite an influence on nu-metal bands. I believe the Tool article fits this perspective quite well, so I am quite pleased. As of now, I would not put Tool on the list of nu-metal bands, but will probably (let's wait until I've read those pages) make my point quite clear on the related pages. --Johnnyw 18:59, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * I think a really good idea for this article would be to include a specific 'Debate on Categorization' section,balancing out claims (for/against) of subgenres that they have been called, and the subgenre (nu-metal/alternative metal) that they influenced.--Danteferno 00:59, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * That's a GREAT idea! I wish I'd thought of it sooner. I'm starting it up right now...--Cassius987 02:10, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Influencing Nu Metal bands does not necessarily classify Tool as a Nu Metal Band. Most Nu Metal Bands extended from Faith No More and Helmet first, followed by Korn, Deftones and Tool. Specifically look at the layering of Maynard's vocals in various tracks. It is a technique that was rare at the time but has become widely used by bands such as Staind, Chevelle and Disturbed. In fact, Staind and Limp Bizkit have played live versions of Sober and Opiate. You don't have to like the music, but it was definitely influenced by Tool. They are a non-metal rock band, with nu-ish influences. Can NO ONE understand that?
 * You need to research the difference between metal and nu-metal. Tool are not nu-metal, they influenced nu-metal. Tool WERE INFLUENCED BY metal, and can be listed as such, even if it's not extremely close to other forms of metal. It's like calling Radiohead pop rock, which they received some influence from, although obviously they, like Tool, are quite an offshoot. Calling Tool metal is not calling them nu-metal.--Cassius987 21:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

But to say they are "inarguably" metal, when clearly large amounts of people believe they are not, is simply unintelligent and pointless. Besides, have you ever even listened to *real* metal in your life? Head on over to www.metal-archives.com, and note that Tool is NOT in the archive. Why, because they are NOT metal. If you want, post on the forums why Tool is NOT metal, and one of the Mods (most likely an MIT grad) will explain, in detail, why they are "non-metal."

Or, just change "inarguably" and I'll leave the whole thing alone.
 * Changing the word from inarguably to something less powerful is fine with me, but the statement you replaced it with was pretty poor by comparison... So let's come up with something first before we try to throw our opinions back into this. And if you want to know my position, I don't really like metal in general and don't care to call Tool metal, but for the most part when people first hear them play, that is EXACTLY what they the Tool are. And for good reason: Tool share many of the characteristics of metal. While they are leagues beyond most metal in genre "distance", they still owe some of their background to metal music, in the same way they do to progressive and ethereal artists. If you're hellbent on placing them outside of the metal genre, fine, but let's not put bias into the article. From my perspective it's only logical to say they're "inarguably" metal because so many people hear them and say so right away... however if you have a better idea, present it here and change my mind. For now I believe that they are, in their own way, part of metal, much like my example with Radiohead and pop or Nine Inch Nails and industrial... the connection is barely there, but it's there.--Cassius987 16:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * First of all, there is a major contradiction by saying "they are inarguably metal," when slightly later the article states "Some consider Tool to be, above all else, a progressive rock band." Rock is NOT metal, and the two cannot be confused. Therefore, it contradicts. Also, do realize that it is hardly bias to say that "Metal purists call them mallcore." This does NOT mean that "I" think they are, but that many purists do. It's no different from having the term "nigger" in Wikipedia. This was a horrible, derogatory term, but it cannot be denied that it WAS used (albeit, by intolerant morons). Also, the Groove comment was extremely correct, and based on facts about their music. Take a music theory class, and then try to tell my they are not "relatively groove oriented."
 * Finally, the rap comment applies to the song "Ticks and Leeches." Although not overtly rapped, there are hints of modern hip hop throughout.
 * Sorry dude, I don't know where you're coming from on a lot of these things, because I don't remember ever saying you were wrong about them. I agree with you. I think if I messed with your edit, for the most part, it was because it wasn't that well written, or else might have been very obtuse, but I can't even remember. Either way I agree with what you're saying.--Cassius987 21:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

1. paragraph: replace metal with the even broader term Rock and roll, which should suffice in the opening paragraph Although Tool's music does not vary greatly in style and technique from album to album (excepting the changes that occur foremost in mood), it is difficult to define their place in reference to traditional musical genres because of their experimental approach to music. Tool are inarguably a part of the rock genre, but just where they fall in that genre and how much influence past metal groups have exerted on Tool is the subject of intense debate among both fans and casual listeners. 2. change "generally" to "often" Tool are often categorized as alternative metal, a broad label used to loosely categorize bands (such as Jane's Addiction, Rage Against the Machine, and Faith No More, among others) that staddle the aesthetics and fanbases of heavy metal and alternative rock. But as the term is used more as an umbrella for bands that blur categories rather than share particular stylistic traits, it is difficult to analyze Tool in conjunction with other alternative metal bands in genre terms. PS @ anonymous: I believe comments like "take a music theory class and then..." are best kept to yourself. It's not very useful when trying to improve a conjointly written article. Johnnyw 18:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Anyway, I feel all of these points SHOULD be placed in this article, in some way or another, as they are all valid. -- me (currently unregistered)
 * Both of you have made a very valid point:
 * We have to keep our bias out of the article.
 * And to accomplish that, we can only try to describe the debate as we see it. Stating that Tool are inarguably metal is probably incorrect, since it is not a scientific fact, rather a matter of opinion and taste, like we point out in the latter part of this section. I believe this statement is quite contradictory to the point this section actually illustrates. I therefore propose to change the leading two paragraphs.
 * The categories we described so far - prog rock, alt metal and such - have their roots in various reviews and biographies. I'd like to know if there are sources regarding "mallcore". Also, I think there is quite a difference between "rap" and "hints of modern hip hop". It goes too far to include this in a sub-section that should be concerned with the genre debate surrounding Tool. I think we can safely assume that hip hop and rap are not part of this debate which we are trying to describe.
 * Johnny, as usually your edit ideas are very constructive, I second your changes.--Cassius987 21:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I think Johnny's got some good changes here. I agree with both points, and I think the line about "bands that straddle the aesthetics and fanbases of heavy metal and alternative rock" is an awesome line to explain the whole classification of Tool. -->Chemical Halo 22:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, these are great changes. Let's just forget about the mallcore thing, it's really unneccessary. Oh, I got registered now as the ISP (school ISP) was being used by a vandal. Intrepid

Arguments About Genre & Categorization
Ok, Cassius, two thumbs up for that one from me. The sub-article is quite extensive and well written, although I don't know if some of the general prog debate could be shortened. Also, when saying "Some consider Tool to be, above all else, a progressive rock band" we could quote allmusic or the associated press, like I did in the list on nu metal bands debate. That way, we could give that view a voice which makes the notion less vague. I try to take a closer look at it when I have the time, which will not be the case for the next couple of days I am afraid. Thanks for addition! --Johnnyw 15:00, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Feel free to throw in links or neutralize it. It's only a first draft, after all. I admit that the prog part ran long, and I can only justify this in the sense that the majority of people consider Tool to be a part of the "great prog debate"... to see what I'm saying about how many people really think Tool are prog or debate about it, just google on "Tool + metal" or some other genre, and you'll also see progressive rock pop up quite often. I do think we should link more in that section in order to remove vagueness. For now, I feel certain that the prog debate deserves its length as it seems to have the most substance. Subsequent paragraphs have less serious and longstanding substance to devote to their subjects.
 * And, thanks for the thumbs up.--Cassius987 23:56, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * While certainly influenced by the listed prog-rock archtypes (and singling out King Crimson as the best match is very appropriate) not mentioning The Melvins as a primary influence gives the impression that Tool's music is a lot less grinding/gritty than a reader might take away from the article. (71.233.165.69 20:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC))

The classification of Tool as Progressive Metal is justified by various preceding progressive rock bands. Though their music does not present the technical proficiency of Dream Theater, it still utilizes long intros, extended solos, odd time signatures, classical influence, deep lyrics and above all else they produce conceptual albums. A direct comparison can be made with Pink Floyd because of all of these factors. Pink Floyd was definitely not made up of virtuosos, yet their music pushed boundaries. Other issues to consider are the lavish stage shows that are put on with incredible light shows, characters and megatron scenes in coordination with the music. The basic concept of the band is the destruction of the individual and the construction of the band as an entity. You never see the band in their intensley deep music videos (other than the brief appearances mentioned in the article). Maynard hides in the shadows at live shows. In a sense, the destruction of the ego is the concept behind a this very egotistical band.

Re: Recent Edit--There is not a backward logic to the transitive property in that case. The article suggests it is backward to say what came after Tool defines Tool; the transitive property should be applied to what came before Tool, if ANYWHERE, and that's where it was. The backward logic, again, refers to the nu-metal comparisons. This is a critical placement of diction and I don't want it to be messed with without some discussion here first.--Cassius987 13:47, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

So, how do you feel about the (extremely) recent re-edit... not bad, but was somewhat unneccessary... I suppose we should keep it.... Theintrepid 15:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * That was definitely an awkward sentence before, and still in now. Post suggestions about it here first instead of just replacing the edit, since I don't think there's a quick answer to this one. We probably need to change some of the diction.--Cassius987 23:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

We should read the guide on how to deal with weasel words and adjust the section accordingly. Sadly, there is quite a bit that seems to need rearrangement. Most of all, we need to replace phrases like "some say" with sources or remove those sections.--Johnnyw 12:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Opiate Image
Do we need this? I think one picture per section is plenty... I think the way it is now, it's throwing off the flow of the thing, and on top of that it seems a little unneccesary after having posted 3 album images already. I mean, are we going to put Salival up next? I think just the 3 LP images are all we need right now. Let me know what you girls and guys think.--Cassius987 00:11, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree. Also, we have to keep in mind that people want to _read_ the article, not look at an image gallery. Modem users might also have their trouble with too many images. --Johnnyw 08:17, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * With Johnny's backing, I've decided to be vigilant and remove the image. Sorry, but it's getting a little crowded in the history section. --Cassius987 00:17, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Visual Art
An important part of Tool, some people tend to forget, is the visual art. Therefore I think we should write about it and the artists, especially Dissectional. Should we write about it in the article about Tool, make a new page for it or something in between? I think we should write something short about Dissectional in the article about Tool and write an article about it. - Repabil 17:18, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * I'd love to see a section in the article about Tool's art, how it relates to Adam and Cam de Leon and Alex Grey and Chet Zar and anyone else we can come up with. The visual art really is a huge part of Tool's greatness, in its own way. - Cassius987 19:58, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree, especially since the transfer of all internet homepages to visual artist Joshua Davis some weeks ago, who is definitely going to put an even more artistic spin on the next generation of tool websites. My guess is, that the new pages will probably released in time with the new studio album which just makes sense..- Johnnyw 23:55, 18 May 2005 (UTC+1)
 * We've sort've forgotten this issue lately, but I agree that it is VERY important. I think it deserves a whole new page, so that we can devote a lot of attention to each era of art and the artists/art therein.--Cassius987 00:14, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Although this issue is currently unresolved, there is a newer post regarding this subject Talk:Tool (band). --Johnnyw 15:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Awards/RIAA certifications
And on a final note, we need to list somehow, perhaps in the History section, what records have gone platinum and so forth and what singles have won awards such as Grammys.--Cassius987 03:38, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I propose we could do that in the discography section or some sub-section of it? I would find it unpleasing to read, if the history article is "interrupted" everytime some album goes platinum or they won whatsoever-award by whocaresatall. But, speaking of Grammys, there is that nice story when Tool came up onstage to receive the Grammy and they thanked Satan, just to poke fun at those Christian websites who reviewed their CD and declared that they are Satan worshippers. I think we could include that one in the history instead.--Johnnyw 10:17, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
 * The Satan story probably belongs in trivia, kind of like the blip that talks about Maynard's encounter with "Jesus". I think it would be inappropriate in the History section, which, I feel, should have a "facts first" tone and not digress into anecdotes where they aren't necessary to maintain continuity or portray an example of some facet of Tool's history (like our two paragraphs about "Prison Sex" and the scientology gig).
 * Keep up the good work Johnny! You're the man.--Cassius987 02:03, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Self-Titled and Opium Den
Why is Opium Den listed on the discography section? I removed it since I've noticed that it is not an official release. -- Mike Garcia | talk 17:42, 20 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I found it off MTV.com, that's why I thought to add it. 69.111.53.212 17:53, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

And where did you find self-titled? -- Mike Garcia | talk 18:08, 20 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I found it at this source: . 69.111.53.212 18:11, 20 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I took the liberty to move these two entries into a new sub-category, since the self titled is a promotional release and the other one is an unofficial live recording (confirmation located tooldiscography.com). Since there are dozens of promo/demo/unofficial releases, it would be quite counterproductive to include them along with Opiate and other official and more important releases under the same headline. Also regarding the album-articles, according to the  wikiproject albums, the chronology should in almost every case only include official studio releases. Therefore, I removed these two albums from the album-infoboxes of the official releases. Best wishes --Johnnyw 17:24, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * This was very constructive of you. Bravo.--Cassius987 19:28, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, Johnny. I was asking for Opium Den to be deleted earlier at the talk page after some anon user created it and before I found out about the release by researching at Google. I'm guessing the self-released demo tape (which is Self-Titled) should be deleted too. -- Mike Garcia | talk 01:34, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, the self-titled EP doesn't really have to go, IMO. Opium Den, meanwhile, is extremely iffy. I have a copy of this CD in its packaged form that a friend gave me--frankly it just looks like an elaborate bootleg. I think it needs to go, but I need backing first.--Cassius987 13:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Consistency rules
My ideas for now including developing some consistency rules about in-wiki linking people's and band's names, such as Danny Carey vs Danny Carey and whether or not you only highlight it the first time it appears in the article, in a section, or every time.--Cassius987 03:38, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, here's how I'd like it to be eventually, once myself or someone else has had the time to sweep the article... eack wiki link will be linked once and once only PER SECTION. So Danny Carey may be wiki linked perhaps 5 times in the overall article, but only once per section (i.e. Opening paragraph, Current, History, Etymology, Trivia, etc etc etc). Thanks!--Cassius987 01:59, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

This has come to my attention again. We should set one way to list and link dates: either 6 February 2006 or February 6, 2006. Obviously each has a distinct advantage, but we ought to choose only one. Additionally, please remember to wikilink a unique link (i.e. Danny Carey or Lateralus) only once per article section. That means no more than once in "Currently", no more than once in "History", no more than once in "Trivia", and so on. These singular wikilinks ought to occur at the first incidence of the word or proper noun to be wikilinked. Thanks for your compliance.--Cassius987 03:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * AFAIK, February 6, 2006 is recommended. --Johnnyw 13:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)