Hi, responding to your message on my talk page, I've added references for those peaks now to The Corrs discography page. The peaks already listed in the table were correct. The Gavin Ryan book I've cited covers all top 100 chart peaks until December 2010 - I've taken a screen shot of the pdf copy here - http://i.imgur.com/EMFvLCc.png (I wouldn't use this as a reference in the article though). I added further, more-specific (online) references where I could find them for these peaks; but unfortunately, two of the ARIA Reports archived on the National Library of Australia site that I wanted to cite cannot be referenced properly on the wikipedia page (it brings up a citation error), due to the URL directing to a download link (where you have to save the file in order to be able to read it). The URL's were: pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/23790/20020221-0000/www.aria.com.au/issue585.PDF (for the week 'Give Me a Reason' fell out of the top 100), and pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/23790/20050320-0000/ISSUE786.doc for the week 'Long Night' fell out of the top 100. I usually cite the ARIA report for the week where a single has fallen out of the top 100, as this displays its final peak (in the HP/highest position column).

The ARIA chart scan I added for "What Can I Do" was photocopied from my State Library 10 years ago. Unfortunately the ARIA reports from April to December 1999 inclusive were missing, and so I don't have one for the week "So Young" fell out of the chart, but the peak is listed in Gavin Ryan's book.

The ARIA Reports from 2001 (when they were first sent out digitally to subscribers) are archived here if you want to check for post-2010 peaks outside the top 50: http://pandora.nla.gov.au/tep/23790 . You'd have to look through each one manually, though.Nqr9 (talk) 03:29, 2 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wow. Thanks a lot for all your work. You went above and beyond. I'll be using that Pandora archive for a tonne of other artists quite often in the near future. ;) Thanks again. Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:01, 2 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Marilyn Manson (band) into Portrait of an American Family. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted ((copied)) template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 00:08, 1 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Diannaa:. I've spent the last few days re-writing Marilyn Manson (band) (I've not actually made an edit to the article yet, though. I'm still in the preview-in-my-sandbox/save-to-a-notepad-document phase). I'll be making several such edits over the next couple of weeks - either adding or taking stuff from the band's album articles. It's nothing to be concerned about. When I've posted my changes and - hopefully - nominate the band's article for GA, I'll then go through the album articles, sourcing what I've done along the way. Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:17, 1 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's not about sources, it's about copying from one article to another without providing attribution. What you need to do, whenever you copy from one Wikipedia article to another, is give attribution, at a minimum by saying in your edit summary where you copied the content from. This is required by the terms of the CC-by-SA license, and needs to be done at the time you make the edit. The edit summary also makes easier my work of checking items in the bot report User:EranBot/Copyright/rc easier. Thanks, — Diannaa (talk) 12:44, 2 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Understood. Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:51, 2 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Pale Emperor you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Retrohead -- Retrohead (talk) 17:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks a lot for taking the time to do this. To be honest, after browsing through the GAN page for the past month or so, I was half expecting it to be September by the time someone got around to reviewing The Pale Emperor. So your effort is much appreciated. There's no rush. Just keep in mind, that I find it very hard to make time for Wikipedia during weekends. So if you post some corrections on Saturday, please give me until at least Monday to implement your corrections. Cheers. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article The Pale Emperor you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:The Pale Emperor for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Retrohead -- Retrohead (talk) 12:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article The Pale Emperor you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Pale Emperor for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Retrohead -- Retrohead (talk) 20:01, 27 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Getting quite problematic I have to say :( —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 11:09, 5 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weird. What exactly is the situation with Ray of Light now? The page can't be edited by anyone but admins, yet the other user has blanked his contributions to the talk page? This is a strange one, indeed. Homeostasis07 (talk) 19:13, 5 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This was bingo!. Have to keep an eye coz doing the same thing for Like a Virgin on Madonna albums discography. Will you also lend an eye? —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 11:12, 27 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, I'll keep an eye out. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk) 19:20, 27 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Homeostasis07 - here's why I made that change.

The names of venues tend to change because of sponsorship deals with naming rights. A redirect provides a simple way to ensure that all links to an old name will go to the article under the current name. Piping an old name to the current name is pointless because if the name changes again, as it surely will when the current sponsorship deal comes to an end, the piped name will itself become a redirect and the already trivial benefit of a direct link will be lost.

Here are some relevant extracts from guides to best practice in piping and redirects:

1. From Wikipedia:Piped_link#When_not_to_use:

• It is generally not good practice to pipe links simply to avoid redirects. The number of links to a redirect page can be a useful gauge of when it would be helpful to spin off a subtopic of an article into its own page.
• Introducing unnecessary invisible text makes the article more difficult to read in page source form.
• Non-piped links make better use of the "what links here" tool, making it easier to track how articles are linked and helping with large-scale changes to links.

1. From Wikipedia:Redirect#Do_not_.22fix.22_links_to_redirects_that_are_not_broken:

• There is usually nothing wrong with linking to redirects to articles. Some editors are tempted, upon finding a link to a redirect page, to bypass the redirect and point the link directly at the target page. While there are a limited number of cases where this is beneficial, there is otherwise no good reason to pipe links solely to avoid redirects. Doing so is generally an unhelpful, time-wasting exercise that can actually be detrimental. It is almost never helpful to replace [[redirect]] with [[target|redirect]].

Colonies Chris (talk) 08:23, 28 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the info. I always thought it was better to link directly to the article, but obviously not. I get ya now. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk) 22:53, 28 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. We are going to discuss Personnel subheaders. There are reasons I put them under subheaders [begrudgingly] and if you'd like voice your opinion, please do: here - thanks. --Jennica✿ ^Talk 01:44, 13 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is to let you know that the The Pale Emperor article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 15 January 2017. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 15, 2017. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:12, 30 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

albums

Thank you for quality articles on albums such as The Pale Emperor, The Innocence Mission discography and List of awards and nominations received by Marilyn Manson, for uploading cover images, for defining your user by contributions alone, for taking care of points and clarifying "a tricky question", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:38, 15 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. In regards to refer to the aforementioned genres in a precise manner. NME Review says "‘Sounds Good Feels Good’ is obviously more pop than punk", which sounds a little too vague. 123.136.112.221 (talk) 14:41, 15 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm assuming this was posted here in error? I've never edited that article, and don't know what any of this means. Sorry. Homeostasis07 (talk) 21:58, 15 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Making a point in RMs aren't easy, but I frequently made comments in most RMs. If some of my comments aren't appropriate, how do I make good arguments and avoid something that is considered inappropriate? --George Ho (talk) 01:47, 24 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

By reading the content of comments and responding in a way that addresses the issues. Now, if you don't mind, I'm freezin' my ass off, so I'm off to the duvet. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:54, 24 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Brrrrrr....... Enjoy your weather :). Meanwhile, I'll do my best to read and read first before commenting. --George Ho (talk) 01:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey @George Ho: You know, the more I think about how I acted towards you, the worse I feel. I was just frustrated – still am – about that whole move review, but you didn't deserve how I lashed out at you like that. I'm sorry. I've noticed you editing all over the place recently. You're an awesome Wikipedian! ;) Sorry for everything. Homeostasis07 (talk) 22:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh... No worries. :P And thanks for your compliments. --George Ho (talk) 23:01, 10 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please consider this a warning (also with what I wrote on my talk page, but I wanted to put something on your talk page to make it official) that your edits in removing an album cover from Rebel Heart and reverting three other editors is now WP:Edit warring since you have been told that due to the previous discussion that was closed as no consensus, that you need to start a new WP:FfD for a consensus to be reached and the image cannot be speedy deleted due to being orphaned. If you remove the image again without a consensus at WP:FfD, you could be blocked for edit warring. Aspects (talk) 19:42, 4 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You clearly haven't read a single word I've written, and you're obviously just looking for an argument. 3 reverts over the space of a 6-day period is hardly edit-warring by any stretch of the imagination, and the user of one of the edits I reverted in fact reverted his own edit at the image's page after discussion. WP:Overreaction much? Homeostasis07 (talk) 19:48, 4 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, maybe you can help me.

Poker Face was listed as dance-pop when it was created; now, it only appears as synth-pop. However, there's a link to a Billboard article stating that the song is dance-pop. I have tried to explain this to IndianBio, but he just reverts my edits. This song sounds even more like dance-pop than Just Dance does.

Thanks for any help you can give me. Cloverboy19 (talk) 01:00, 31 May 2017‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmm, interesting. I have no idea what's been going on at Poker Face, but the source you've posted here clearly says "The 2008 dance-pop hit", and Billboard is obviously a reliable source. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:09, 31 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why are you disputing this? You left the article alone for weeks, now you're returning to restore a trivial spelling error when we know what the author means. Your edit summary basically says you want to retain the typo because you don't like the negative review. That's not really a reason. WP:QUOTE says we can non-controversially correct spelling errors when it doesn't change context and we know what the author means. It's pointless to leave typos in because you don't like that the author gave an album you like a negative write-up and you want readers to see evidence of their "attention span". The page was stable for at least two weeks. Please leave it be. Ss112 17:28, 8 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry for another message, but Where is this coming from? It's not my article; it's not anybody's. I don't see how my summary speaks to me "owning" the article. I just said, you left it for weeks, so I assumed you didn't have an issue with the silent correction of the quote. Thanks for expanding the article, but I also didn't create the "stub" or any of the substantial content, so you acting like you did me a favour when I didn't ask for it is strange. Ss112 17:36, 8 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:OWNERSHIP and your summaries. Now they speak for themselves. Homeostasis07 (talk) 17:39, 8 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm well aware of WP:OWN. Reverting somebody because you disagree doesn't mean a claim of ownership... I really don't get this. I don't have anything against you. Your expansion of stubs is welcome, I just disagree with the retention of the obvious typo for the reason you implied. Ss112 17:41, 8 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there,

I noticed on Holy Wood (In the Shadow of the Valley of Death), you have a number of offline sources for music magazine articles, and I'd like to know how you got access to them. I'm not denying that these sources are real, I'm asking as a fellow music editor. I work on most of the Rise Against articles, and the magazine databases I have access to only have Billboard and Rolling Stone. These databases show a decent amount of Rise Against articles from Alternative Press and Spin, but these databases don't have those magazines. Is there any particular database your using, or is there some other way you're getting access to these magazines? Thanks. Famous Hobo (talk) 05:57, 15 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Are there any Rise Against fansites that you know of that might have some scans of older interviews? I've searched Google, but couldn't find anything of substance. All the journals at Holy Wood have been transcribed by either MansonWiki or Provider Module, so that's how I was able to access them (was debating with myself as to whether I should include links for those journals on the article, but figured it was unwise to include links to fansites). Sorry I couldn't be more help. Homeostasis07 (talk) 21:56, 15 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dang, that's a bummer. There aren't any fansites for Rise Against, aside from a small subreddit. I've noticed that fansites for Bad Religion and Massive Attack also have magazine scans, so I guess that's an added benefit to working on articles related to influential bands. Thanks for the response and good luck with the nomination! Famous Hobo (talk) 02:33, 16 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Antichrist Superstar you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Seraphim System -- Seraphim System (talk) 17:00, 17 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Antichrist Superstar you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Antichrist Superstar for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Seraphim System -- Seraphim System (talk) 21:01, 17 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Homeostasis07. I'm not sure why nobody is commenting on the Holy Wood FAC nomination, but it's a shame it isn't getting any attention from elsewhere. If it reaches the bottom of the 'older nominations' queue and I am the only one supporting it, even though nobody is opposing it is not going to be promoted as it will not have enough reviews. Have you considered contacting another FAC nominator (or several) directly and asking to exchange reviews? I.e you'll review their nomination if they review yours? I find that is often effective. You could also leave a request for review message at the talk pages of all the projects the article is under the scope of. This is less likely to get results, but it sure won't hurt. If you'd like me to help you try and get some more people to comment on the nomination somehow let me know. Freikorp (talk) 02:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, it's a bit disappointing to see it sitting there with no more input. Thanks for the tip, though. I've got a little pet project going on at the moment, but that should only take a few hours to finish, so I should be free to start contacting other nominators over the next week. I'm starting to think the reason no-one wants to get involved in doing a source review is because of the sheer amount (nearly 20) of offline journal sources. In your experience at FAC, could that be a problem? All those journals have been scanned/transcribed by fansites, so are easily accessible, but maybe people aren't aware of that. Would it be a good idea to temporarily add them to the article? I've been reluctant to do so, because I figured someone would come along and go: "Strong oppose. Article contains links to WP:Fansites." What do you think? Homeostasis07 (talk) 19:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi again. I've just seen this message now as I've returned from a Wikibreak. Personally I don't think the offline sources are the cause of the problem. The only potential thing I can see that might be putting people off is the sheer number of failed nominations - people may think if it hasn't passed by now it's not going to. Anyway I think the solution you've done in the meantime with the fansite addition then reversion was a good idea. Also just commenting on your pet project linked above, have a read of MOS:HASH, and also Discogs.com is not considered a reliable source (see many discussions on this here). Otherwise that article looks good. :) Freikorp (talk) 11:50, 28 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Homeostasis, congrats on bringing Holy Wood to FA. I also see you've brought several other Manson articles to GA status. =) Dude, you're a machine! Again, congrats. -Red marquis (talk) 23:51, November 26, 2017‎

Thanks @Red marquis: Nice to see you back. ;) Although I really didn't do much with Holy Wood in the time between you last nominated it and me re-nominating it. Some re-writing here, some re-arranging there, but you pretty much got it to FA-status yourself. ;) The other articles, now they were a different story. As you probably remember, The Golden Age of Grotesque, The High End of Low and Born Villain were pretty awful articles before I reworked them: poor grammar, unverifiable original research, pretty much the entire articles dependant on that Nachtkabarett fan-website. Now, they were the challenge. ;) And, yeah, Beautiful Monsters Tour looks like a great article too. I'll make that my next FA project. ;) If you don't mind, I'd like to get Heaven Upside Down up to code first before I start work on anything else. I'm in the middle of reading all of Manson's HUD-era interviews at the moment, so hopefully I'll be able to read/digest all those interviews and rapidly poop out some decent-quality Background and recording and Composition and style sections in a week or two. Again, it really is nice to see you back. In my darker moments, I genuinely thought you may have died or something. I hate seeing Manson fans vanish for 3 years solid. :( Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:15, 24 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As Manson used to say, "you can't kill me, motherfucker!" LOL. Life just took over. I ain't dead yet. =) Also, don't discount your re-writes here, re-arranging there. That's what it took to finally take the article to FA ;) -Red marquis (talk) 20:43, 25 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see you doing some re-writes and re-arranging yourself. Hope you don't mind that I gave it another going-over. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:22, 28 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(i looked up how to send messages so if this is not how then sorry) I have actually removed the "Fucking" part of the track listing as i looked into it and it didn't have that, i got that info from the guy who actually told everyone the track so I guessed it changed, though YOU -yes you- have actually been deleting tracks that we know will be on the album (like say10) though the tracks\ "Stigmata" are obviously not confirmed so its understandable why it wouldn't be in the track listing, I have not caused the Heaven Upside Down Wikipedia page to be protected 2 times this month, as it is the multiple people (from what i've seen they don't use accounts and just have their IP's) who have been constantly deleting information, my edits were protected on the page because they were correct (at least for the time being), also, i have only seen the page protected ONCE this month, if you continue to spread misinformation on the Heaven Upside Down Wikipedia page, it will be YOU who gets banned, goodbye. Blazingcrystal (talk) 21:03, July 6, 2017‎

That's cool, @Blazingcrystal:, and thanks. I know Charlie Hunnam said it was "We Know Where You Fucking Live", but maybe Manson just screams the extra fucking during the song's final chorus, because BMI officially has it as "We Know Where You Live". Please realize that I'm a massive Manson fan, and I want the band's articles to be as high-quality and accurate as possible—I was pretty much solely responsible for getting The Pale Emperor to featured status, and also having it appear on the main page on January 15. I plan on doing the same for Heaven Upside Down eventually, and also Holy Wood (see above). Now that you're not gonna be adding the "Fucking" anymore, I'll delete the warning. I hope I've not scared you off, and that you keep coming back to edit Heaven Upside Down, because I'm really not in the mood of building up an entire Manson article from scratch. If you ever need help with anything, I'd be glad to offer it to you. Thanks again. Homeostasis07 (talk) 22:18, 6 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm glad that we can come to an understanding, hopefully we can work together to get accurate info on the page, and stop people from adding songs like "jesus crisis" (seriously, "jesus crisis" lol wtf"Blazingcrystal (talk) 23:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah. That title is most likely BS, and until it's confirmed it shouldn't be included. I wouldn't be all that surprised if ended up being genuine, though. I don't think I would've believed a title like "Doll-Dagga Buzz-Buzz Ziggety-Zag" either. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk) 18:11, 7 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, you probably don't remember me, but you sought for my help in your previous FAC (Holy Wood), and you agreed to perform another source review my way. Could I ask one for my new FAC? It is Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/On the Job (2013 film)/archive1. Thanks, Slightlymad (talk) 04:34, 11 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Slightlymad: Yeah, no worries. If you don't mind, it might be later next week before I can get to it. Today has been my only day off work since Monday, and I'm back in tomorrow [until Thursday]. I had some beer and tequila last night, and – I think I vaguely remember someone opening a bottle of – sambuca, or it might have been Poitín. So I'm in no state to do any serious editing right now. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk) 16:39, 12 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just get on with it when you finally sober up. Cheers, Slightlymad (talk) 04:00, 13 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lol. ;) Just had a quick peruse of the references, which all look fine to me. Just a heads up: I'm not all that confident that someone else won't come along and bitch about reference #9—Rogue Magazine: "The Game Changer". Can a page from Squarespace be considered a WP:RS? Aside from that, I don't foresee any possible problems. Thankfully there are no offline/book sources for me to screw up/forget about this time. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk) 22:48, 13 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You tell me, you're the source reviewer... Slightlymad (talk) 03:35, 14 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey man, pardon me for intruding your peace, but just wondering if you still intend to review the sources as you are about to become busy again in a few days. Slightlymad (talk) 04:09, 16 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, I started your source review a couple of days ago (have it saved to notepad). I couldn't really do much because I'm still working. I'll be off tomorrow evening after a 12-hour shift, so can't imagine I'd be in much mood to do it then. I'll do it gradually over the weekend, and am hoping to have the entire thing done by Sunday night. Homeostasis07 (talk) 17:55, 16 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for providing a SR on my FAC. I can see why you had to be detailed in your approach; that Ealdgyth took issue with your then half-assed review in the Jill Valentine article, which is why it didn't make FA. I think Ealdgyth has a stringent approach in doing a source review, but there's a slim chance that you and she would clash again since her expertise is mostly about History and Women. Perhaps you might wanna add the FAR page onto your watch list until it gets promoted by a coordinator, because some might have issue with it. Btw, here's for your trouble:

A barnstar for you!

		The Featured Article Barnstar
		For bringing Holy Wood (In the Shadow of the Valley of Death) to FA – Slightlymad (talk) 17:07, 19 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The High End of Low you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Freikorp -- Freikorp (talk) 14:21, 24 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Homeostasis07. I'm happy to review this article. Just throwing it out there, if you'd be so kind as to take a look at and make comments at my current peer review, I'll happily review your other nominations as well after I finish this one. No worries if you don't have time for that though. :) Freikorp (talk) 14:26, 24 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, no problem. There's another little project *wink wink* that I'd like to get under my belt first. Shouldn't take too much longer. Thanks for reviewing The High End of Low, although I'm more than happy to continue waiting for my other noms to be reviewed, if you're too busy for the others. I've waited since February, so a couple more months wouldn't be a bother. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk) 22:35, 24 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there. Thanks for your recent edits to Jill Valentine, and also Don't Say You Love Me :). While technically I can renominate Jill today, I'm still waiting on one of the offline sources I ordered to arrive in the mail. It might turn up tomorrow, or not until next week. Basically just letting you know I'll renominate it when the source turns up and I can see if it verifies the section of the article with the citation request tag. Freikorp (talk) 01:29, 29 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi again. Sorry I've not been able to get to your peer review yet. The source review has taken a bit longer than expected. I have random, fairly-indecipherable-to-anyone-but-me notes for every single reference on the page, but, realistically, if you were to renominate the article now, I'd only be able to post comprehensive notes up to ref #59 #83 #93. ;) Cultural impact was the portion of the article with the most feedback from certain users during the last FAC, so I've still got a decent chunk of work to do. Thanks for reviewing the 3 Manson articles. I swear I'll make it up to you, eventually. ;) Is it too late to comment on your newest peer review, or would I be better off just waiting to review during its FAC? Homeostasis07 (talk) 19:04, 29 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's not too late to comment on the peer review; I'm not in any real hurry regarding that. I'd prefer to get comments on it before it goes to FAC but it won't be going there for a while as Jill is obviously next in line. Thanks for letting me know where you're at with the source review. I guess you weren't kidding about how thorough it was going to be :). In that case I'll definitely give you some more warning before I renominate the article. According to the seller the book I ordered was due to arrive by today (but it hasn't yet) so I am expecting it by the end of the week, assuming it hasn't gotten lost in the mail of course. Freikorp (talk) 01:08, 30 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's great to hear the source review is finished. Thanks. At this stage the offline source I ordered is several days overdue so I'm launching a complaint through eBay regarding not receiving it within the designated time. I have a bad feeling this is going to get dragged out for a while, and may result in me having to order it again through somebody else. Will keep you posted. Also sorry to be a pain but I've just replaced one of the sources used in the article. The original editor who added the "Biohazard 3 Last Escape Official Guide Book" source to the article did not specify the page number in the source that backs up the statement. As my Japanese language skills are fairly basic even if I do order the source it's highly likely I won't be able to find the appropriate page, let alone translate it accurately, hence replacing it with different though relevant information from an online source. I did order the Japanese source "Biohazard Official Navigation Book" last week as based on what it is used to source, I believe it will be much easier for me to verify that one. So yeah, the only two sources I haven't verified now have been ordered, and everything else that I haven't verified has been removed. Freikorp (talk) 02:04, 1 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry to hear about your eBay troubles. Reminds me of the time I spent almost €400 on two very rare vinyls on eBay, then the seller stringed me along for nearly 10 weeks: "I sent it! It must have gotten lost in the mail!", "I've been out of the country, I couldn't deal with it!", "My husband says it arrived back at his house, I'll get him to send it to you again." Funny thing was, when it finally arrived, there was no indication on the packaging that it had ever been returned to sender, and it was her name/signature/address on the attached Swedish customs form—dated just a few days before it arrived at my house. "Out of the country", my ass. People on eBay can be such BS-ers. Keep that in mind. ;) Anyway, it's fine for you to still work on Jill Valentine as you see fit. The source review is written in such a way that it can easily be amended if/when the sources are altered. BTW, I've just spent the past couple of hours writing up some notes about DJ AM. Not ready to add to the peer review just yet, but soon. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:07, 2 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The eBay source ended up arriving today and I've just renominated the article. Also just letting you know before renominating it I added two high-quality offline video game magazines as sources for one sentence each, otherwise the only thing new is some minor expansion with the eBay source. Hopefully this nomination goes a bit more smoothly. :) Freikorp (talk) 02:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Homeostasis07. Thanks again for the source review. While I am not opposed to the comment you recently left on the nomination aimed at CR4ZE, at this stage I'd prefer it if you only stated you disagree with people once and avoid the kind of long back and forth discussion that took place at the previous nomination. You are clearly not the reason why the first nomination failed, but I don't think the discussion you had with Ealdgyth helped improve the situation at all. I appreciate the vote of confidence on a personal level but if CR4ZE comes back with a rebuttal standing by his original concerns I'd strongly preferred it if you just said you disagree with him once more, say why, and then just leave it there. Let's try and avoid anything that clogs up the page too much. :) Freikorp (talk) 23:54, 14 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know, I know. I saw how Ealdgyth and Sarastro1 took what I said and blew it all out of proportion, thereby giving Sarastro1 the ammunition needed to do what she wanted to do a week earlier. The tone of CR4ZE's comment stinks to high heaven though, and you'd be wise to go through the history of every talk page of every opposing user of the last FAC, because there's some fascinating reading on them there pages: [1]; [2]; [3] There's something foul afoot at FAC, me thinks, and it may be in your best interest to ask Sarastro1 to recuse herself, and then ping Ian Rose and ask him to take over as the deciding admin. He's by far the better of the admins at FAC anyway. It's obvious from those links above that Sarastro1 had a problem with the article from the get-go, and decided long before the conclusion of the last FAC to canvas around for reasons to not promote it. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey mate, just wanted to let you know I actually won't be particularly upset if the new nomination fails, which it looks like it may (it still has a fighting chance though). Every time I get hammered with a new list of things to work on the article does get better as a result. While a certain editor there has some completely unreasonable requests mixed in with their valid concerns, at the end of the day, I think the article does look better now than it did at my first nomination. I'm confident that if it doesn't pass its nomination this time round it will definitely pass it's third. I've recently done a restructure of the article to meet certain FAC concerns. If you've got the time, let me know what you think, but no worries if you've just plain had enough with the nomination and article haha. I know the feeling. :) Freikorp (talk) 14:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shame there's no "Patience of a Saint" barnstar, because you definitely deserve one. ;) I mean, I completely gave up on FAC sometime after the first Jill Valentine debacle. I've got a few other articles in the bag that I think may be FA quality, but I've no interest in returning to that cesspool. Looking at how you've handled the second FAC, there's no doubt you've worked your ass off to appease certain people. It's definitely a better-lookin' article for it too, but keep in mind – and I'm sure the admins have seen it by this stage as well – you're never gonna placate a certain someone (i.e., all that loaded stuff she wrote about you wanting the article promoted just to get points for the WikiCup, or you somehow wanting to sully the main page). It seems she'll always be there, editing her reasons for opposing, 3 times, if not more. And I don't know who Victoriaearle is, but she certainly came out of retirement, all-guns-blazing-style. From what I can see: Jill Valentine has 8 supports (when she only needed 3 + image and source reviews); Sergecross73 "no longer ha[s] any objections."; bridies and niwi3 seem to be on the verge of supporting (the latter wants to examine the sources for themselves, and I'm confident they won't find any issues on that end); and then there's the other two users—evidently nothing anyone can do in regards to them. But it's obvious which way the tide is going this time. Keep at it. You're almost there. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:10, 28 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yep, closed when I was only a couple edits away from addressing the final concerns of one person opposing. Not to mind, I'm sure the third nomination will go much smoother since the overwhelming majority of concerns raised at the second one have already been fixed. I intend to renominate the article in a few weeks (maybe longer) once I've finished working on a couple other projects. I'll ping you and everyone else to the nomination when it is opened. It became quite apparent that people who oppose the nomination are not going take your source review at face value. Accordingly, when it is renominated, I would probably find it more helpful if you reviewed the article on its content rather than sources (though by all means you are welcome to do both haha). Let me know if you have any GA or FAC nominations in the meantime; I'd be happy to take a look at them. Cheers. :) Freikorp (talk) 09:40, 6 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That sucks, although not surprising. This is now the second time that Sarastro1 has junked the nomination while paraphrasing in her closing note things which SlimVirgin had written a few weeks earlier. More than coincidence, obviously. I really think it would be better to ask her to recuse herself at the next FAC, because she's arguably far too invested one way or the other at this point anyway—she incorrectly summarised how many opposes your nomination had; wasn't paying the slightest bit of attention to how far the FAC was progressing before closing; is clearly giving too much weight to SV's comments. And regarding SV, it might be helpful to save the diffs of her completely re-writing her reasons for opposing so many times (lest we forget all those minor edits in-between). Just so, when she returns at FAC3 – and she will! – you'll be able to show newcomers how you've tried your best to rectify every one of her criticisms, yet she's constantly fishing for new reasons to oppose. How a WP:NOTHERE single-purpose account became an admin in the first place is infuriating. Outside of that, I wouldn't even waste time responding to her at the next FAC. She'll never support, and you're wasting your energy. :( Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:58, 7 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This pisses me off, @Freikorp: Don't let them do that to you. I've been watching that review the entire time, although figured it'd be better for me to stay away for fear of making things worse. If anything, that "peer review" demonstrates clearly that SarahSV is WP:NOTHERE to build the encyclopedia (as I said over a month ago above). Renominate the article at FAC. Explain the situation with SarahSV fully in your opening comment. Point out that Niwi3 regularly says "I agree with SV" or "SlimVirgin" (he/she began no less than 8 [EIGHT] of their comments with those exact words, during either FAC2, the "peer review", or the thread you created @ Talk:WP:Video games). I think even Czar has realised by this point his mistake in sticking up for SarahSV back at that Talk:WP:VG thread. Even he seems sick of her. Then tell Sarastro1 to take a hike, and ask Ian Rose to take over and look at FAC3 with a fresh set of eyes—he's by far the more competent of the FAC administrators anyway. Seriously, I am absolutely disgusted by this entire thing. And yet this is the only recourse we have against admins misusing their position, and roping other administrators in to do their dirty work? This entire website can be bullshit sometimes, but don't let them dissuade you. If anything, I'd work on getting SarahSV topic banned from FAC entirely. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey mate. I really appreciate the support. Obviously I'm not happy with how this ended either, but basically I just need to take a break from the whole thing. Every day it makes me more and more stressed and I don't want to be miserable anymore, so my only option is to walk away. I've really reached a point where it is, unfortunately, not worth the effort anymore. Life is just a series of effort to reword ratios, and in this case, the stress of another FAC that I'm fairly certain SV will be able to derail again single-handedly is not worth the amount of hours I would need to put in just for the chance of getting another FAC notch on my belt. She's going to argue that the article shouldn't have been renominated because a consensus was not reached and she's going to ping her friend to the conversation who is going to give it a second oppose vote, and two oppose votes is all it will take to fail the nomination. Also I have uni work I need to focus on so I'm planning on spending less time on Wikipedia in the coming weeks anyway. I also, unfortunately, don't actually support the article myself for FAC in its current version. SV has removed a plethora of content without consensus, and in some cases she has removed content even though there was a consensus for it to remain. I made a list on the article's talk page. As you're aware, she reverts everything I add to the article, which means I can't fix any of the problems the article has, and even if this did go to FAC every time a reviewer would make a suggestion to improve the article and I tried to implement the change she would just revert it. I actually was going to nominate the article again before she resorted to this tactic, but her reversion of everything has been the final straw. You're right; I should renominate it, but I don't have the energy or the time.

Niwi3 is not the problem. Many of SV's concerns were valid, so there's no problem with someone agreeing with her actual concerns. It's her toxic personality, refusal to co-operate with others, ignoring of any criticism and bullying other editors away that is the issue. Addressing Niwi3's concerns, in comparison to trying to address SV's, has been rather easy, and he says himself that he wouldn't oppose the nomination in its current format. I honestly believe Niwi3 is trying to move the article into a position he can support, and I honestly believe SV is trying to do the opposite.

I'm not really sure what to do at this point, her behaviour does need to be reported to someone with some form of authority, but I don't have the energy to time to even do that. I just know I need to take a break from the whole thing. But thanks for your vote of support; It's nice to know someone kept an eye on the whole thing and knows what actually happened. Freikorp (talk) 09:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's a shame. Completely understandable, but still a shame. If I were you, I'd take a little break from Wikipedia – sometimes it's not enough to go away on holiday, because as soon as you come back online you see exactly the same crap happening as before you went away, which makes you even more stressed. A dedicated Wiki break, where you still go about the rest of your online business but intensionally ignore Wikipedia, is best – listen to some nice, cathartic rock music ;) and then come back all-guns-blazing. She's got ownership issues, on top of everything else. That can easily be resolved. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk) 20:22, 28 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh wow that reminds me I haven't even listened to his new album yet haha, thanks for linking to that. :) As I indicated, I'm not currently watching the article, but I figure that taking a break might work for several reasons. Firstly there's a small chance she might actually move the article to a position where she would support it in the meantime; there's also the possibility that she'll lose interest once she has no-one left to bully and she realises she's chased away everyone who could actually explain the subject to her (as you probably noticed we needed to constantly explain things to her because she doesn't understand how video games work). I don't actually have any plans for the article in the future, but I can't see how taking a break could hurt at all. :) Freikorp (talk) 22:25, 28 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That wasn't me just plugging his latest record, by the way. It genuinely is cathartic as fuck. "We know where you fucking live. We'll burn it down. They won't even recognise your corpse!" As one of the reviews in the critical reception section I'm currently working on says: This stuff can make a "bladder flex". ;) You know, I'm starting to think it may be a good idea for the two of us to co-nominate (however you do that) Jill Valentine next time around. The article is definitely a mess as it is right now. After we let that baby have her bottle for a couple of weeks – because there clearly is no reasoning with her – what do you say the two of us give the entire article a good-going-over afterwards? I was serious when I said this whole thing pisses me off. The amount of goddamn money you spent buying those sources, and this is how it ends? Nope. Not gonna let that happen. Take your well-deserved Wiki break. I want you refreshed. There are machinations afoot. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:06, 29 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A co-nomination certainly sounds more appealing than doing it myself. It's not a tricky process, anyone can nominate an article for FAC and just list someone else as the co-nominator. I'd probably want to wait considerably longer than a couple weeks though. Also just for the record I'm not taking a complete Wikibreak right now, I'm just taking a complete break from anything controversial/stressful or time consuming on here. I'll still be around. :) Freikorp (talk) 12:29, 29 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When life gives you lemons, make lemonade :). I inadvertently found a lot of information on the film Resident Evil: Apocalypse while searching for information on Jill Valentine, so I ended up expanding that article. I've currently got it nominated for featured status. See here. Your comments would of course be most welcome. Freikorp (talk) 01:32, 22 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wow. For a second there I thought you meant: "I inadvertently found a lot of information on Resident Evil: Apocalypse ... so I re-nominated Jill Valentine at FAC." Don't do that to me. ;) RE: Apocalypse looks like a pretty cool article. Might be a couple of days after Christmas before I can get to it, though. And happy Christmas to you, BTW. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:47, 23 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Haha sorry about the confusion. Take your time getting to the review. And a belated Merry Xmas to you to. :) Freikorp (talk) 11:09, 26 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Born Villain you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Freikorp -- Freikorp (talk) 03:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Born Villain you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Born Villain for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Freikorp -- Freikorp (talk) 14:02, 25 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Born Villain you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Born Villain for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Freikorp -- Freikorp (talk) 06:21, 26 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Golden Age of Grotesque you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Freikorp -- Freikorp (talk) 10:40, 26 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article The Golden Age of Grotesque you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:The Golden Age of Grotesque for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Freikorp -- Freikorp (talk) 13:20, 26 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article The Golden Age of Grotesque you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Golden Age of Grotesque for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Freikorp -- Freikorp (talk) 18:55, 27 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Genres listed at the top of UG reviews are never acceptable. See WP:ALBUM/SOURCES. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 17:54, 27 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I might be blind, but where exactly on that article does it say you can't use UG's genre specifications? All I see is "Articles that aren't written by "UG Team" (or any of the team's members) are unreliable." Amy Sciarretto is listed as a staff writer, two minutes of research has shown she is a writer who has written for numerous notable publications. Homeostasis07 (talk) 18:18, 27 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to the article on Killing Strangers. In your recent edit reversion and changes under the article's "Composition and style" section, the time signature "6/8" crept back in from an earlier version of the article, though it's not backed by the source you used. If you can't find a source for the indicated time signature, perhaps it should be removed, as the song is audibly in 4/4. This may most easily shown by counting the beats through, say, verse 1 and then dividing by the number of measures in the verse as would be found in a complete song chart - not visible in your Ultimate Guitar reference [4], but available elsewhere online, for example, on Ultimate Guitar itself [5]. Continuing to propose a time signature of 6/8 would need some sort of authoritative source to be acceptable in Wikipedia, as even Ultimate Guitar elsewhere contradicts that time signature (see below).

One of the changes you recently made indicates a three-chord harmony pattern in the verses, using the chords Dm, F, and Gm. I see that your Ultimate Guitar source claims that the chord choices shown in the tab are (I believe in the verse and outro sections alone) indications of the bass-line, not of the actual chords or harmony at those points. In the contributor's words, "[t]he chords are based from how the bass notes were played in the orginal [sic] song" and "[f]or the verses and the outro, it is possible to simply strum Dm all throughout".

It seems the contributor used chord symbols like F and Gm to indicate verse bass notes F and G, which are notated much more clearly on the Ultimate Guitar site in the Killing Strangers bass tab at https://tabs.ultimate-guitar.com/m/marilyn_manson/killing_strangers_btab.htm. (You may also note that the contributor of the bass tab clearly believes the song is in the time signature 4/4, as it audibly appears to be.) You may want to consider correcting your analysis of the verse chords to indicate that the verse is a Dm harmony throughout, as had been stated before your recent changes to the Wikipedia article.

If you want to claim that there are multiple chords in the verse sections, rather than the continuous Dm drone harmony, you might make an argument that the contributor's chord indicator "F" in the verses is valid and does indicate an F chord, a possibly defensible claim. But in an interpretation more in line with the contributor's comments, the F chord symbol is just indicating the F bass note in the verse's continuous Dm harmony.

And despite the contributor's use of the Gm chord symbol in the verses, there's no Gm audible. That would generally require at a minimum a Bb playing with or near the G bass note to establish the Gm harmony, which does not occur. Instead, the G note in the bass is audibly an appoggiatura decorating the Dm chord in the verses (and outro), and I suspect the correct interpretation is that the F bass note in the same areas is also just a chord note in the Dm harmony of the verses. So the Ultimate Guitar source's indication that an F chord and a Gm chord appear in the verses is better explained by saying that the verses are a continuous Dm harmony, and the F and Gm indicators in the tab are just the contributor's attempt to indicate the verse's bass notes (pretty much as the contributor actually says on Ultimate Guitar).

To wrap up:

• It doesn't look like the song's in 6/8 time, as the article now states.

• The verses appear to be a drone Dm harmony throughout, not a pattern of chords as now described in the article.

I expect someone will come along on Ultimate Guitar at some point to clean up the chart you used as a reference, or to post a new, corrected copy of the tab. In my experience the contributor's use of chord symbols for bass notes is not widely accepted on tab sites: if you want to indicate bass notes, you use bass tablature, and you keep the chord symbols for actual chords. There are two or three other Ultimate Guitar charts up for this song already, so that self-correcting process may be underway. Ultimate Guitar is less closely curated than Wikipedia, though, as evident in the large number of conflicting transcriptions available for many popular songs, so the transcription by the contributor you referenced may instead stay online for the foreseeable future. It would be great to have correct information in the Wikipedia article, though.

Thanks for your consideration!

ClanCularius (talk) 21:18, 15 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry for the delayed response @ClanCularius: I didn't mean to ignore you. I read this shortly after you posted it, but was busy at the time expanding Say10 from this to how it is now. But I see where you're coming from. I guess this is the problem when you have user-generated pages as sources: what was on the article was what was originally up at Ultimate Guitar, but it's been changed, apparently. I'll make your suggested changes to the article in a moment. I think I've done everything you've wanted. Let me know if I screwed up somehow, or if there's anything else. Sorry for the confusion. Homeostasis07 (talk) 19:43, 17 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No delay noticed, @Homeostasis07:. Thank you for updating the article as you did. I see a couple of tiny things that slipped away, but I'll change them directly rather than generate another wall of text here. Good luck with your other articles. ClanCularius (talk) 07:02, 19 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Per your edit summary on Heaven Upside Down, I edit most of the articles for albums that enter a chart. I do not see the Top Album Sales included very often, and if it is, it's on older album articles that actually are not of good or featured quality. You claim streaming affects rock albums disproportionately; I don't see that this is the case. Several rock albums have topped the Billboard 200 this year. Regardless of who's seen what and what is where, the Top Album Sales is still a component sales chart of the Billboard 200. It'd be like including the Australian streaming albums chart if Manson was successful on that. It isn't relevant if he made the overall chart and most editors would remove it for being a component of the main chart. Ss112 04:10, 18 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You clearly haven't been paying close enough attention. Just as was the case with The Ride (Nelly Furtado album), you not agreeing with something doesn't automatically make it wrong. WP:CHARTMATH specifically says component charts can be included if a case can be made for inclusion – which I believe can be done in this instance, as its appearance on Top Album Sales is used to source information contained in the critical reception section. Yet you've twice deleted the entire reference with no regard to that reference being used elsewhere on the article. You really need to start paying more attention to what you're doing. And you can't be all that against component charts anyway, since Top Alternative Albums, Top Hard Rock Albums and Top Rock Albums are still there. Go elsewhere and establish a consensus. Homeostasis07 (talk) 20:11, 18 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're pointing to one other article you added the chart on—two years ago—and thinking that establishes a precedent. It doesn't. WP:CHARTMATH says: "In unusual cases, the subordinate chart can be mentioned: take, for example, a single which had no airplay because of objectionable content, but still charted extremely high on the composite chart due to sales." (Emphasis added.) Number two versus eight is hardly extremely high, and this is not an unusual case—it made the Billboard 200, you're just intending to showing that "Marilyn Manson was number two in actual sales" even though, as other users continually and quite rightly point out, sales are not everything anymore and they're getting lower all the time. Also, per WP:BOLD, if I challenged material you added, then it should stay out until you can establish a consensus for it. However, I'm not going to continue fighting over it as clearly you're not going to give up until you get your way. Way to hold a grudge—I had totally forgotten about the Nelly Furtado article dilemma. I think you need to get over it, because remembering disputes you had with users and letting it colour your future interactions with said user isn't very sensible. Ss112 04:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're confusing 5music.co.tw with G-Music. Nowhere does it say Five Music is connected to G-Music. The sites contain no links to each other and I can find no evidence the two are connected. This Google search result says Five Music is one store located in Taiwan. Even if it were a chain, it's still one chain of stores, which violates WP:SINGLEVENDOR. Ss112 01:07, 6 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I only just realised @SnapSnap: removed the chart; I thought it was something I removed a while ago and you only just removed it. Ss112 01:11, 6 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, my bad. I was perusing some other album articles here on Wiki, looking for charts that Heaven Upside Down might have appeared on, and came across that URL. I forget what article it was, though—I'll have to go through my history to find out. The other article must have conflated G-Music with 5-Music as well, because I'm sure the only things I changed in that reference were the access/archive dates, and the archive URL (if I remember right, the original article/reference used webcitation.org). Anyways, WP:Mea culpa. =( Homeostasis07 (talk) 02:15, 6 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. I found out Salon magazine article says "gushy pop[ular] song" does not means a pop genre. 183.171.181.4 (talk) 18:12, 31 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmm. Interesting. I had no idea what you were talking about because I've never edited that article, but after reading the source you've mentioned, I'm even more confused. The source is talking more about Jill Pangallo (whomever she is) than the actual song. Still, there's no doubt – in my mind – that "Against All Odds" is a soft rock/pop song. It just needs a better/more direct source. Pop isn't something to be sneered at, by the way. Some of the most beautiful songs of all time are classed as pop songs. Pop isn't all Britney Spears nowadays, ya know. I've even seen this referred to as "popular music". In any case, you'd be better off raising this issue on the articles' talk page. Cheers. I doubt pinging works with IPs but, what the heck: @183.171.181.4: Homeostasis07 (talk) 02:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I noticed you have reverted a lot of recent vandalism on the The Smashing Pumpkins discography page. The pattern of vandalism - multiple accounts and IP addresses adding false and unreferenced chart peaks to discography pages, and persistently doing so with new accounts and IP addresses - is characteristic of TomWatkins1970. I have dealt with this vandal for just over a year on Bros-related pages. I would encourage you to open a new sock puppet investigation, on the username page I linked earlier (check the archived cases for examples of their 'work'), so that they can be dealt with (again). It seems they have now moved on to vandalising discographies by rock/alternative artists, such as The Smashing Pumpkins, Faith No More, and Silverchair. Be warned - they often turn abusive in edit summaries, and even edited my user page at one point, with comments like I'm a kiddie fiddler, I've been in jail, etc. They are also incredibly persistent. I suggest you also request page protection and administrator assistance in dealing with vandalism if they persist.Nqr9 (talk) 12:31, 15 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Other hallmarks of their behaviour include random capital letters in sentences, poor punctuation/expression/grammar (writing as though English is not their native language), and claims of being a music/chart historian for decades.Nqr9 (talk) 12:33, 15 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. I knew it had to be a sockpuppet or a banned user of some sort, because they seem to know just enough about Wikipedia policy to know how to cause maximum disruption: you give one IP a warning, then they come back next time with a different IP; when pages are edit-protected, they seem to have a long-line of previously unused, but auto-confirmed accounts to continue the disruption. Clearly not an ordinary vandal. I see the Smashing Pumpkins discography page has gotten extended edit protection, and would suggest you request the same for the other articles they're disrupting. I've never initiated a sockpuppet investigation, though, and wouldn't really know where to start. You seem to know more than anyone about this guy. Maybe it'd be better coming from you? Or maybe leaving a message explaining all this at BU Rob13's talk page would be the easier option? That's the admin who gave the Pumpkins' discography page extended protection. Cheers. Homeostasis07 (talk) 21:05, 16 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is to let you know that the Holy Wood (In the Shadow of the Valley of Death) article has been scheduled as today's featured article for January 5, 2018. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 5, 2018, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1100 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:20, 10 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the article with the beautiful title! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:31, 5 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Very happy to see this on the main page today. Congrats. :) Freikorp (talk) 10:55, 5 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Homeostasis07, I have recently radically changed the article for "Apple of Sodom" by Marilyn Manson. If I were to nominate it for GA status, would you be willing to review it? MagicatthemovieS - User talk:MagicatthemovieS 14:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wow @MagicatthemovieS: Kudos on the expansion. Looks good. ;) I'll be able to review it sometime tomorrow, hopefully. I owe 6 more reviews to GAN anyway, so I don't mind. I also see the Marilyn Manson (band) article is still waiting there, after being nominated back in February. Ridiculous. :( I'll also try and review a couple of the articles above it, just to get it to the top of the queue finally. Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:05, 13 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Homeostasis07: I fixed those problems. Thanks for the help! MagicatthemovieS - User talk:MagicatthemovieS 14:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Homeostasis07, I have recently changed the article for "I Don't Like the Drugs (But the Drugs Like Me)" in much the same way I changed the article for "Apple of Sodom". Would you be interested in reviewing it for GA status? MagicatthemovieS - User talk:MagicatthemovieS 14:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wow. Are you a machine or what? ;) Yeah, I'd be willing to review it. No promises but... probably tomorrow night, and definitely sometime before Christmas. Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:35, 20 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just nominated "Coma White" for GA status. Are you interested? MagicatthemovieS - User talk:MagicatthemovieS 14:20, 28 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem. Will be a few days after New Years before I can get to it, though. Homeostasis07 (talk) 19:20, 30 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cool! What Manson song should I do next? MagicatthemovieS - User talk:MagicatthemovieS 22:20, December 30, 2017‎ (UTC)

Whichever you feel like. ;) Thanks for improving so many of the band's song articles, by the way. You may have noticed I worked on the band's main article, as well as a few of their album pages over the last couple of years, but I never really got around to working on any of their song articles. Plus, I'm sorta burnt out from Wikipedia, so it's cool to know that there's someone else out there who cares enough to do this sort of stuff. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:02, 30 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your kind words- Happy New Year! MagicatthemovieS - User talk:MagicatthemovieS 22:20, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]