Talk:Live (band)

Disambiguation required

Live needs disambiguation. Does this page refer to the verb "to live" or does it refer to live as in a "live performance" or "live" as in electricly active. Or, does it refer to a rock-band with the name "live"? darkside2010 14:12, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Religion

Aren't they a Christian band? FatherGuidoSarducci 01:57, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

It would appear that they are more recently, with Birds of Pray. I didn't really think of them as a Christian band before that album. muhgcee 09:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

hello father

no. although the members may have been born into christian families, live is not a christian band. i think their belief system is beyond organised religion. it is about seeing the beauty in everything. its not just a philosophy proposed by j.krishnamurthi. its a very intense way to live. or try to... without assumptions or perceptions of the things we see. their lyrics have gradually moved on from the indivual (sheperd/kaliyuga etc.) to the abstract collective (hero/heaven etc.)

but this again, is just my opinion so you are free to question it..

I've always had a hard time categorizing them myself. Some of their lyrics are explicitly Christian, but some borrow from other belief systems. I suppose we could mention that their songs often contain Spiritual/Religious themes from various belief systems. Arianna 13:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Their studio release "Secret Samadhi" includes numerous references to Hindu / Eastern concepts. Samadhi itself is one such concept. One of the singles from that album, "Lakini's Juice," references the kundalini concept of physical/corporeal/sexual energy - the juice of Lakini (a goddess also responsible for the creative centre). Interestingly, the same track references or at least alludes to the Christian transubstantiation with the lines "More wine / cuz I got to have it / More skin / cuz I got to eat it." It is safe to say they (or at least their vocalist) is heavily immersed in spiritual / mythic concepts while consistently bannering the cause of peace. The title "Throwing Copper" suggests throwing coins into a fountain wishing for good luck. All that noted, it would be inappropriate to call them a "Christian" band - more "spiritual"-positivists in an open sense and certainly theist inasmuch as their lyrics suggest belief in a God or greater power. Their most famous song, "Lightning Crashes," appears to be clearly about the soul's return to earth upon death (the karmic cycle), which is in contrast with most if not all mainstream (but not necessarily Gnostic) Christianity. It's safe to say the beliefs espoused are ambiguous but centred in a study of various world religions with an emphasis on Christianity and Hinduism/Buddhism.

Peace and spiritual seeking are two major themes in their work. They also give attention to amorous love, though it's not always clear whether this love is purely heterosexual, homoerotic ("Heropsychodreamer"), or love of another nature (love between man and God or, more recently and unambiguously, love of a child).

Another theme in their songs could be called "dark Americana." This is clear in tracks like "Shit Towne," "Waitress," "Gas Hed Goes West," "merica," and "Freaks," where they discuss the difficult love many Americans have for their country as well as the mental and physical landscape generally.--Kevinkautzman 02:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)KevinKautzman

Furthermore, Ed himself said at one performance, in Melbourne Australia, "I'm not a Christian but it feels good to be in the Chapel today," just before launching into the song "I Alone". Which itself, interestingly enough, is a song that is based on a story of Jesus calming the storms on a boat. If someone reminds me, I can find the date of the concert for the former and the source for the interview where Ed says the latter. Regardless, as Kevin Kautzman said much better than I, Live is not a Christian band but a spiritual one. Harukaze 17:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Seriously? How about their song 'Operation Spirit'? The lyrics go... Heard a lot of talk about this Jesus. A man of love and a man of strength. But what a man was two thousand years ago Means nothing at all to me today...

There isn't an inkling of Christianity in their music. Kowalczyk follows far eastern traditions, although he probably respects all religions. He believes all religious traditions should unite as one, and works toward that goal. Their songs are very powerful, and take on strong themes, but they're not a Christian band. Please google Ed's blog before making such assertions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.188.229.55 (talk) 01:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe that this was brought up before, but I never saw an answer. Many of Live's songs are obviously spiritual; I think that this should be mentioned in the article. Youre dreaming eh? (talk) 03:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Advice: find a reliable source that makes this claim, and presents evidence. Not that I disagree, but that's the best thing to do. Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 09:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Official name?

I keep on seeing LIVE and Live... which one is it? Gflores ^Talk 08:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

With these latest changes, the band's name keeps alternating between Live and LIVE. Personally, I prefer Live, but will live with the capitalized version if that's they way it is agreed upon. I'd like to hear officially which version is correct, but it is minor enough that it shouldn't matter. --Mtjaws 14:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

As far as I've seen, their albums are all listed as Līve.Shnizzedy (talk) 02:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is this article using all capitals for the band's name? Even if it's the "official" name it shouldn't be used, it's more important that the article is easy to read. It should be changed to "Live" throughout the article, with an explanation of the official spelling in the beginning of the article. /Grillo 15:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not the official spelling. I'm changing it now. Antgel 02:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

"Official" doesn't matter, Wikipedia has rules regarding capitalization. Please do not change anything back again. Evan Reyes 00:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

External links

Why was the Bootlegheaven.com web site removed? It's a legitimate fan site that has numerous Live concert recordings..

Need to decide on which links to keep and which to get rid of. The official band site is okay, along with the myspace links, but this many fan site links should be avoiding in compliance with WP:LINKS. SpigotMap 11:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Most successful rock band ??

"LIVE gained international prominence in the 1990s as one of the most successful rock bands of its time." - Errrr excuse me but weren't there A LOAD of other bands far more successful than this one ? Koubiak 12:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, seriously, I've never even heard of them. Just seen some commercials for their two newest albums, it seems... Well, I think this should be removed anyway. It's not really the neutral presentation that Wikipedia should give, is it? --Ifrit 20:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

International prominence? Not too sure about that and I have never heard of them. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 20:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

In their native USA they aren't really popular from what I have heard, but in Europe (e.g. the Netherlands) they are really popular and can be considered one of the most successful rock bands. Klas3b 19:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

People need to realize that whether they have heard of a band is irrelevent on whether a band is popular. As a matter of fact, yes, Live was an incredibly successful rock band in various parts of Europe, as Klas3b mentioned. However, it's also true that the comment was not NPOV, especially since it is very hard to back up a comment like that. Regardless, kindly keep your knowledge or ignorance out of Wikipedia - the site is about facts, not your limited opinions. Harukaze 17:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Are they really a post grunge band?

This is the first time I heard that they're considered to be a post grunge. I listen to them a lot and I don't see any resembalence to post grunge. -- Amorphism

They existed before grunge hit, so maybe not. RomeoVoid 16:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Just about the entirety of Throwing Copper is post-grunge. -Beau99 07:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Secret Samadhi is post-grunge, too. In fact, pretty much all of Live's albums until Songs From Black Mountain are both alternative rock and post-grunge, but Songs From Black Mountain is both alternative rock and rock, imo. James25402 01:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Mental Jewelry was definitely part of the original grunge movement. I can't speak for Death of a Dictionary, but people from around Red Lion (their general area of York County) remember Public Affection's being a local grunge band in the '80s. If they merely continue in the grunge sound after its heyday, does that make them post-grunge? BlueCaper (talk) 07:36, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:LiveBMCover.jpeg

Image:LiveBMCover.jpeg 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 00:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Live-Secret Samadhi (album cover).jpg

Image:Live-Secret Samadhi (album cover).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 00:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Live-Mental Jewelry (album cover).jpg

Image:Live-Mental Jewelry (album cover).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 00:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:LiveLogo.png

Image:LiveLogo.png 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 00:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Sub Titles

I saw the little message in the main section saying that the big block of history needed sub titles, so I split it up into sections with seperate titles. I also renamed The Live Lounge to FansofLive (Live fansite). I thought that anybody who doesn't know what Live Lounge is already isn't really told by the title, whereas the new name tells them what it is. Cheers. --Lovemonk. 16:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

9th Album

Should we make a page for Live's new upcoming album? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.206.67.114 (talk) 20:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I really doubt we are ready for a page for a new album. Have they even started to record yet? Has any announcement been made about it? I'm sure they will eventually release a new album, but with so little/zero info, it is best to wait on making a new page. --Mtjaws (talk) 21:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Radiant Sea Album Listing Issue

I see someone has taken it away. Shouldn't it actually be there? It was released on the same label as DOAD, and maybe didn't sell anything, but still, it's as much of an album as Awake? Maybe. --Lovemonk. (talk) 21:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You present a good point. I was the one who initially removed Radiant Sea from the albums section. I have since relisted it under the EPs section (which I slightly modified to read "Compilation Albums & EPs"). I also renamed the "Albums" section to "Studio Albums", and consequently moved Awake from that section to the Compilation Albums section. Although Radiant Sea is being called an "album" by Live's official website, there has been an incredible amount of debate throughout the fanbase regarding the legitimacy of this labeling. Regardless of it's recognition as an album by the official site, it is essentially no more than an exclusive fanclub release of previously limited concert recordings (with the exception of the two new songs, of course). It is my belief that only full-length studio albums with at least a staggering majority of new songs should be listed under "albums". Things along the lines of "best of" albums, EPs, demo recordings, concert recordings, fanclub-only issues, and the like may be noteworthy, but they are noteworthy within their own category. I realize this may seem a contentious issue for some, and it may be met with certain dissent, but it is important to recognize the distinction between different types of releases. Swamilive (talk) 03:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I was going to put it back since you had removed it twice now, but think it is now in the best place within the Compilation category. Thanks for explaining it and bringing it back. --Mtjaws (talk) 20:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Christian rock?

Should this band be listened as a Christian rock band? The band may just be like Creed, but there still more songs that they have that talk about faith and stuff. Would it be a good idea to label them as a Christian Rock band? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Narisguy (talk • contribs) 11:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Rather than just adding a genre, which I find rather tiresome and pointless, some mention could be made abut the spiritual nature of some of their music, including giving examples of lyrics? It will be interesting to see how spiritual the lyrics remain if the band are "reborn" without Kowalczyk. Iangurteen (talk) 15:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Although they have written and performed songs steeped in spiritual themes, they are NOT a Christian rock band. I am also amazed at the ignorance... referring to Live as 'post-grunge'? Sorry, Live was around before grunge! Please people... all you have to do is a simple Google search. And people with little to no familiarity with the band shouldn't be involved in creating or editing this article. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.25.30.245 (talk) 11:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Release of track with new frontman

On December 21, 2011 a re-recording of All Over You featuring the new unnamed front-man was released via Facebook. This is the first time that the new vocalist has been heard. https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=310463695653477&id=30887983908 I think this new information should be added to the article. Thoughts? 203.38.50.116 (talk) 04:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I remember when that was posted and thinking, "That's Ed!" - I've just listened to it again and... "it's ED!" - I too can't wait to hear the new songs with the new vocalist...but this isn't it. Thegraciousfew (talk) 06:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course it's not Ed. Are you aware that Ed Kowalczyk is not going to be part of Live's new lineup? The recording was made a few months ago. Why would Live upload a track featuring Ed's vocals when they're recording their new album with a new singer? 124.148.221.161 (talk) 04:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, well the original link went to an alternative take of Run To The Water, with ED singing. The new link does indeed have "I Alone" with a new singer, it sounds great, but the new guy (whoever he is) is deliberately impersonating all Ed's vocal mannerisms. Let's hope he has a style of his own! Live are being deliberately vague and cryptic about the new singer, so let's wait for some concrete news before updating the page. Thegraciousfew (talk) 09:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Well known songs

Could someone please look up and add a list of their most well-known songs, perhaps in a list showing how long they had a song at it's highest spot in the top 100 or something? That's what I came to this wiki hoping for, but it wasn't readily available (I read the table of contents, and didn't notice the info). Thanks.

There is a comprehensive list of the band's single releases at Live discography which shows all chart poitions, I think that does the job? Thegraciousfew (talk) 05:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

http://www.angelfire.com/rock2/patdahl/interviews/York_Sunday_News.html

That link goes to an interview with Live from 1988, when they were still called Public Affection.

• > The band has been together for four years
• > four years
• > four years

This proves without a doubt that Live were formed in 1984. Heepman1997 (talk) 07:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Kowalczyk's return?

Various clues on Live and Ed's social media indicate that Ed may be returning to Live and this information has been rightly added to the band's history on this page. However there has been no official confirmation. Please don't update lists of band members or make any definitive statements about Ed being back in the band until we have a good independent source that can be used as a reference, which will only come if the band make an official announcement. Thegraciousfew (talk) 10:01, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726220019/http://www.daughtryofficial.com/us/event/2008/08/03 to http://www.daughtryofficial.com/us/event/2008/08/03
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111104051627/http://thecomet.com/posts/exclusive_blog_chad_taylor_talks_the_gracious_few_and_live to http://thecomet.com/posts/exclusive_blog_chad_taylor_talks_the_gracious_few_and_live
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130704204348/http://www.yorkdispatch.com/news/ci_20116972/live-new-singer-together-first-concert-since-2008 to http://www.yorkdispatch.com/news/ci_20116972/live-new-singer-together-first-concert-since-2008

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130704195212/http://www.yorkdispatch.com/news/ci_19807539 to http://www.yorkdispatch.com/news/ci_19807539
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140201204133/http://www.ydr.com/living/ci_20157079/lives-new-lead-singer to http://www.ydr.com/living/ci_20157079/lives-new-lead-singer

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924153436/http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?resultpage=1&table=SEARCH_RESULTS&action=&title=Throwing%20Copper&artist=live&format=&debutLP=&category=&sex=&releaseDate=&requestNo=&type=&level=&label=&company=&certificationDate=&awardDescription=&catalogNo=&aSex=&rec_id=&charField=&gold=&platinum=&multiPlat=&level2=&certDate=&album=&id=&after=&before=&startMonth=1&endMonth=1&startYear=1958&endYear=2009&sort=Artist&perPage=25 to https://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?resultpage=1&table=SEARCH_RESULTS&action=&title=Throwing%20Copper&artist=live&format=&debutLP=&category=&sex=&releaseDate=&requestNo=&type=&level=&label=&company=&certificationDate=&awardDescription=&catalogNo=&aSex=&rec_id=&charField=&gold=&platinum=&multiPlat=&level2=&certDate=&album=&id=&after=&before=&startMonth=1&endMonth=1&startYear=1958&endYear=2009&sort=Artist&perPage=25

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:53, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:OWN by Revirvlkodlaku

User:Revirvlkodlaku is showing severe WP:OWN issues here, complaining about others reverting when in reality they are blocking any change, even clear improvements. Since late December, they have

• reverted this improvement: yes, it was unsourced, in a section already tagged as unreferenced anyway, but it was correct.

• reverted back to a worse version (no reason that 1989 would be chosen, either 1984 when Kowalczyk joined, or less ideally 1991 when the band was renamed "Live".

• reverted, meh

• Reverted because they had apparently trouble understanding the quote, and insisted that they were right when I reverted them again.

Basically, they know better than everyone else, even when his reverts make the article worse. And this isn't new, in November they reverted an IP who added the three current members to the infobox[1] even though at the time those members were also listed and sourced in the "band members" section and thus perfectly could be added to the infobox without repeating that source (nothing else there is sourced anyway). Fram (talk) 15:47, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

@Fram, you are clearly on some kind of crusade to "monitor" my work, and as our past interactions indicate, you are unwilling to engage in civil discussion with me, so I don't expect this will be a fruitful effort. Now you've gone ahead and dug up a bunch of reverts I made on this page before. I haven't delved into your allegations, as I don't have the time to invest in your private investigation. We all make mistakes sometimes, and I don't claim to always be correct about my edits. At least I don't persecute other users, however, and hypocritically reimpose sloppy edits, as you did at American Authors.

As relates to our latest spat—which is what we should be discussing, not digging up past edits and attributing bias where none may exist—it is clearly not an improvement, and any half-decent reader can see that. I believe the reason you insist on reverting me on it has less to do with the content itself than your own prejudice. Please provide a solid reason why the quote, cryptic as it is, should remain. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 16:00, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

If an editor can be seen reverting again and again (as even a cursory glance at the history shows), and if those reverts are at best equivalent to the change made, and at worst and too frequently removing clear improvements, then " digging up past edits" is exactly what we should do (note that all the above diffs are from November 2022 to January 2023, nothing old). Fram (talk) 16:10, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

At this present moment, I'm only interested to discuss your latest revert—Gracey's tweet. Are you willing to discuss the issue in an impartial manner? Revirvlkodlaku (talk)

We have at the moment two editors who think it is better to present it as a quote (making it clear who is the issue) instead of putting it in our own words only indicating one person who isn't the problem. And we have one editor who feels the tweet is confusing and the other version is clearer. Fram (talk) 17:06, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Please try to keep these exchanges impersonal. Comments like "making it clear who is the issue" are not helpful, and certainly not relevant to the issue. The version I'm reverting to isn't "my words", I didn't add the tweet in the first place. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 17:08, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

"Making it clear who is the issue" is not about you, it is about the tweet: the text of the tweet makes it clear who is the issue, who is the problematic band member, while the text you prefer doesn't. Fram (talk) 17:19, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

The text you prefer, "also posted about the band's internal issues, emphasizing that Kowalczyk "is not the problem"" only indicates a defense of Kowalczyk: the full tweet "For anyone interested…..Ed is not the problem in this band….and it’s not this Chad…..and he doesn’t play bass. We have among us a person that stirs and then, no pun intended, sells drama." makes it clear that three other members aren't the problem, only the other Chad, and goes on to indicate briefly what the issue with that Chad was. It's not the best written tweet ever, but it conveys more information and doesn't require us to distill the essence. Fram (talk) 17:22, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. That wasn't so hard, was it? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 17:44, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring, too. That seemed harder. I'm not a fan of this Chad's formatting, and maybe it's within editorial discretion to fix those ellipses, could look less disjointed. It's not a crucial quote (in my eyes), so it could also just go. But if it stays, yeah, not cool for any editor to snip one of four points, then use Wikipedia's voice to say someone else emphasized it. If anyone's emphasized, it's that unnamed Chad at the end...people tend to remember the last line best. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:07, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

@Revirvlkodlaku: with the above out of the way, let's get back to the general topic of this section, your WP:OWN reverts of way too many edits here, some of them clear improvements (correcting errors, bringing the infobox up-to-date, ...), some just differences of styling or wording. Fram (talk) 15:53, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

@Fram, as I've stated before, I don't wish to engage in non-specific discussions of my work with you. I find your attitude condescending, and the fact that you've taken it upon yourself to "monitor" my edits is insulting. If you wish to make improvements to this article, please proceed, and if I disagree with them, we can hopefully have a civil discussion about each one. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 17:01, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

"Non-specific"? I gave specific diffs above, with explanations of what was wrong with them. How specific would you like it to be? If you think people shouldn't be condescending, then what do you call something like " That wasn't so hard, was it? ". It looks as if you just don't want your many errors and problematic behaviour being noted and discussed. Easy solution: adjust your editing (your reverts of unproblematic edits or of improvements). Fram (talk) 17:16, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Noted Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 17:56, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

"Live(band)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Live(band) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 16 § Live(band) until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 16:17, 16 November 2023 (UTC)