Talk:Peepshow (album)

2005
"The banshees claim it as their masterpiece"...any sources that have them quoted as saying this?Zombieliving 23:49, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

==February 2013: vandalism by a brand new IP 2601:A:4100:5A:642E:1EB6:B88:2B18 that looks like a clone of BEATWEAKer, a user that has been blocked indefinitely== This brand new user, 2601:A:4100:5A:642E:1EB6:B88:2B18 with a brand new ip has been vandalising this page for two months for genre warring. BEATWEAKer edited the same thing on 01:16, 9 September 2012‎ as 2601:A:4100:5A:642E:1EB6:B88:2B18, what a coincidence. This was quickly corrected 15 minutes later by IllaZilla at 01:45, 9 September 2012‎. Carliertwo (talk) 15:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Peepshow (album). 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://herenb.canadaeast.com/music/article/418500

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

us billboard 200 20 weeks
Important. It reached only #68 not bad for such a band but spent a total 20 weeks on that chart

http://www.billboard.com/artist/279469/siouxsie-and-banshees/chart?f=305 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.135.159 (talk) 13:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Peepshow (album). 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://archive.is/20140122153054/http://arts.nationalpost.com/2011/03/07/devotchka-finds-joy-in-the-sadness/ to http://arts.nationalpost.com/2011/03/07/devotchka-finds-joy-in-the-sadness/
 * Replaced archive link https://web.archive.org/web/20140201203025/http://arts.nationalpost.com/2011/03/07/devotchka-finds-joy-in-the-sadness/ with https://archive.is/20140122153054/http://arts.nationalpost.com/2011/03/07/devotchka-finds-joy-in-the-sadness/ on http://arts.nationalpost.com/2011/03/07/devotchka-finds-joy-in-the-sadness/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

August 2020
cleaned up the article. He is a professionnal journalist as you can see on his profile. You advance that he didn't do anything to improve this article whereas he did. . There isn't any wp:puffery, your claim doen't stand. Greg Fasolino like many other users didn't find this sentence as shocking, there isn't any superlative adjective. As long as you have'nt reached a consensus, the article will stay as it is before your edits. Carliertwo (talk) 23:45, 7 September 2020 (UTC)


 * It doesn't require consensus to ensure statements are supported by reliable sources when they currently aren't supported – WP:VERIFY. I said no such thing about ; I said here and/or in other Banshees album articles that he had "corrected" nothing in terms of the unsourced or unnecessarily laudatory statements that are the bone of contention. Here, the statements "Peepshow was met with widespread acclaim" and "Peepshow  received critical acclaim" are not supported by a source, they're original research. I imagine if Greg Fasolino responds here, he'd probably concede that the various instances where I've cited WP:VERIFY, WP:IMPARTIAL, WP:PUFFERY, WP:SAID need to be addressed, even if it was his work originally. In my experience, any editor would.
 * But fine, I'm happy to open a discussion about you at WP:ANI. You seem to have a very poor understanding of aligning facts with reliable sources. JG66 (talk) 00:18, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I had suggested a wp:third opinion --> and you xant to open a discussion at ani. Thanks for confirming you've got an agenda and you're into conflicts. Carliertwo (talk) 00:51, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * As I've found in the past – as have other editors, judging by archives at AN/I and AN/EW – you're a time-waster and highly disruptive. There's no talking to you about these issues; in fact, there's nothing more to be said, anyway – statements on Wikipedia require verification. So ANI it is. JG66 (talk) 01:31, 8 September 2020 (UTC)