Talk:Mindless Self Indulgence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mindless Self Indulgence article.
Article policies
Wikiproject_Punk This article is part of WikiProject Punk music, an attempt to improve articles related to Punk rock. Please participate by visiting the project page for more details on the projects.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to musicians and musical groups on Wikipedia.
Photo request It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.

Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo during a public appearance, or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead.


Contents

[edit] New Album

I've been told by Both Kitty, and Steve, Right? that their new album is out early next year, and will feature several different covers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.64.121.194 (talk) 21:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] discography section

so there's that neat little box down there with all of msi's major albums and eps and pics of the covers, only i noticed that DLN isn't in there, then i noticed that the info on there goes "1.ms-i 2.tight 3.FGWSSS 4.AoA *** 6.YRTA 7.amro" where's 5(DLN)? looks as if someone deleted it. so i just added it back where it belongs, but it's not shwoing up. if you try to edit that section you'll see that it's there and has all the right formatting or whatever just like the other releases, but it isn't showing up on the page. what up with that? somebody needs to fix this.68.252.94.153 16:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editing and the history section

Is there any particular reason that all the edit buttons from "history" onwards have been redirected so as to refer to the section after the one it should, thus rendering the "history" section uneditable? (i.e., the edit button besides "history" redirects to editting "future", "future" goes to "members", etc.)

If not, could this be fixed? 76.10.151.209 21:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Download Festival in 2005

Removed "The Download Festival in 2005" I was there and they never played, double checked the website just to be sure. Vendemmian 19:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WHAT...THE...FUCK...

I am TRYING to upload a more recent pic of the band but somebody keeps changing it... That is nowhere NEAR current, taken even before YRTA was released. I am nearly 100% sure that the purpose is to have current information. So STOP changing it...

As I said in the edit, more recent pictures do not mean a better one. The older one shows all memebers clearly. The article is about the entire group not just Jimmy and a couple of "fuzzy" bandmates. Since their have been absolutely no changes in the line-up, nor any significant appearence changes since the two photos. Basically, the older one is the better one to use becuase it showcases the entire band. Smoltz 10:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
okay so why is [image.jpg] not appropriate? clearly shows ALL members and it is a current picture. Msipiggy 11:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Had that been the picture in question, when I editted it, I would have been in favor it it. The picture I removed was one of Jimmy w/ Chauncey and the bandmates in the background. Smoltz 22:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
The image used right now does not have a reliable tag on it, and is about to be deleted. --Liface 22:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discography section cleanup

I think we need to clean up the discography section. For albums that do not have their own stub article, they need one.

Since the track lists are listed in the album stub articles, it seems redundant and messy to re-list them on the MSI main page. We should probably just list the albums with links to their stub articles as well as the year in which they were produced and any other major details that can fit on one line such as the year of release.

Thoughts on this?

Grandeandy 03:09, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Kudos to whoever cleaned this up. It looks great!

Grandeandy 20:40, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] FGWSSS Warning

Should this not be on the page for the album itself instead of the bands page?

Devilmaycare 17:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

--

Normally I would say liner notes on an album should be on the album page, but this is a general statement about who they are and probably should remain here.

--Graveenib 20:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, there is one of these on You'll Rebell and is listed under the album page. Perhaps the band article could mention they like to put these kinds of statements and link or cite the album page. Graveenib 23:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I moved the warning to the page and put a summary with a link to each album's warning message Graveenib 00:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] gay community

to be quite honest the gay community on average probably has no clue who mindless self indulgence is. i really do not understand why that is mentioned here.

Where is "gay community" mentioned in the article? If you're referring to the mention of gay lyrics, then it makes sense that it's mentioned, as you find very little punk rock bands that sing about such a topic. It's one of the traits that makes MSI unique. Saaga July 4, 2005 17:22 (UTC)

- "However, their sound is far from being stereotypically gay, and their appeal is not limited to the gay community."

UH WRONG LOL GAYEST FUCKING MUSIC EVER

- This doesn't make much sense considering that they never appealed to only the gay community or anyone in general. This is what the original page said about half a year ago. The thing is though is that placing the band as gay community icons as this quip paints them isn't really the truth. they took that whole kind of girly gimic from the new york dolls, not the gay community. -bozu


Is he really gay or not? A lot of what he does is usually to shock or anger the audience, I wonder if he is gay, bi or straight. In North America it easily makes many people uncomfortable. Well, whatever sexuality he really is he has no shame at all... Which is great

He may or may not be gay but the lyrics openly say gay and bisexual things. I think the consenses amoung the fan base is that James Euringer is bisexual, commonly kissing fans of both sexes. Beeing a huge fan myself am not sure. I would not be shocked either way. As for appealing to the gay bisexual audience, the lyrics are funny to an open minded audience, although most fans are probably ignorant of everything. The music will be more likely to appeal to someone who finds nothing wrong with homosexuality.

Why do you care? Are you considering hitting on him?
What the hell is a steriotypically gay sound?

this right above, was exactly my thought. wtf does that mean? and if james urine heard it what the fuck would he think? he'd probably say "that is just silly." - bozu

---

I'm gay and I find the lyrics hilarious.
-Anonymous :P

His name is JIMMY urine (For short), so, to go by my theory, don't post about a band if you don't even know their names!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.76.114.89 (talk) 00:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Devo?

Could someone please explain to me why Devo's here? Thanks! — Xoder | Talk 18:12, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)

My thought, too. I've removed it upon adding to and copyediting the article. -- Saaga 15:06, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)


Im gay also and I love MSI and their lyrics about being "gay" or anything...Their MSI.. and thei Unique and different...

[edit] Left-Rights

My understanding of the Left-Rights is that it is a band consisting of the two male members of MSI, Little Jimmy Urine and Steve, Righ?.

My understanding about the Left Rights is that, although they are the same people as MSI, they are a different band, so I will add appropriate disclaimers — Xoder|✆ 23:14, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)

     the left rights is technically an album


Maybe something should be added about how the lead singer recognizes that his music is a somewhat of a joke (See lyrics to joke and many other songs) and its his non serious approach to music that makes him notable.

Specifically the song "2 Hookers and 8-ball" which goes '2 hookers and an 8-ball, can you believe that I write this shit? 2 hookers and an 8-ball, stupid people thinking I am cool.

The Left Rights is a band by Jimmy Urine and Steve Righ? www.myspace.com/theleftrights, its also Mindless Self Indulgence's Debut Album81.76.114.89 12:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

um.. what? left rights is MSI's debut album? lol put down the crack pipe dude.68.252.94.153 16:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] f--ed up

why are we bleeping fucked up? we say nigger and faggot in the article and bleep fucked up? Theres an entire article on fuck. When did wikipedia become squeamish? This is selective censorship, and only more proof why censorship on the whole is a self-defeating philosophy.

Lockeownzj00 01:56, 6 May 2005 (UTC)


[edit] mixing on atari

Don't see what's -so- unusual about this, up to the end of the 90s... was once pretty common to do your sequencing on an ST (built in midi ports, the birthplace of Cubase, home to many commercial plug-in pieces of sampler hardware, etc), perhaps one band member was a fan, got themselves a Falcon (the next one after the ST, with built in CD-quality DSP chip and direct hard disc recording) and put it to good use... PS this is how it should be done, motherfucker - this style.

[edit] Shut Me Up : The Remixes

Alright im a huge MSI fan and this is the first i have heard of this

Can someone give me proof that there is a Shut Me Up remix album ?

` Hit up their myspace page. their latest blog states this will be released this fall. Graveenib 23:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

http://www.mindlessselfindulgence.com/inside/

News item for 0/21/2006:

"This fall will see the release of the new Mindless Self Indulgence single "Shut Me Up: The Remixes + 3". The CD will feature 3 remixes of "Shut Me Up" as well as its demo version. In addition to this there will be 2 new remixes of fan favorite "Straight To Video" as well as the previously unreleased tracks "Adios Amigos" and MSI's cover of the Notorious B.I.G. classic "Big Poppa".


[image]



01. SHUT ME UP - Ulrich Wild (Groandome Metal Remix) 02. SHUT ME UP - VNV Nation (1200XL Remix) 03. SHUT ME UP - Tommie Sunshine (TSMV Still Filthy Remix) 04. SHUT ME UP - Original Crappy Demo 05. BIG POPPA (Previously Unreleased) 06. ADIOS AMIGOS (Previously Unreleased) 07. STRAIGHT TO VIDEO (Bonus Remixes) - Suicide City (More and Faster Remix) 08. STRAIGHT TO VIDEO (Bonus Remixes) - Tommie Sunshine (TSMV Extended Electro Remix)"

[edit] Nintendocore

This doesn't seem to apply to MSI's musical style. This genre consists of bands along the lines of 14 Year Old Girls, 8 Bit Weapon and The Minibosses who focus on doing modern interpretations of old video game music. This is not Mindless Self Indulgence. This is the second time it has been reverted. Please, let's discuss.Graveenib 21:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

You're right. --Liface 21:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. This only nintendocore thing just stems from samples, no actual covers. Smoltz 22:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Why should you label them at all. They are about controversy and their genre should match. I do agree with the fact that nintendocore doesn't really match them.-- User:Blackout45 1:00 Sept. 18 2006

[edit] Tagged

I guess this bands notability is primarily based on who they opened for. That's fine, but someone please cite it. Thanks. House of Scandal 04:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

  • This should not be speedy tagged, thus I removed the tag. They have an allmusic.com entry, which indicates that at least one of their records is on a real label, if not more, thus they probably meet WP:MUSIC. If you think the article should be deleted, it at least needs to go through WP:AFD. Herostratus 04:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. Did the person who added the speedy deletion tag even try googling their name? --Liface 08:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Footnotes

The footnotes are improperly formatted as simply URLs, rather than giving the name of the periodical being cited, and the title, date, and author of the article. This is needed to illustrate whether the sources are authoritative, credible and disinterested.--Tenebrae 12:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] this article is seriously vandalized

"Another significant influence to the band is early 1980s satanic culture" lol gg wikipedia —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.1.30.233 (talk) 17:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Hmm..

I think many people here are seriously biased. I, myself, am a fan of MSI and similar artists having seen them in concert with Kill Hannah. But I swear, you people are messed up. Why not just respect MSI for the shit they put right in front of you. At least they're point fucking blank and in your face.

Msi saved me 16:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC) Boomer

[edit] LGBT Musical Group

I added them to this category, because of their obvious homosexual lyrical content of some songs, aaand..being gay myself, it's kind of cool to have a kick ass band such as MSI in that category. Also, I think everyone knows that Urine is bi..so..yeah. Felt it was appropriate to add them to that category, mostly due to their lyrics. Here's the website that some people use for his bisexuality, http://suicidegirls.com/interviews/Mindless+Self+Indulgence/ where they ask what type of girls he likes, he talks about being attracted to basically everyone. Oreo 25 March 2007

I read the interview and couldn't find anything to support Euringer's bisexuality. Could you please point out where exactly in the article he makes his sexuality known, so it can be added to the page's citations? From what I understand, his sexuality has been an issue both on the band's article and his own, and appropriate referencing outside of lyrics, which don't necessarily reflect the artist or composer's actual views, and the one-dollar makeout stunt at shows hasn't been provided. ZachPG 16:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


DRE: What kind of women are you attracted to? JU: Just about anything at this point. I have a dick and it gets hard then that's good. I walk down the street and if I see a girl and my dick gets hard that's and if I see a boy that's good too and same with seeing a chicken. If my dick gets hard and I want to fuck it then that's good. People like to attach labels to themselves, straight, gay, S &M, it's just so simple. It doesn't matter what you do whether its horrible or mainstream or boring, you know what turns you on. So why the big brouhaha.

He says he's basically attracted to everything/one. "If I see a boy that's good too" implies that..I would say, I mean..it's not saying "I'm bisexual", but a person doesn't need to say those exact words. If someone kept a journal about being in love/lust with another guy, just because he doesn't address his bisexuality it doesn't mean it doesn't exist..if you get what I mean. Oreo

This is better than nothing, but IMHO, any mention of his sexual orientation in either the band's article or his own should be carefully worded to express basically what you said above, that statements were made and the evidence is there, but it's not express, it's implied. Unfortunately, I'm a newb and have no clue how to properly word something like that. Ideas? ZachPG 15:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like a combination of pansexuality (being potentially attracted to everyone - not just male and female but tran, hermaphrodite, XXY-male, XYY-male, XXX-female, etc) and omniparaphilia (being turned on by... everything). It would definitely be a good idea to drop the pansexuality link in there in my opinion. ~ Switch (✉✍☺) 16:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Yea or maybe he was fucking with the interviewer. DUHHHHH. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.113.153 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Vandalism and spam links

There's been a lot of vandalism of late and i wondered about requesting semi-protection for the article? Also there appear to be a number of (i think) spam links in the external links section, e.g. ones to various fansites. Are these spam and should they be removed? Jamamala 22:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] somebody removed the word "pussy"

Somebody removed the word "pussy" from the description "industrial jungle pussy punk." Some sort of reason behind this? I've put it back.. Wikipedia is not the place to be shy about words when it's a direct quote from the band.

[edit] Not hip-hop.

MSI are NOT hip-hop in any way, shape or form. Jimmy might do quick vocals sometimes, but that doesn't mean they're hip-hop. Proposal to remove the word hip-hop from the description of their music. BlackSlivers 01:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Frankenstein Girls Will Seem Strangley Sexy is an album heavily influenced by both rap and hip hop. Now You'll rebel to Anything is significantly less influenced by these genres. The newest Mindless Rip Off has some more hip hop in it.

Bring the Pain is a cover of Method Man's first single. In FGWSSS there is alot of influence from 90's hip hop.-Psychoxpanda

MSI also remixed Notorious B.I.G.'s "Big Poppa." Pretty much undisputable that there's a good deal of hip-hop influence. ZachPG 21:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

MSI is definately influenced by Hip Hop, but I wouldn't categorize them as such. Perhaps a rewording is called for? I have changed the article from: Their music is a blend of metal, electronica, punk, and hip-hop. to instead read: Their music is a blend of metal and electronica with a heavy punk and hip-hop influence. Gravee 03:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I hate to argue semantics, but it seems to me that it would be more appropriate to say they are a blend of punk and electronica with heavy metal and hip-hop influence, or, to avoid confusion, heavy hip-hop and metal influence. ZachPG 22:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we should review what it says now, because, what the hell is "heavy punk" supposed to be? :And even if there is such a thing, is Mindless Self Indulgence really part of that genre? Proposal to review what it says... again. Psycho Panda 14:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this was your point behind the above post, but it's not saying the band is influenced by "Heavy Punk" and "Hip-Hop", it's saying that the influence from Punk and Hip-Hop is a heavy one. I propose a change reading: "Their music is a blend of rock and electronica, also pulling heavy influences from punk and hip-hop music. This is often referred to as acid punk." Kurayami Eternal 17:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You act as if them being a little hip hop or having some influence in their music is some horrible thing. If you actually listened to some of their songs you would notice that they do have some hip hop influence in it. Espically in their songs bullshit and faggot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.229.232.194 (talk) 23:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

They are categorized as hip hop on allmusicguide. --Neon white 23:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:MSI-TIGHT.jpg

Image:MSI-TIGHT.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:MindlessSelfIndulgenceAlienatingOurAudience.jpg

Image:MindlessSelfIndulgenceAlienatingOurAudience.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:MindlessSelfIndulgence(Album).jpg

Image:MindlessSelfIndulgence(Album).jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History/Biography

Both sections contain a lot redundant information. Could someone clean it up? I will do it myself when I have some free time at my hands. --Autoplombe 22:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] reversion to past article

could we please, please PLEASE revert back to this revision? the article has really gone to shit since then. fjak 09:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] biased

this article is clearly biased. example: "They also use clever lyrics and stance to give meaning to songs, such as "You'll rebel to anything," which is a song that talks about how punk culture is being exploited by misdirected youths as a way to be unique or get noticed."

Someone needs to change this.

Do you mean the arictle is POV? If you think so, feel free to make what changes you feel are necessary. ZachPG 20:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism not fixed

I reverted to this version on 4 July as old vandalism was not repaired properly (the bottom of the article got cut off). Can the regular editors restore any useful edits made in the interim period? Thanks. Carcharoth 12:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use criteria

The use of images not in compliance with our fair-use criteria or our policy on nonfree content is not appropriate, and the images have been removed. Please do not restore them. — Moe ε 05:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Concert setting

Actually, the first day of Voodoo Fest in 2003 was in Memphis; the second day was in New Orleans. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.238.142.221 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Guitar Hero 3

An edit made claims that Straight to Video will be on Guitar Hero 3. I don't belive it, and I demand some viable proof. [User:Keaton|Keaton] 11:21pm EST. 5 August 2007.

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Tight.JPG

Image:Tight.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Msi.jpg

Image:Msi.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 00:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Genres

I think the genres in the infobox are a little excessive. --Neon white 02:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The genre of late[[1]] of late were listed: "Industrial Jungle Pussy [Punk]]", I don't believe this is even a genre.  Doktor  Wilhelm  20:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
It was claimed that this was a something they had described there music as, it isn't genre so was rightfully removed, i also removed the claim from the lead as the citation is dead and the source wasnt a particularly verifiable site anyway, plus a self-attributed quote in the lead is not great. --neonwhite user page talk 20:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

MSI's genre is not Hip-Hop, and not Shock Rock. Shock Rock is for bands like Alice Cooper.

No MSI's genre is Industrial Jungle Pussy Punk. For fuck sake they've even admitted to it. And since when did what Rolling Stones and VHS become credible sources for naming a bands genre? Please refrain from changing it from Industrial Jungle Pussy Punk to whatever you may THINK it is —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.117.227 (talk) 13:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Made up genres by bands dont go in the infobox. VHS is a type of video cassette and the rolling stones are a band. However VH1 is a major music tv channel and rolling stone is probably the most prominent and reputable music magazine ever produced. Do not remove cited genres or otherwise vandalise this article further. --neonwhite user page talk 16:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

. Shock

That isn't a genre, it's a mixture of random genres!  Doktor  Wilhelm  16:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Its hardly a mix of random genres. Its industrial because of its rhythmic beats, as heard in Straight to Video. Jungle because of its electronic bouncy sound. And Punk because of its shock value, and whole attitude. I really dont agree with describing them as Hip Hop, its fine to say that they sound like it, but not to say they are Hip Hop Jelnock (talk) 22:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)Jelnock (talk)

Industrial is already cited. They haven't the slighest thing in common with jungle music. Shock rock is also cited. They have been described as hip hop. Remember wikipedia represents verifiable sources not personal opinions. --neonwhite user page talk 22:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
The mix of genres, are not a genre in it's self! The genres shown fit the actual style of the band: Industrial fits the sound, Hip-hop fits the vocal style, and Shock Rock fits their image, as well as stage show (both musically and visually).  Doktor  Wilhelm  22:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


Boiled down, they're Electric Punk Hip Hop. Electric covers all the programming by Jimmy, their guitar and shows are punk, and Jimmy raps real fast, turntables are used in songs, a lot of their beat is hip hop. So that covers it. But! You'll find elements from all kinds of music in their songs because Jimmy rips a lot of stuff off from other music. "I’ll listen to every single thing that comes out and steal pieces of it. I’ll listen to something and I’ll go WOW that was the worst rap I’ve ever heard but that track was amazing and I’m going to rip off that kick drum from that track. Go on Limewire and download the track or stuff like that. Or someone will play something from a soundtrack and you’ll hear a song in the background and you’ll go ‘what was that song, I’ve never heard that song before.’ Just taking pieces and listening to little bits to make new and different stuff. That’s how I work with music" http://www.musicpix.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=477 And shock is a decal that can be slapped on any band of any genre it doesn't mean much really. And The band said they don't want the Industrial Jungle Pussy Punk attached to them anymore. They said too many people took it too seriously.


They are cited as both. Do not remove them again. --neonwhite user page talk 02:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merger proposal

I can;t find any reason my Little Jimmy Urine is notable enough to warrent a seperate article. --Neon white 02:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

i don't think that little jimmy urine would even have a place in the Mindless Self Indulgence article, i think he should be kept as a seperate article. There is enough information about him and there isn't any wrong information —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.220.167.138 (talk) 00:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The info is largely trivia and most is unsourced OR. Regardless of whether it is correct or not, the article doesnt meet criteria on notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neon white (talk • contribs) 18:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed before, dont merge it, it wouldn't wit the Mindless Self Indulgence article would look sloppy and bad, i suggest someone just fix up the Little Jimmy Urine article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.220.167.138 (talk) 06:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree a redirect would probably be better as most of that page is unsourced trivia. --Neon white (talk) 03:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Neon White, it seems that you've already decided to do all this, with out any real discussion about the band members who's articles you have deleted! I believe they are notable, as do others, I will bring the articles back until it can be proven that they aren't notable, and it's not just your POV. Sorry for any trouble caused! Instead of deleting things, why not help find citation?  Doktor  Wilhelm  12:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
The proposal has been made for 10 days, that's long enough for discussion and objections. They are not notable according to the guidelines, whether you think they are is not a criteria for notability. We do not attempt to prove negatives, on wikipedia you need to prove notability (not disprove it) according to WP:MUSIC guideline, in particular the fact that a member has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable. I have looked and cannot find any such articles if you believe there are some that i have not been able to find then please present them otherwise there is no reason to keep the article as most of it as it stands could be removed as unsourced trivia. --Neon white (talk) 20:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Also, it's 2 against 1 for keeping the articles, and not merging at the moment. Just because You believe they aren't notable, really doesn't mean the articles need deleting (without any attempt to merge them into the bands article)! I'll see if I can work on finding some souces and such, as time allows! (I'm actually in favour of the merger of bands if the members are of the same level of notability as the band it's self, such as you couldn't imagine one without the other, but I guess that could lead to problems)  Doktor  Wilhelm  22:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
wikipedia is not a democracy. My POV has nothing to do with it, he simply doesnt fit the guidelines on notability unless substantial sources can be found. There simply is no point in having a stub article. No-one has proposed the article for deletion. Though most of it could be delete on the grounds of unsourced controversial material about a living person. --Neon white (talk) 01:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Doktor_Wilhelm is right, it's 2 against one, you are the only one who feels it should be changed. noone else does —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.220.167.138 (talk) 08:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Again wikipedia is not a democracy. That won't be mentioned again. If it does not pass Notability guidelines it needs to be either deleted or removed and as of yet, there has been no independent articles about the subject provided. --Neon white (talk) 22:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
So it's okay for you to do as you please? This is a discussion for the merger, as such the discussion had shown that it shouldn't be merged!  Doktor  Wilhelm  14:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

If Neon white and others of his ilk had their way, this project could better be named Wikitionary than Wikipedia. Above and beyond all other goals of perfection in spelling, formatting, referencing, attributing, quoting and everything else that pads out the rules here, Wikipedia's articles need to be useful to readers and researchers. Overly zealous editing deprives readers of much of the information they come to Wikipedia to find. Picking nits over references or the validity of provided references wastes a lot of time and energy with exceedingly little improvement added to Wikipedia. DrDelos (talk) 03:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

verifiability and reliable sources are a fundamental policy of wikipedia. see WP:RS and WP:V. It stops it from becoming a collection of personal opinions. Depriving readers of badly sourced, unsourced or just false material is exactly a policy of wikipedia. The article in question contains no info that couldn't be included here after all the OR and trivia is removed. --Neon white 16:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we should keep the article separate. Info about his sexuality, marriage, and concert persona would look sloppy on the MSI article. Blindeffigy 11:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The marriage would be ok as long as we can find a reliable source for it, it's not uncommon to have small sections about members on band pages. The other stuff is largely OR so wouldn't be necessarily merged anyway. Nevertheless i'm still prepared to wait to see if any articles of note are found. --Neon white 15:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I have changed my mind to MERGE them all, the articles as they are now are a waste, but all the references and such need to be put into the Mindless Self Indulgence article, as it is missing many (well both) of them... I've tried to merge all relevent crap into the main article, now all is needed is for some kind soul to sort out the redirecion of every thing, if that is what is needed! Sorry to anyone how think the articles should be kept as is, I just think it'll be less trouble this way!  Doktor  Wilhelm  22:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that was ME that merged the info from the band members —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.220.167.138 (talk) 15:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

You forgot the references though! (so I copied them)  Doktor  Wilhelm  16:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
A few issues snetences like He is known for many of his stage antics. and He usually wears jackets with catch phrases on the back like "As Seen on TV", "Kick Me", "Rock My Hole", "We Are Gods", "Cute Lead Singer", "Crap", "Kiss Me $1", and various other catch phrases are unsourced and are original reserch. Do we have sources for these? Is the page now to be redirected? --Neon white 18:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Neon, I believe it was you who said "Wikipedia is not a Democracy" no? I assume that you must be an admin based on the time you spend here and your profound interest in doing away with the page but I am new to the site and am not sure if you mean that the admins decided by "consensus" or that you and a few users made the call? Please excuse me if this isn't the place for the convo, just getting my feet on the site, I'll catch on in no time. I can source the catchphrases on the jackets if need be but not sure how relevant that part of the bio is. I've sourced the talk of his outfits and the trademark style he has which is emulated by others. I'm going to look around to see if any of the remixes he has done are online and link one or two to source that. --BillH 1:59, December 12, 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 07:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
The consensus is above. It was decided that the person in question could not be verified as notabile according to the guidelines at WP:MUSIC which is a guideline for editors so we can decide who is worth of a seperate article. Generally subjects that don't have much notablity have their pages merged into the article that they are associated with in this case the band. All info that is sourced has been included into this article. If there are only a few users involved in the debate, then they make the call, admins only really decide speedy deletes, everything else is decided by wikipedia editors and any editor can have a say. If you can source things then they are best put in the relevant place in this article. But most of those alone arent really enough to prove notability outside of the band. --Neon white (talk) 00:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Bill H has a wikipedia page, dude, if thats reall bill h neon white, listen to him. he like knows MSI and stuff —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.220.166.36 (talk) 01:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Every editor has a user page, i'm not sure what your point is. Liking the subject of an article makes you no better an editor than anyone else it fact quite the opposite in some cases. --Neon white (talk) 19:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Neon, when the consensus wasn't in your favor you stated that "Wikipedia is not a democracy" but now you are citing consensus as your justification. Which is it? If you are going to play wiki police and pretend to be a person of importance on the site consistency would be helpful. BillH (talk) 04:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

No i didn't, a consensus was formed by the editors involved and no-one objected. Decisions are not made by voting they are made based on the guidelines and policies. I have never proclaimed any more importance than any other editor. If you want to make a claim that this subject is notable enough to have a seperate article then present enough info and reliable sources and which point on [WP:MUSIC] he qualifies under at the current i don't believe the info we have needs a seperate article. --Neon white (talk) 20:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

this is nothing but insane hypocrisies spewing out for the public to see -- how embarrassing! for someone so concerned about the "fairness" of a wikipedia article, why is it you believe that we should handle this in whichever fashion best benefits YOUR argument, neon? sounds like biased and uneven thinking. if that is the case, i agree with bill h. this should NOT be merged. how many more needed for "consensus"? (Indecisean (talk) 05:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC))

Please read WP:N, WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO and also a good read on how to edit in a civil manner would help you here. Your argument is not based on anything more than a personal POV. Wikipedia doesn't base it's content on your personal opinion of who you think should have an article. He needs to meet criteria on notability and so far over a month after the proposal was first made, the criteria is not met, if you can provide second party reliable sources than prove notability then do so, if you cannot then there is no real reason to recreate the article. As is stated on WP:BIO The person must have been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject As i said before the sourced portions is now here the rest was unsourced OR and was correctly removed according to wikipedia policy on unsourced info in articles about a living person. --Neon white (talk) 20:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Neon White, i know that every user has a wikipedia page. My point was that BillH could make the wikipedia page notable because he knows MSI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.220.166.36 (talk) 17:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
That really has no baring at all. Anything added must be sourced by a verifiable source. Other than that he would have a conflict of interest and therefore his edits would have to be thoroughly checked by other editors. If he feels he can improve the article to the point where it can stand by it's own then he is welcome to do so but to simply revert it to the poor state that lead to the merge in the first place is not contsructive at all. --Neon white (talk) 01:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Are the band member articles going to be merged/redirected into this one? They seem rather small and Lyn-Z seems to be prone to a lot of vandalism (namely to info about her marrage and age), it'd be easier to keep evrything inline if there was only one page with the biography details of the individual members on.  Doktor  Wilhelm  05:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I think it was left a while to see if any more reliable sources could be found, but it's been a while and nothing significant seems to have arrived so feel free to merge them if you think that will improve things. --neonwhite user page talk 15:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I would have a go merging them myself, but I'm rubbish at working out what needs to kept from one article or the other, and what doesn't.  Doktor  Wilhelm  23:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Nothing needed merging really, everything on that page was what was already in the main article which justifies the merge as the article was redundant. --neonwhite user page talk 20:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I resent this merge

As someone who watches Lyn Z (which I originally edited because a friend contacted me about the article being a complete mess) but not Mindless Self Indulgence, I resent this merge. Lyn Z came out of an AfD with consensus to keep, suggesting that just casually removing the content because you would rather it was somewhere else is bad without real discussion. And no, I do not count this as real discussion- there were no tags, and there wasn't even a mention on the talk pages of the pages which you have just as good as deleted. I am not going to revert your changes, I am just explaining that the process followed here was, at best, abysmal. J Milburn (talk) 20:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

There had been tags, that's how I found out about all this merger stuff (though they keep being removed) and all mergr discussion was directer here, I believe? everything of notability and with refrence is present in the Mindless Self Indulgence page, and hopfully the sections on band members will grow too big with notability and refrences, that they will again get their own articles.  Doktor  Wilhelm  20:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
The afd was nearly three months ago and only one person contributed to the afd claiming that she was notable because she was a permanent member of a notable band, which is contrary to guidelines at WP:MUSIC, it should not really have been closed at that stage. The only reason the result was keep was because there was no consensus to delete. There is, however, a consensus to merge, if you read the points above. --neonwhite user page talk 17:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
My point is that this discussion was not properly advertised. If myself and a couple of other editors all agree on something on a message board somewhere, we can't claim we have consensus. This was not even a mention of this on Talk:Lyn Z, which means that consesnsus was decided by those who discuss the matter here, not all those who may have interest in any of the affected articles. Look at it this way- I create an article called List of bands with the word mindless in the name, and a couple of other editors help me write it. We mention Mindless Self Indulgence and a few garage bands, then the three of us decide to merge Mindless Self Indulgence there. Is that consensus? Erm, no. I admit, the AfD was a little poor, but if you have issue with the closure, you should raise the matter with Seraphim Whipp, the closing admin, or perhaps start a deletion review, not just ignore it and do as you please. I repeat my original comments- this merge was out of process, and you are dangerously close to acting as if you own these articles. J Milburn (talk) 18:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Merges are not required to be adverised or discussed in any way, if an editor feels it would improve the encyclopedia they can perform the merge without discussion as long as it's done properly and not likely to be controversial, see Wikipedia:Merge#How_to_merge_pages seen as the info is already in this article and laregy related to this band there is little point in keeping a redundant article and therefore the merge was incredibly unlikely to be controversial and was part of the normal editing process. Nobody owns articles. Please remember to discuss matters in a civil manner. --neonwhite user page talk 22:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Please don't challenge my civility, I am being perfectly civil. I know that merges need not be discussed, only citing consensus when the relevent instances have not been informed is rather bad practice. J Milburn (talk) 22:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
You have failed to assume good faith and made baseless accusation against aditors, this is not being civil. --neonwhite user page talk 18:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Ironically, that is a baseless statement. Where have I not assumed good faith? Where have I made baseless accusations? I stand by what I have said. J Milburn (talk) 19:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Jimmy Urine.jpg

Image:Jimmy Urine.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editting Needed

The Mindless Self Indulgence page seems to be in dire need of re-writing, specifically in the Band Members section. There are numerous grammatical errors that should be corrected immediately. Maxwell's Daemon (talk) 22:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Correction to opening paragraph

I'm not really familiar with editing Wikipedia, but I noticed that the opening paragraph said Lyn-Z was among the founding members of the band, when she was not. I corrected it by replacing her name with Vanessa YT, who is, in fact, the original bassist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.129.153.250 (talk) 22:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Should we consider Mindless Self-Indulgence a solo album by Jimmy Urine, as opposed to an album by the band? I mean Steve, played guitar on "Bed Of Roses", but he wasn't a member of the band at the time, and Kitty and Vanessa had yet to be even heard of. Lord Weasel (talk) 03:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removed Band Member Photos

Each band member doesn't need their own photo, especially since we have a full band photo that accurately depicts each member. Chouonsoku (talk) 23:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Opening For Bands

I was just wondering why it mentions the list of bands they've opened for, twice; once in the intro and once in the actual bio?? Grungedude22 (talk) 18:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] this page is screwed up =(

okay, why does it say this band was formed in 1997 if the first album was made in 1995? One of those years is wrong, if not then someone inform me on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.119.197.242 (talk) 23:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)