User talk:Homeostasis07/Archive 1

I wish I was starting over...

Replaceable fair use Image:MansonETPfestival2008.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:MansonETPfestival2008.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? J Milburn (talk) 13:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Theinnocencemission - Now The Day Is Over.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Theinnocencemission - Now The Day Is Over.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like PD-self (to release all rights), (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 23:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Administrator intervention against vandalism
I declined to block Snoop God. That noticeboard is for persistent vandals and spammers only. I suggest instead you use Dispute resolution to settle your issues with Snoop God. Thanks! -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 22:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I need your help!
I noticed your work fleshing out the charting positions of The Golden Age of Grotesque and would like to ask for your assistance doing the same for Holy Wood (In the Shadow of the Valley of Death), Mechanical Animals and Antichrist Superstar. I've been having a hard time searching for the EU and International ratings and your input would be greatly appreciated. I've spent a great deal of time working on the Holy Wood page and they would just help complete it all the more. Thank you in advance. -Red marquis (talk) 16:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. I'm currently working on the Holy Wood charts section. I'll be updating in the next couple of days. But Antichrist Superstar and Mechanical Animals, though, they're a whole different ballgame. I've been searching, and I can't find anything. Trustworthy chart stats from the 90's are virtually impossible to come by for most European countries. But I'll see what I can do. Homeostasis07 (talk) 16:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

aCharts.us
This is just a heads-up letting you know that aCharts.us is not considered a reliable source, so you should look for alternate sources for citing chart positions for albums. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of "Common Burn"


The article Common Burn has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Single not yet released. Not likely to be passing WP:NSONG at this time.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Eeekster (talk) 03:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:BADCHARTS
Please do not add information from the United World Chart (mediatraffic.de), or any other chart listed at WP:BADCHARTS, to any Wikipedia articles. Thank you.&mdash;Kww(talk) 04:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I never did. Thank you. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll provide the diff: . Note that you even call out your use of mediatraffic in the edit summary.&mdash;Kww(talk) 01:15, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The use of the word Mediatraffic in the edit summery there refers to a discussion on that articles' Talk page. If you read the actual edit you linked to, you'd find I did not use it as a source anywhere. I stand by my claim of never including information from United World Chart on a Wikipedia article or using such as a source. Thank you. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Your edit includes the direct text " Other sources have claimed sales to be more likely in the region of 5.4 million copies, ". The way I find these edits is by checking for links to mediatraffic. I don't trawl edit summaries or talk pages, I search for links.&mdash;Kww(talk) 01:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Chart macros
You're getting it all wrong. The Chart macros section clearly states: "The singlechart template is available for formatting chart tables for single articles." Furthermore, singlechart states: "This template is used to cite sources in Wikipedia. It is specifically for recorded musical single releases: singles. A similar template for use when citing sources for musical albums, EPs, or other releases has not yet been developed." In short, chart macros are not supposed to be used manually in album articles, and their use as such is not supported by any guidelines on Wikipedia. The formatting I applied is the standard for album charts, as evidenced by countless trustworthy album articles (Born This Way, 21 (Adele album), MDNA (album), to name just a few).  Snap Snap  17:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Stop acting like a prick...
...and stop adding crap on Not Your Kind of People page. I'm sick of your edits. Garbage are definitely not your kind of people anyway. Why wasting time here? Deepblue1 (talk) 12:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from swearing and posting abusive and demeaning messages on other user's talk pages. If you do this again I will report you. Thank you. Homeostasis07 (talk) 18:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

For posterity, and since this is such an eye-catching thread title, I thought I should mention that this user was subsequently WP:TOPICBANNED from editing Garbage articles, a process which started with this ANI. As far as I can tell, he's still topic-banned to this day. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:56, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

MCIS
Hi, I see you reverted my removal of the review box in Mellon Collie and the Infinite Sadness, which I have undone. As established by the Music WikiProject, review templates are purely option. Above all, critical reception has to be dealt with in the prose, which this article goes out of its way to do. The review template was a pretty recent addition to this article, and as I was responsible for getting the article to Good Article status a few years back with no template at all being present, it's definitely not necessary here. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi. I'm aware the review template is optional. But there's also no disputing that the majority of decent album-articles on Wiki deal with critical reception content in both prose and by utilising the template. It was your comment about it not being "necessary" that threw me a bit. The template was never claimed to be for exclusive use [to the detriment of prose], but they can and often do exist side-by-side. That's what the template was created for. But I don't really mind either way. Homeostasis07 (talk) 02:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the confusion--that's merely my succinct way of summarizing it. Anyway, the goal on Wikipedia is not to make the album articles all look like one another. Each article is treated on its own merits. Honestly, a lot of people go around adding the review template because they think it's "supposed" to be there, when it isn't (same thing with tracklist and citation templates--you can us them, but it's by no means mandatory). For recent albums with no retrospective critical reception yet developed, a template might be useful. For older albums, it's pretty redundant. For some albums (Be Here Now (album) being the chief example I have been involved in) it would actually completely misrepresent actual critical consensus. Honestly, I'm becoming more and more disenchanted with citing individual reviews, the more and more I read comprehensive books that can actually be cited to indicate critical consensus (it's definitely stronger to cite a sentence that explicitly says "The album was well-recieved" from an author who read all the reviews and assessed them him or herself than to quote dozens of reviews to craft an approximation of that consensus, which is usually the result of not having such sources available or being unaware of them, or simply thinking that's how other articles do it, so that's what should be done). The whole review template emerged because they used be housed in the infobox, and I don't even know why they were placed there in the first place. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi - just to say thanks for that copyedit on Legacy of Kain. That'll teach me to edit this stuff at 2:00 in the morning. :P --LoK Wiki (talk) 02:35, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * ...and thanks a lot for the kitten! Much appreciated! :) --LoK Wiki (talk) 17:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Garbage - Automatic Systemic Habit.png
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Garbage - Automatic Systemic Habit.png, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. 217.17.138.246 (talk) 12:55, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Message
Deepblue1 (talk) 10:10, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

"Billboardized iTunes charts"
Do you have any evidence that they actually come solely from iTunes? If so, they belong on WP:BADCHARTS because they violate WP:SINGLEVENDOR. I thought they included digital sales from multiple sources.&mdash;Kww(talk) 04:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Billboard/Nielsen "worldwide" sales
Remember WP:3RR and WP:EW. Continued edit-warring will result in you being blocked from editing.&mdash;Kww(talk) 00:50, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi. Just so you know, neither Billboard nor Nielsen claim to track worldwide album sales. Neither of them is even close to being capable of doing so. What Billboard promotes is what Billboard gets paid to promote. When it comes to worldwide sales for a particular album, I'd tend to believe what the record label has been legally obliged to tell its shareholders, than what some random Billboard contributor has to say on some random article. The page as it is right now is how it's been for over 8 months. Don't conveniently be the third editor to engage in a content dispute - thereby invoking 3RR on one particular party - just so you can have your own way. Take it as far as you'd like. A decent moderator would see this for what it is. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You are quite right the Nielsen doesn't claim to report all worldwide sales. That doesn't prevent them from being able to report a worldwide figure based on what they do count, nor does it authorize you to edit-war based on your distrust.&mdash;Kww(talk) 00:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Billboard do not count anything outside of the US. They are not authorised to do so. The page as it is right now is how it's been for the past 8 months. Discuss before reverting. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Nielsen certainly does. The next time I warn you about 3RR, you should heed it: Administrators' noticeboard/Edit_warring. &mdash;Kww(talk) 01:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * "The next time I warn you about 3RR, you should heed it." Is that supposed to be a threat or something? You conveniently place yourself in the middle of a content dispute, then go to Administrator's noticeboard at your first opportunity. I've had dealings with you in the past, and I've reported a disruptive user in Admin noticeboard before. I know that any intelligent mod there will go through our collective histories before making any rash decisions. I've been using Wiki for over 8 years. I'm no fool when it comes to what's what on this site. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule&#32;at Lady Gaga discography. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 11:28, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
I don't know whether you are aware or not, hence inviting — Indian: BIO  · [ ChitChat  ] 06:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Artpop
I'll try to be polite with you, but you're not the king of Wikipedia and not everything has to be done as you consider. What's the point of putting 1st week sales or an old figure as the representative sales of an album in certain country when they're obviously out-dated now? It's not that I care or not, it's that sales in Spain are not 8k anymore, they will be 10k or whatever... and in a couple of months 14k and so on... And I assure you that you won't get any other figure from Spain in the future cause that was a LEAK as sales are not published here... So, in your opinion, that is the figure that should remain there forever? When people visit this article in the future, that's what they see the album sold in Spain??? Even if she keeps on chart for months and sells the 20k shipped or more? LOL. Same thing for Japan... That figure in the certifications section is a YEC figure, 4 weeks old now... You can update that figure everyweek, as we get weekly sales from Japan. Or leave the shipment figure... Sales figures must be added when the album is done, once those sales are definitive. As a reference... But now, in my opinion, your only purpose is making it look like it has sold less than it really has because of your personal feelings towards her. Rub rb (talk) 10:54, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I know I'm not the king of Wikipedia, and I'm also not including first week sales of anything. But Wikipedia is not a fansite. It's not here to include all of the most complimentary information available. It's here to provide accurate facts, which is what I believe I'm doing. If you want unabashed ass-kissing, go here. Homeostasis07 (talk) 02:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Homeo, just to let you know, the user has been deleting any sales which paint Gaga in a bad light. Was edit warring with me to remove the sales of 94K from reliable source like Music Week, since it was behind subscription. Thanks for keeping an eye on the article. — Indian: BIO  · [ ChitChat  ] 06:24, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks IndianBio. Sorry I've not been online these last few days to help keep an eye on things. Looks like you've had your work cut out for you. Her recent edit histories are such a mess. :( Homeostasis07 (talk) 02:25, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Homeo, warned with a level 3. Let's hope he/she learns. — Indian: BIO   · [ ChitChat  ] 06:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks IndianBio. Homeostasis07 (talk) 22:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

ARTPOP Critical Reception
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators can block users from editing if they repeatedly vandalize. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reece Leonard (talk • contribs) 01:46, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not making non-constructive edits. I'm removing nonsensical fan-added nonsense that doesn't belong on an encyclopedia. The Forbes-blog piece can't be included on Wikipedia (blogs are banned). As it was, I was simply removing the more grammatically incorrect portions of the piece. Or, if you wish, I can move to have the entire thing removed for non-compliance with WP:3PS. In case you can't tell from the above topic, me and several other Wiki editors have had prolonged contact with Wiki Lady Gaga Fans. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Forbes Magazine is not a blog, so no, you can't have it removed. No, you didn't remove anything grammatically-incorrect, you removed several portions from the critical reception page that exclusively stated positive things about the album. Your usage of "stan-wars" vernacular is even more evident of your personal bias against the artist at hand. The page is adherent to sourced fact and will not be tailored to your personal WP:OR of the album's reviews. Reece Leonard (talk) 02:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I did indeed remove things that made no sense grammatically. In fact, I removed entire portions that were absolutely nonsensical. This is the English Wikipedia: only things that make sense in English should be included. And can you please take this to Talk:Artpop? Homeostasis07 (talk) 02:31, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I have taken it to the talk page. The sections you removed were not nonsensical. If they are below your reading comprehension or you choose to ignore positive reception published about an artist you obviously don't like, then that's your own prerogative. Please stop wasting my time. Reece Leonard (talk) 02:36, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Your condescending attitude has been noted. Thanks. Please take all future discussion here. Homeostasis07 (talk) 02:50, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Suspicion
Homeostasis, I just saw you reverted an IP's removal of negative reviews on the "G.U.Y." article. Do you suspect bias? The removal of NY Post I understand as it is a tabloid but the other sources were perfectly valid. Something sounds suspicious..... XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 01:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. I've already reported my suspicions to an admin here. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I could be wrong in suspecting a Reece sock, but it seemed very suspicious. CheckUser should answer this. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 01:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't really know if admins can check what IP you've operated your account under. I assume they can, but I think I remember reading somewhere that registering and operating under a username hides your IP. I guess we'll find out. And I've removed the New York Post review again (I didn't mean to add it back). I mean, NYP is a tabloid, but it's still a major publication. A review should be fine. The general consensus on tabloids seems to be that they're fine - the problems arise only if they write something contentious that can't be backed up by more reliable sources. But I don't want any more unnecessary problems on LG articles, so it's probably best to keep it out for now. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't want such problems any more than you do. Not sure where there is consensus about tabloids being "fine", as many tabloids such as Daily Mail have been repeatedly declared unreliable at WP:RSN. "Reliable tabloid" is an oxymoron. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 01:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Update: has filed an SPI on Reece. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 17:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Just saw the lengthy message Reece left on 's talk page. While I don't think it was logical to connect him with CharlieJS13, I'm not sure what to say about him insisting that the IP's were not him socking Gaga pages. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 00:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, my bad. I was unaware of the situation with the other user, and the IP said that thing in a topic named Reece Leonard. I guess I added 2+2 together the wrong way. And I doubt I'm even gonna read that response he just posted. He's the last person I want to read another soapbox from. He was topic-banned from Gaga articles, has been caught socking with User:Mark2017, and 3 separate admins have declined his block requests because they all found there was more than enough evidence linking him to those IPs. Case closed, really. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:25, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I basically summed it up for you either way. While we never got a response for CheckUser on this, what would you say the chances are of the account being Reece? XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 00:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I just skimmed through his response. Still the same old same old: I'm biased and everyone is wrong and he's the victim here, nothing I've not responded to about half a dozen times before. And I raised suspicions about that User_talk:Andthenwebecamenothing account some time ago. I think it got lost in the midst of all the IP stuff. But considering this edit you just reverted, I think a CheckUser would be a good idea. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:46, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I've requested a CheckUser performance from admin . XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 01:00, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Homeostasis, this is the second time I have caught you attempting to misrepresent me to other users. You've attempted to fabricate this persona for myself, one in which I have a problem with "everyone", when in reality, you're the only user I have a significant issue with. You accused me of posting racist, derogatory messages on IndianBio's page with no evidence to do so, a seriously offensive action that was proven to be baseless. You attempted to perpetuate the idea that I have a problem with user IndianBio and I told him in that message (that you might want to actually read before you make wild accusations of what's in it) that I had nothing but respect for him. You've also claimed that administrators stated that there was evidence linking me to all of those IPs; this is a lie. They agreed that there was evidence that linked me to ONE of those IPs, the one that was posted from a computer at my school. My posts aren't lengthy because I'm on a soap box, but because you make false accusations and state blatantly incorrect information to other users that I have to spend time debunking. I'm certainly open to the idea of a checkuser on those other IPs, as a simple geolocation search will show that they come from devices in other countries and cannot possibly be me. Reece Leonard (talk) 16:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Now that the check user case has gone through and has been proven to have nothing to do with me, I'd appreciate it if you two stopped lobbing accusations of socking my way when you have no evidence to do so. Thank you. Reece Leonard (talk) 16:54, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The CheckUser indeed found no connection, Reece. Keep in mind though that Homeostasis admitted he was wrong to link you with Charlie. As for IP's, just know that user edits and IP edits are being watched whether those were you or not. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 17:10, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm personally requesting a check user case for all of those IP accounts so that Homeostasis (and yourself) cannot falsely accuse me of socking in the future. This should be a learning experience for you; don't make wild accusations without significant evidence to back up your claims. This kind of behavior is completely counterproductive to the betterment of this encyclopedia. Reece Leonard (talk) 17:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * When asking for CheckUser on IP's, we were informed that CheckUser is generally not used on IP's. Chances are it will be declined again. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 17:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Regardless, do not make accusations without evidence. Reece Leonard (talk) 17:46, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The administrator stated that it is neither possible to prove nor disprove that any IP account is connected to any named account. Therefore, unless there is considerable evidence that one of these IP accounts is myself (I'll just go ahead and let you know that they won't be me. I have not socked since that initial instance and won't again) and not someone attempting to change a section to better match the reviews listed, etc., these accusations will stop. Thank you.Reece Leonard (talk) 19:24, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Reece, all this proves is that you're not adhering to the topic ban. For someone who's supposed to be avoiding Lady Gaga articles and - more importantly - avoiding causing more arguments on Lady Gaga articles, you've stirred up quite a bit of stink about how there are "19 positive reviews listed on that page, 4 mixed and 4 negative", which is untrue. It was temporarily true, after this IP got through mutilating several Lady Gaga and 30 Rock articles (critical reception stuff, your favourite topic). More than coincidental. Point is, you've been blocked for 10 of the past 15 days for violating your topic ban, with User:Mark2017 and an IP. So you are in no way an innocent party in this. Three separate unblock requests have been rejected by three separate admins, one of which pointed out more than enough evidence of your past behaviour. He also noted your ability to "seriously misrepresent the nature and extent of... evidence" - basically sums up the entire tone of your last two soapboxes. Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:24, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

By leaving out an essential part of that administrator's response, you misrepresented evidence here by attempting to perpetuate that I regularly misrepresent information on pages. That is incorrect and not was the administrator stated. He stated that I misrepresented the information in that specific instance in my topic ban appeal, and although I don't agree with that assessment, it is not the all-emcompasing statement about my editing career that you're attempting to say it is. This response is a prime example of your ridiculously hyperbolic style in regards to your assessments of my edits and my statements to other users. I make one small remark on IndianBio's page about how I personally don't think the G.U.Y. page is accurate (my assessment of the reviews is certainly true, and even if you were to assume that what you're claiming is correct, there would still be a vast majority of positive reviews listed as that IP only removed two reviews, regardless) and judged that the influx of IP accounts editing it is because of this inaccuracy (they all seem to edit the critical section), but according to you I've "caused quite a bit of a stink" by simply mentioning it. The IP account that you've listed made small edits on a few pages, but according to you they "mutilated" them. I claimed that I had an issue with the fact that three users had me blocked because an IP account posted a contrary opinion, but according to you I claimed that "everyone" who was involved was biased and that I was a victim. When I post responses, I address your points and debunk them, but according to you I'm "soapboxing". You regularly and deliberately engage in this kind of ridiculously overblown rhetoric to attempt to undermine my responses without actually arguing a point. The issue of IP user 128.194.58.144 has no relevance to what I stated in my above responses. I will say that the duck test is the weakest of the standards that are used to judge supposed instances of socking (as stated by the WP:DUCK page), and this is a non-obvious case; there isn't any evidence tying me to that IP account other than the fact that it edited a 30 Rock article and a Lady Gaga article and it being from a computer at the vastly huge university I attend. As I've previously said, this doesn't matter anyway; I was blocked and that is that, regardless of the fact that that IP really wasn't myself. I've simply told you and XXSNUGUGGMSXX to stop tying various IP addresses (with no relation to myself at all) to my account and to stop making baseless accusations simply because these IP accounts disagree with the consensus that you want listed on the page. I did not claim to be an innocent party; I socked on one occasion on the ARTPOP talk page. However, that does not, in any way, negate or even relate to the fact that you have repeatedly made accusations without evidence, on top of attempting to blame me for racist and ignorant responses on IndianBio's page. I have abided by the topic ban since the initial instance of socking and only brought up the reviews on the G.U.Y. page to explain why so many IP accounts were editing it. Again; please stop misrepresenting my actions to fabricate your own narrative about my editing practices. Do not make any more baseless accusations against myself and you should not have to interact with me again until I have appealed my topic ban. And before you claim that this response is a "soapbox", let me just say that brevity at the expense of totality isn't the game I play. I address the points other users have stated completely and entirely; this is not what "soapboxing" is. Reece Leonard (talk) 04:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "Do not make any more baseless accusations against myself and you should not have to interact with me again until I have appealed my topic ban." Fantastic. I agree to this condition. If no random, hidemyass-type IPs come along, simultaneously messing around with critical reception sections of Lady Gaga, 30 Rock and One Direction articles, I'd have no problem with never having to deal with you again. Thanks. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Nothing would please me more. Reece Leonard (talk) 03:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Quack! XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 02:23, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep, very very obvious. STATic message me!   04:18, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I've also filed an SPI. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 05:23, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Typical this sort of nonsense happens when I have no internet access. =( Thankfully, you've seemed to sorted it all out. =) Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah it was a quick catch. Prior to this, Reece's main account seemed to be a sleeper. I've also created this category for any future socks. This time he got blocked for one month, which blocking admin Mr. Stradivarius indicated was the minimum time he could get for such subsequent socking. If he gets caught again, there's no doubt in my mind it will be for minimally 6 months if not indefinite. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 04:58, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks XXSNUGGUMSXX. But do you know why my usertalk page is listed at his category page? Is it just because of this topic here? I'd be afraid someone would miss the "talk" on User talk:Homeostasis07, and would end up accusing me of being a sock puppet. =( Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:11, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Just figured out that the two of us linking to it in a certain way accidentally listed you as such. So sorry! I also fixed your linking so it doesn't do that again. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 03:54, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

SPI note
He's persistent, I'll give him that. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 13:58, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Peer review
Could you perhaps leave some input here? Snuggums (talk • contributions) 21:00, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Garbage album page
Do you have a problem with the fact that it was critically acclaimed being on the page? Lpdte77 01:16, 24 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lapadite77 (talk • contribs)
 * Only problem is the fact that you're running around Garbage articles adding random bits of information without ever supplying a source. Perhaps start using sources from now on? Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Adore (The Smashing Pumpkins album)
I spent the last 10 minutes formatting the track listing, then you hit save first. Beat be by one minute. How aggravating! You may have wasted my time, but nonetheless, thank you for your work ;) Especially the nicely worded and referenced preface! &mdash; MusikAnimal talk 00:22, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sorry. I hate when that happens. :) Should probably let you know that I've not finished with that section - I'm currently filling out the preface with some more info, and running through the tracklist to see what notes/song titles should be linked up. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Do the notes look OK to you as they are now? Some of them look a bit messy to me - can't really figure out how to stylise notes as clunky as "2014 mix of the CRC demo - Instrumental version". Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:59, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * They look fine I think. It's at least easy to infer what's the song name and the note, which is the important part. Sounds like you have a good handle on documenting the reissue, no worries about edit conflicts from me :) Cheers &mdash; MusikAnimal talk 01:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

IndianBio
This edit summary is well beyond unacceptable. There is nothing at all wrong or illegitimate in insisting that only material supported by citations be included in an article. Even if there was a problem with the request, there's no reason to be insulting.&mdash;Kww(talk) 02:16, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * There was a problem with what he was doing. Without even looking in to the accuracy of any of the edits, was automatically undoing the work of any IP who made changes - not because the work wasn't accurate (15 seconds of research would've corrected the situation immediately). He seems to be undoing edits simply on the basis that they originate from IPs, and not because of the content they add. Instead of warring for the past week, he could've instead taken the 60 seconds required to look up the current charts on the ARIA and OCC websites, and posted sources himself. I apologise for the use of the word "bozo"; I think "lazy" would've been a much more appropriate word. "Lazy" and "Admin" don't work together. So my contention that the guy should have never been given admin privileges still stands, and should be reviewed. Homeostasis07 (talk) 19:35, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you think IndianBio is an admin: he's not. That said, the only person responsible for adding a source is the person that adds the information in the first place. If someone adds information that contradicts the citations currently in the article, it is that person's responsibility to add the new citations, not IndianBio's.&mdash;Kww(talk) 00:45, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * But if a user [he definitely's been given some administrative privileges] causes so many problems over something so trivial and easily fixable over the course of a week - not to mention the fact that he broke 3RR over the course of 3 consecutive days - when he could've easily taken the 2 minutes required to find a source himself... you see no issue there? Ironic. All I'm saying is that, in my mind, it's a mess that could've easily been avoided, and some of his actions over the course of the past week could certainly be considered akin to vandalism. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:56, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Certainly, the trouble is easy to avoid. The best solution is to wait for the archive used as a citation to update, and then update the article. Second best is to patch in a temporary citation and take it back out when the archive updates. Putting in new data without updating the citation isn't even on the list: I've blocked editors that insisted on doing that after having been warned. And no, IndianBio isn't an admin of any kind: just an editor, with no special privileges.&mdash;Kww(talk) 01:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Mazzy Star
Hello, I saw you've been reverting my Mazzy Star trimming edits. I am trying to make it more polished, trimmed, better structured and with synthesized information. I wanna remove the Hope Sandoval and David Roback sections, since most of the info is covered on their seperate articles. If you are against it - let's discuss it and make the best of it, because the article needs a lot of work imho.
 * All the best! Regards: The Mad Hatter (talk)
 * Thanks for discussing this, in a time on Wikipedia where most users seem to just revert edits they don't agree with, you are discussing. It's extremely refreshing.
 * Anyway, one of the main issues I have with your edits is that you seem to be removing any mention of any band member other than Hope or David. It's not on Wikipedia as of yet, but it's a well known fact that immediately following Kendra Smith's departure from Opal, Suki Ewers' filled in for Opal on vocals. David and Suki even went so far as to record 20+ tracks together, resulting in Opal's "Early Recordings". Despite it's bootleg title, these songs were recorded with Suki on vocals after Kendra left Opal, and before Hope joined. The whole thing is confusing so, as you can see, the entire Band History section needs to be expanded, not deleted. Also, some of the other edits you made were confusing. You included the 2009-2011 chart info of "Into Dust" in a "Side Project" section of the article. But "Into Dust" isn't a part of any Side Project, it's a very popular song from Mazzy Star's most commercially successful album. Like you said, the article does need a lot of work: but I don't think that work includes deleting massive sections from the article - I think it includes expanding massive sections on the article. Cheers. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:09, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

A beer for you!

 * Homeostasis, the info is present towards the bottom of the article "Led Zeppelin's 2007 compilation Mothership tops the 2 million sales mark this week … Katy Perry's Prism tops the 1.5 million sales mark in its 48th week. It’s not far off the pace of her previous album, Teenage Dream, which took 41 weeks to reach 1.5 million in sales...." — Indian: BIO  · [ ChitChat  ] 04:34, 26 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Update, Grein's update to the article left Prism out.  Snuggums ( talk  /  edits ) 04:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I read the entire article twice before I reverted, then I Ctrl+F'd for "Katy" and "Perry" and "Prism" and all sorts of other things, but couldn't see anything. No doubt it has scanned 1.5m in the US though, but the only sorta-decent source I could find when I searched was this. I'm weary about adding it though, because I don't think a site like Headline Planet can be considered WP:RS. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:16, 27 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Same, I'm really skeptical about "Headline Planet".  Snuggums ( talk  /  edits ) 17:29, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.--Lpdte77 (talk) 02:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The thread is at Administrators%27 noticeboard/3RRArchive260. You may respond there if you wish. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 04:49, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Mazzy Star.jpg
If the band are inactive, I'm happy to remove the deletion notice, but the article certainly doesn't say that- quite the contrary. J Milburn (talk) 10:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi. Yeah, the article needs updating. They've not toured since their North American tour last November; they were supposed to follow that up with some European dates earlier this year, but those never materialised. They've just vanished... again. I doubt we're ever gonna find a source that says "Yeah, they're not gonna release another album or tour again until 2015", but I wouldn't be surprised if that's what will end up happening. Homeostasis07 (talk) 20:52, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

BG source
I just realized the source wasn't next to the correct statement. Was about to change it, thanks. Lpdte77 (talk) 23:53, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:56, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The Pale Emperor
Hi Homeostasis07. Have you considered getting The Pale Emperor peer reviewed? -Red marquis (talk) 13:00, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I always intended for this to be a Good article, but I don't think it's ready yet. I'm a bit behind in my Wiki work, to be honest. ;) I need to update the Promotion section and re-introduce the Singles sub-section. Plus, the article needs more illustration to pass the GA review (I've been trying to find some decent Creative Commons images of The Hell Not Hallelujah Tour, but all the CC images I've found so far are rubbish). So there's still a bit more work to do. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I see. Sorry about the late response. I've been busy bringing Beautiful Monsters Tour up to shape. ;) -Red marquis (talk) 02:13, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey, I'm done with the Beautiful Monsters Tour article. I have it up on peer review. Maybe you can take a look at the article and check if there's anything amiss. TY. -Red marquis (talk) 09:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry for not getting back to you sooner. I've been away since Monday. I've just glanced at the article, and it looks great. I'll take a more in-depth look later. Homeostasis07 (talk) 16:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi I've gone through the Beautiful Monsters page and made some small changes to prose and formatting. I was going to just point it out at the Peer review page, but I figured I'd lend a hand myself. Everything else looks cool. I think this is ready for a GA-nom. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk) 22:41, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Message from Reece Leonard
It's profoundly creepy that you seem to be keeping tabs on me despite the fact that I haven't interacted with you for well over a year, but as I stated in my revert of your own bizarre revert on my talk page, I was unaware of the fact that an indie documentary about college rape would be considered related to Lady Gaga (as I only read the critical reception section, AKA the section I was editing), but, having been made aware of her involvement, have since refrained from editing in keeping with the topic ban. I'd appreciate it if you would refrain from harassing me like this in the future and go about your own business. It's making me incredibly uncomfortable. Reece Leonard (talk) 05:11, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well you're a hoot and a half, aren't you? Your talk page is on my Watchlist. Nothing more. Nothing less. You have been the subject of a Lady Gaga topic ban for over two years. You know by now that it is your responsibility to check if your editing behavior interferes with your topic ban. But a quick pass through your edit history suggests you've been ignoring this. You've edited The Hunting Ground several dozen times since at least March 25, 2015, and "Lady Gaga recorded "Till It Happens to You" for the film" has been featured prominently right there in the lead since then. You can say that you were "unaware", but through all those edits over all that time, that seems very unlikely. I guess we'll let the admins involved in your next topic ban appeal decide if you're telling porky pies or not. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:48, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Then remove it from your watchlist! I have nothing to do with you and I'd really rather never interact with you again, given the fact that the fervor with which you tried to have me banned from this site after those nearly thirty baseless, proven-false allegations of socking certainly constituted WP:HARASSMENT that I've never fully recovered from (I barely ever get on this website anymore due to how miserable that was). Move on with your life and stay away from me. Reece Leonard (talk) 17:13, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You really are a hoot and a half. I don't know where you got "thirty" from, but you definitely were socking, - I mean, . If you want to talk about trauma, step to me, Reece. Because I've hated this website ever since your *hitstorm. I mainly go about my own business, rarely interacting with other users unless I absolutely have to. So -- go on. Play that angle in your next topic ban appeal. And you're aware of the irony of you telling me to stop contacting you on my talk page, right? Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:28, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for repeatedly telling me that via that remarkably stale phrase. "Thirty" comes from all the different times that you and the users you worked with accused me of being behind various IP accounts, something that happened a totally of nearly thirty times despite the fact that several of those IP addresses were listed as coming from the other side of the world and absolutely none of them were ever proven to be me. I couldn't log onto this site without being accused of being some new, random IP address just because it questioned the consensus you and the other users wanted listed on the various pages you edited together and, as a result, I was dragged into some new ANI investigation every other day in an effort to defend myself and that experience was something I've never fully recovered from. You can't compare you accusing me of socking nearly every week for a year to my experience being on the other end of that, a "*hitstorm" you actively enabled and precipitated on a daily basis. I've seriously considered deleting my account and never coming back as that ordeal severely damaged my perception of the encyclopedia as a whole and the integrity of its users as they can clearly add whatever they want to any page as long as there are a handful of them that can generate a consensus and can run off any opposition by playing semantic games and using wikipedia guidelines to their advantage. My initial behavior was unfortunate and regrettable, but I don't believe for a second that it was deserving of the nonsense I'm clearly still having to deal with today. Additionally, I never said I didn't sock (I've admitted to that a thousand times over the course of the last three years) so you acting as if I did is intentionally misleading. I realize that it's easy to forget that there's an actual human being on the other end of these messages, but I'd ask you to consider what it would feel like to have someone you haven't talked to in well over a year come up to you and let you know (for no apparent reason) that they've been watching you the entire time. It's mildly terrifying. Of course I'm coming to tell you to leave me alone on your talk page because you instigated the contact. I'm not presenting myself as some sort of victim in an effort to garner sympathy for an upcoming appeal like you seem to be suggesting (my unintentional straying from the confines of my topic ban as of late would make the outcome of that pretty obvious, so i've chosen to wait a year or two so I can prove once again that I can edit in good faith and avoid breaking the rules); I'm simply asking you to leave me alone. I don't want you to consider me to be some sort of enemy, as I have no idea what kind of person you are and don't really want to find out. Just let me go about my life in peace. Reece Leonard (talk) 01:01, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Leave Me Alone. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Clever! In the future, I wouldn't recommend initiating contact with someone and then telling them to leave you alone when they tell you to leave them alone. Reece Leonard (talk) 01:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Performing a merge and redirect
Hi Homeostasis07. Thanks for closing the discussion at Talk:Fa La La (album). Since you mentioned you don't know how to do a merge and redirect I thought I'd point you in the right direction: WP:PROMERGE. It's simple and useful in case you wanted to do redirects or merges in the future. Of course, you don't have to perform this one if you don't want to, but teach a person to fish, as they say. Anyway, hopefully the album gets more substantial coverage when part II comes out, and keep up the good work. Happy editing, Wugapodes (talk) 06:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Wugapodes. I've just had a quick look. Seems a bit too complicated for my editing needs, but I appreciate the advice. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:54, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Fa la la la la
I noticed your closure of the discussion on Talk:Fa La La (album) and have completed the redirect. I know how hard this can be to do when you yourself created the article— I just did this for an article I created awhile ago on cyclomethicone (which now redirects to siloxane, per a merger discussion that I had opposed but acquiesced to in the end). You could have chosen to ignore the discussion and waited to see if anyone else bothered to close it and how, and you would have been entirely correct doing so. Instead you closed it yourself, with an outcome you had opposed. That's just not easy. I noticed that you did it. Well done. KDS 4444 Talk  15:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks again KDS4444. I just figured there was already enough arguing on Wikipedia (see above thread titled "?"). I should've realized before that there really wasn't enough info online to warrant an article on the project just yet. Hopefully there will be in the new year. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:59, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * And if eventually there is, I would welcome seeing the redirect return to being a full article. Best of luck to you.  Cheers!  KDS 4444  Talk  21:34, 9 December 2015 (UTC)