User talk:Homeostasis07

“ There is so much that I haven't yet. And don't I know it. ”

Terror Train

Long time no see! Would you be willing to look at the article for Terror Train when I finish it?MagicatthemovieS (talk) 00:27, 10 January 2024 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

Hey MagicatthemovieS, long time no see indeed! Hope you've been keeping well. Sorry about the delay in responding, but January/February is always a stinker for me, editing-wise. Quite busy at work dealing with paperwork from the pre-Christmas rush. But if you schedule this for a Friday or Saturday evening (the only time I can edit most weeks) then I'd be happy to have a look relatively quickly. Otherwise, you'd probably be left waiting until the next weekend. Have quite a few of my own potential GAs waiting in the wings, until a time when I have enough energy to deal with the reviews. Kind regards, Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 22:34, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Also, couldn't help but notice you tried to nominate Get Your Gunn for FA earlier this week, but didn't finish the set-up procedure. Is that something you're really interested in doing? I think it's definitely FA-quality work, but feel I should warn you now that it's a lot of work. And WP:FAC is arguably the most politicised Wikipedia page these days. Although recent reporting has nothing to do with a song he released in 1994, I'd be very much expecting to see all that brought up during the FA review from at least one of the "regulars". I think We Are Chaos is probably the best work I've ever done on Wikipedia (except the lead, which I never finished), but I've not had the stomach for even a GA MM-related review, let alone an FA one. I'm envisioning quite a mess if you proceed, to be honest. We could probably talk more candidly about this elsewhere. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 22:47, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I hear you on the MM stuff. I'm not proceeding with that one. I'll let you know when I finish Terror Train and you can look at it at your convenience. Thanks so much! :)MagicatthemovieS (talk) 23:59, 12 January 2024 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

I think Terror Train is looking good right about now so I nominated it.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 02:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

Precious anniversary

Precious

Seven years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Re your oppose vote at Sdkb's RFA

Your rationale and followup message, particularly your parting words "compiling now," were enough to convince me that until you returned, I wouldn't have all the information I'd need to cast a vote. It's now been more than two three four days and 109 129 156 support votes (including mine) have been filed since your last edit here. Do you have an idea when you'll be back with an update? City of Silver 23:10, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Your comment at Sdkb's RfA

At Sdkb's RfA you state that you have off-wiki evidence pointing to their participation in meatpuppetry. The Arbitration Committee has not yet received any such evidence from you. Please supply the evidence by email to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org or withdraw your aspersion. firefly ( t · c ) 18:04, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I just stopped by to notify you that despite ArbCom's asking you to remove it, I think (as a crat) there has been plenty of time for you to compile your concerns and send them to ArbCom or substantiate them publicly inside community norms. Therefore I both redacted the comments and struck your vote until such time you reestablish it within community norms or substantiate your claim at an appropriate venue. -- Amanda (she/her) 02:56, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of MarilynManson.com for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article MarilynManson.com, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MarilynManson.com until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Resident Evil

Hi there. Did you ever recall your work at Jill Valentine before? That was amazing actually. Because of it, it inspires me to work on another Resident Evil chraracter. I hope you can chime in at my FAC soon. Thank you. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 03:58, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the kind words. Unfortunately, my personal life hasn't been great this year, with two members of my immediate family being tested for terminal illnesses. I've really not been online at all much this year. I promise I'll try to make time for the FAC, because it would be awesome to see it pass! It may take me a couple of weeks to get to it, but FACs usually take 2–3 months anyway. I wish you all the luck in the world with your nomination in the meantime. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:04, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

So sorry to hear that. It's totally fine if you can't chime in since family or real life stuffs is more important than Wikipedia. Thank you and take care! 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 02:07, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Roxette, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dr. Feelgood.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:52, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Street Map.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Street Map.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:53, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Re:Topic ban/WPO

I don’t like WPO any more than you do, and would probably vote “oppose” on your Tban if I wasn’t a persona non grata at ANI. But even I think the “support” voters, including the ones obviously just trying to protect their own from accountability, make a point: you can’t keep casting aspersions and then saying you can’t provide evidence. You have to email ArbCom if you have legitimate evidence. Dronebogus (talk) 11:27, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Dronebogus. Public or not, the results of such an investigation will largely be the same and no less public. If you have evidence, you need to email ArbCom as soon as possible before the problem gets any worse. - ZLEA _T\^C 16:18, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you both for your comments. @Dronebogus: There's been some movement, so I'm happy to provide links publicly at the ANI thread. There's quite a lot, but I thought I'd give you a heads up Dronebogus that I uncovered a lot of discussion about you on WPO, including insults. I'm sure you're aware, but would you be willing for me to include those links in my response? It's fine if you don't want to be involved, but figured it only polite to give you an opportunity to object before I post anything. Kind regards, Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 23:00, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I’m fine with it Dronebogus (talk) 23:43, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry Dronebogus, not yet. I was reluctant to post a wall-of-text, so skirted the line between succinct and comprehensive. I'll post links to comments from WP/WPO users later. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:03, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

At this point you should actually just take this to ArbCom. You might’ve avoided a topic ban if you had actually provided evidence earlier but given that you did not do that while making numerous serious allegations against other users I’m not surprised it resulted in a Tban. Dronebogus (talk) 04:48, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Homeostasis07, it is with some level of sadness that I come to your talk page under these circumstances. I need to advise you formally that per the rough consensus of editors at ANI (permalink), you are topic-banned from discussing Wikipediocracy. As I noted in my close, a reminder that exemptions exist to topic-bans, which in this case would include the filing of (or participation in) any future request for arbitration. Please let me know if any questions. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:15, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I believe you may still contribute to the case. You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Wikipediocracy-related conduct and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, Dilettante 19:11, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Dilettante. @Daniel: I'm assuming from your message that I can participate in the current Arb case without violating the topic ban, but in this instance it's probably best that I don't assume anything. So, can I file a statement at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Wikipediocracy-related_conduct without violating the topic ban? Thanks. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:22, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Homeostasis07, you are absolutely correct. No issue with you adding a statement there (and then participating if a case is opened and you are a named party), my interpretation is that is covered by the exemptions to topic-bans subsection. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 02:24, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi, just as a follow-up to the above - ArbCom is slowly edging towards accepting the case (somewhat glacially, it must be said), although the scope of any potential case is unclear. Should it be accepted, please reach out to the appointed case clerks to confirm your involvement relative to your topic-ban; I'm happy to provide supporting commentary as needed as the discussion closer, but they are the ultimate authority over case pages so just want to make it clear that they become the decision-makers at that point! Hope you are well. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 18:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Homeostasis07. Thanks so much for your recent heroic defence of folk like RAN & LB, and for your Arb statement. I noticed though you linked to ANI post that suggested a former ARB was "booted off ArbCom for sharing private ArbCom info on WPO". That didn't happen, the former ARB was booted for various indiscretions, the straw that broke the back being sharing ArbCom info with a non-EN language wiki. Purely for the purposes of helping out a low ranking editor who had been unfairly blocked. Most regrettable if that was the main reason he was booted - the editor's tendency to well intentioned Maverick behaviour was exactly why the community made him an Arb in the first pace. (Per voting theory, electorates tend to consider overall committee composition in their voting choices. Obs if it was a one v one choice between the ultra lawful Barkeep & the Maverik, BK would get like 95%+ of the vote. But in a choice between the Maverick & a BK mini me, many would choice the Maverik, esp. if the rest of the committee was also quite orderly. ) So hoping you might consider removing the link from your statement? It would indeed be great if WPO in general get a slap after the loss of LB, but we ought not unfairly discredit individual WPO accounts, who had little or nothing to do with making Wikipedia feel so hostile for LB that even such a noble soul started being disruptive. FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:09, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

@FeydHuxtable: Out of courtesy for the linked editor, I've removed the link to the comment. The overall issue should still probably be available for the arbs, so my refactoring has been minimal. Thanks for the clarification. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Lakesofcan1.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Lakesofcan1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:30, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Arbitration case request declined

Hi Homeostasis07. The Wikipediocracy-related conduct case request has been declined. While the arbitrators were closely divided, there was not an absolute majority to accept the case. For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 06:39, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Shame. Oh well. Onwards and upwards. :) Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 21:48, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Kat Von D - Illusion.ogg

Thank you for uploading File:Kat Von D - Illusion.ogg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Ирука¹³ 02:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry about that @Iruka13: Audacity 3.6.3 was messed up in regards to time display. I've updated to the latest version, but have had problems in the past with uploading new versions of pre-existing files, so I uploaded a new version within the limit. Please feel free to speedy delete my original upload. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 03:11, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Kat Von D - Illusion.ogg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Kat Von D - Illusion.ogg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:34, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:16, 19 November 2024 (UTC)