User talk:Homeostasis07

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Smile![edit]

A Barnstar!
A smile for you

You’ve just received a random act of kindness! 66.87.7.209 (talk) 14:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

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)

GUY[edit]

Hello, would you please come to the talk page of G.U.Y. for the issue? I will invite XXNUG also. :) —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 05:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Suspicion[edit]

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: IndianBio has filed an SPI on Reece. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 17:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Just saw the lengthy message Reece left on IndianBio'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 Ponyo. 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)
IndianBio STATicVapor 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[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Homeostasis07. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Reece Leonard.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

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

Peer review[edit]

Could you perhaps leave some input here? Snuggums (talkcontributions) 21:00, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Garbage album page[edit]

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 (talkcontribs)

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)#2014 CD/DVD reissue[edit]

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! — 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 — MusikAnimal talk 01:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

IndianBio[edit]

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.—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, @IndianBio: 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.—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.—Kww(talk) 01:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Mazzy Star[edit]

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, @Mad Hatter: 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![edit]

Export hell seidel steiner.png And for me too, I don't know where we got off the wrong foot, but extending this bro-branch to make things better from this point. What say you? —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 18:33, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
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)

FAC for xx (album)[edit]

Hi. Since you have a lot of experience editing music articles, would you be interested in commenting at or reviewing my FAC for xx (album)? There hasn't been any activity there for 10 days, so any input would be appreciated. Dan56 (talk) 23:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Mazzy Star.jpg[edit]

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)

@J Milburn: 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[edit]

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)

You're welcome. Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:56, 12 November 2014 (UTC)