User talk:Homeostasis07/Archive 6

“

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

”

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:51, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you today for Heaven Upside Down, "about Marilyn Manson's tenth studio album"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:44, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Heaven Upside Down scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that Heaven Upside Down has been scheduled as WP:TFA for 14 February 2021. Please check that 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/February 14, 2021. Thanks! Ealdgyth (talk) 14:31, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Good Karma

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Good Karma 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 Kyle Peake -- Kyle Peake (talk) 10:41, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Good Karma 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:Good Karma for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kyle Peake -- Kyle Peake (talk) 10:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Good Karma you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Good Karma for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kyle Peake -- Kyle Peake (talk) 07:02, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Good Karma

On 24 March 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Good Karma, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Roxette's final studio album Good Karma was recorded in a studio named "Tits & Ass"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Good Karma. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Good Karma), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review help

Hello again! I hope you are doing well and staying safe. I was wondering if you could possibly help with my current peer review for the Veronica Clare article. I am planning on nominating the article for a FAC sometime later this, but I thought it may be helpful to put it through the peer review process first. I understand if you do not have the time or would not like to participate in the peer review. Either way, I hope you have a great week! Aoba47 (talk) 05:18, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Hey Aoba! Long time no talk! I've just had a quick read-through of the prose, and nothing immediately jumped out. There are 2 Harv errors in the Footnotes section (#56 and #57), but aside from that there's nothing in particular for me to complain about. I'll hopefully have more time to take a more in-depth at everything sometime tomorrow. Good timing, because Wednesday's usually a pretty slow day for me. Hope you stay safe too. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:09, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response and pointing out these two errors. For some reason, I had accidentally put in the wrong publication date (and I was off an entire decade at that lol). Take as much time as you need. I plan on leaving the peer review open for a while. I can be quite impatient, but I should let the process play out as it is intended. Aoba47 (talk) 02:41, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the delay @Aoba47:. It's typical of my life that the week I say this, I end up getting swamped at work and too tired to do anything online in the evenings. Such is life, unfortunately. Anyway, I left some comments at the peer review. As expected, it was a pretty succinct and tightly-packed article, with no obvious filler to excise or major things to complain about. Feel free to get around to this whenever. Again, sorry about the delay. Hope you keep well. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 23:54, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No worries and no need to apologize. I hope that is work is going well. That definitely is life. It happens at the most random and often unexpected times. I greatly appreciate your review as always and I will let you know when I open up a FAC. Let me know if there is anything I can do to help with your Wikipedia work. I hope you have a more relaxing weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 00:42, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Valentine

Hello again! Sorry for leaving two messages in a row. Just wanted to say that we should probably both keep an eye on the Jill Valentine article since there will likely be increased activity on the page and more information about the character due to the upcoming film, Resident Evil: Welcome to Raccoon City. Aoba47 (talk) 01:44, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Thanks for the heads up. I have to admit, I've not been especially impressed by the trailer content I've seen of the movie so far, but it'll definitely be a good idea to keep an eye out for new information that could be used in the article. The film has again been delayed, until November, but hopefully there will be some substantive commentary about the character as a result of the whole project. And apologies for the delay in responding. Been distracted by both real life and off-site activity. Hope you're keeping well. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:51, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. I am admittedly not that great at FA maintenance and updating, and it is something I am trying to improve upon lately. I am sure there will be more substantial commentary on the character whenever the film does come out so that will be an interesting time for this article to say the least lol. I have actually not seen the trailer. I'm rather nervous to if I'm honest as the original Resident Evil games and the films hold a special place for me, but I'm weird in that I'd actually prefer to go back and replay the original games than try out the latest one lol. I hope you are doing well too! Aoba47 (talk) 23:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Jill's article was subjected to some serious nonsense since I was last online. It has been protected, thankfully, so let's hope the IP gets the point and moves on. And I agree with you about the older games/films in the series. I honestly haven't enjoyed playing any of the games since RE5. RE6 and both Revelations were very slow and repetitive, in my opinion, and even the first of the HD remasters weren't all that interesting. I never got around to playing RE7 or Village, but that probably had more to do with the awful parental controls on the PS4 system than anything else. I purchased The Evil Within 2 a few years ago on my password protected PS4 user account, figuring it would be hidden from all other users on the system. But then I woke up the next morning to find my then-6 year old playing the game via their account. So, yeah... no more horror games in my household, at least for the next decade. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions)

Apologies for my super late response. For some reason, I just noticed it now. Yeah, The Evil Within 2 is probably not the best game for a child lol. I am glad I am not the only one who feels that way about the older games. I am glad the Valentine article is protected and I am not that surprised that it would attract vandalism or weird edits in general. I do wonder if the voice acting parameter in the infobox can be collapsed as it is just so long right now (and will likely continue to grow in the future). I hope you are doing well and have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 04:23, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: I've added a hidden template to the lengthier parameters of Jill's infobox, but I'm sure that edit will be reverted soon. If I remember right, back during the FAC days, the infobox only had the names of the actresses but not the game titles too. Those were added later. I remember removing the titles at one point, but that edit was pretty much immediately reverted. I can't really say that was vandalism though, because I'm sure those users are probably following one of the style manuals. But between the huge new infobox image and "Voiced by" parameter, the infobox was causing some serious text squashing. Wanna place a bet on how long the current version of the article will last? ;) Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:47, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for making the edit. It looks a lot better now. I hope that these edits stick for a while at least, but I have a feeling things will change lol. Aoba47 (talk) 04:17, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for posting on here again. Just wanted to let you know that the film has been released so the part about Valentine's role in it will likely need to be re-examined. It's a shame that it's being poorly received. You would think that Resident Evil would not be too difficult to adapt, although I stand by my opinion that the 2002 Resident Evil film is actually good lol. Aoba47 (talk) 04:29, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: I always love hearing from you. ;) Thanks for your edit to Jill's page. I'll be sure to check on things as they develop. Unfortunately, most of the negative reviews seem to be focused on a lack of character development in the film, so I doubt we'll be getting much worthwhile character examination in related press coverage... but I'll keep an eye out anyway. I've not seen the new film yet, but I enjoyed Anderson's RE films. They were never gonna win Oscars, but they were big, dumb fun. I blame Uwe Boll for the notoriously horrible reception video game adaptions receive in the film industry. He released so many purposefully godawful video game adaptions that it's hard for anything else to be taken seriously. But I digress. ;)

I hope you enjoy your retirement. I have no doubt you'll be back in some capacity eventually, because your work is of such an exceptional standard and so invaluable to the project. Plus, you're one of the genuinely nicest people I've ever come across on this site. You've helped me so much through these last few years. I really appreciate everything you've done, both for me and everyone else. Hope you enjoy the retirement, and keep well. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 23:04, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for keeping an eye on it. It's a shame that the new film did not really develop these characters, especially since fans have been very invested in them over the franchise. I agree that Anderson's RE films are popcorn films and we could all use some silly fun. Oh, Uwe Boll lol. I actually think a lot of the video games he adapted, like BloodRayne, have potential to be good films so maybe one day, another director will realize their potential. I have not kept up with film adaptations of video game, but I'd be curious on how they have changed over the years. I still remember when comic book movies were such a mess. If you told me when I was younger that they would be such a huge thing now, I do not think I would have believed you lol.

I honestly just need time away from Wikipedia. I've always struggled with time management, and while I was doing a FAC for the "No Panties" article, I stepped back and asked myself why I was putting so much time and energy into a song that I actually dislike lol. You are very sweet. I always love hearing from you as well, and I genuinely have enjoyed working with you. You have helped so much as well. Feel free to email me anytime, and you keep well too! Maybe one day, I will come back to editing, but I just need some time lol. Aoba47 (talk) 02:08, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Peer review/The 40-Year-Old Virgin/archive1

Hi Homeostasis07! Is there any chance you could leave comments for this peer review? If not, then no worries; just say so. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:14, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry @SNUGGUMS: I'm afraid I won't be able to provide any helpful commentary. The article currently looks like it would have a decent shot at FA, let alone GA, and I genuinely can't see much to complain about. Let me know if you plan to nominate it for FA, and I'd be prepared to get all nit-picky at that stage. ;) Hope you're keeping well. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 21:25, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The response is appreciated. I'm doing just fine lately, and I do plan on eventually taking the article to FA after I get it up to GA. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:40, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GAN Backlog Drive - July 2021

Good article nominations \| July 2021 Backlog Drive
July 2021 Backlog Drive: This Thursday, July 1, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number, length, and age, of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 10+ good article reviews or participated in the March backlog drive. Click here to opt out of any future messages. --Usernameunique

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Track listing bonus tracks

Hey. Just saw your revert of another user on Bury the Hatchet (album) where you said you weren't aware of a policy that prohibits the listing of bonus tracks. While not a policy, the user Popcornfud led a charge in May (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 63#Extended track listings for bonus editions, reissues etc) to incorporate into WP:TRACKLISTING the wording "Include track listings for alternative editions only when they are significantly different and when the tracks are the subject of extensive commentary in the article. In such cases, additional track listings can be listed under subheadings. Otherwise, notable differences can be summarised in the prose in lieu of additional track lists." Their main point for doing this appears to have been an annoyance over extensive bonus disc track listings for reissues of Radiohead's albums. I don't particularly agree with it so wouldn't remove any myself (unless, say, I was cleaning up an article and the track listing had like 10 different permutations), but I assume it's what Jackmccann450 was editing in line with. Ss112 23:30, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for providing a link to the discussion @Ss112: I genuinely wasn't sure what that user was doing, but it makes sense now. I guess I should have seen this coming. Ever since the "collapse" function was removed from the track listing template, the bonus track sections of certain albums have become huge. I technically agree with the idea of removing non-notable editions from an album's track listing, but I think more comprehensive work needs to be done on deciding what constitutes a "non-notable edition". Otherwise, there's gonna be a hell of a lot of edit warring from IPs trying to add their favourite editions of albums to certain pages. Not really an issue I have the time or energy to involve myself in these days. I hope all the involved users know what they're getting themselves in to. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:52, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted edit on Supposed Former Infatuation Junkie

Hi Homeostasis07. Regarding this revert, thanks for pointing out the correct page for that data. It originally said "page 65" and I couldn't find the data on that page. I believe the title is still wrong. "1999 The Year in Music Totally '90s: Diary of a Decade - The listing of Top Pop Albums of the '90s & Hot 100 Singles of the '90s" is page YE-16. Page YA-15 seems to be a paid advertisement by the label and not a magazine page which goes through editorial review. I am not a Billboard expert, but I would think that an advertisement is not a reliable source. Perhaps I am missing something? --Muhandes (talk) 07:08, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Muhandes: Thanks for the message. I hear what you're saying, but I seriously doubt the label would need to lie about certifications. Jagged Little Pill is one of the biggest selling albums of all time, so it's not particularly egregious to say that the follow-up sold a few thousand copies and was certified gold in places like the Czech Republic and Taiwan. If they said it went 8x Platinum, then there would be cause for concern. Unfortunately, there aren't many online databases covering pre-2000s certifications, so these sorts of pages on Billboard are the most reliable sources we have to go on. Hope this helps. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 23:01, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First, I don't think the point is whether the label would lie or not. The point is that this is a paid advertisement, and thus it surely isn't a WP:RS. Surely we can't use it for material that was challenged (and I do challenge it), especially not in a GA. Second, the label does not need to lie - note that the word "certification" or "certified" is never mentioned, and for a good reason. The label only claims "the album reached Platinum level", they don't claim "the album was certified for Platinum". "Certification" implies a third party doing the certification, and the label may have not bothered certifying, or there wasn't a certification body to begin with. I don't see how we can write "the album was certified by IFPI" when we have no evidence that the label even claimed that as a fact. Finally, at the very least we should not mislead the reader (like I was misled) to think this is published by Billboard and subject to their fact-checking and editorial scrutiny. I went ahead and corrected the source to the best of my ability - I am not sure even sure how to cite an advertisement. Personally, I think that tainting a GA with such sources is detrimental to the quality of the article and we just don't need this kind of material in our GAs, but I leave that to you. Have fun editing. --Muhandes (talk) 11:41, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Muhandes: Where is your source that this even is a paid advertisement? I see no disclaimer. That's potentially WP:OR on on your part, it seems, because who is to say that Billboard didn't do any fact-checking before publication? You're splitting so many hairs over the words "certification" and "certified" that you've caused me to raise more than one eyebrow over this. Also, Supposed Former Infatuation Junkie is not a good article, and never was—it's C class. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 23:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize there was any doubt that this is a paid advertisement. To me all the signs are there, but I accept that others may disagree.

Regarding certification, I don't think I was splitting hairs, I was calling it for what I believed the consensus to be. Record labels can claim sales and they can award the artists with nice plaques, but only certification bodies can certify. Again, I accept that I may be reading the consensus incorrectly.

Regarding GA, you got me, I'm not sure what I had in mind.

As a final word, I apologize that I sounded so argumentative. I'm trying to improve the quality of certification data, but I should care less. You were probably not interested in my opinion to begin with, so lets leave it at that. Feel free to undo any of my edits if you think it improves an article, and enjoy your editing. --Muhandes (talk) 06:56, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, I appreciate your edits! I also apologize if anything I said came across as argumentative. The internet is tearing itself apart these days, and I fear my attitude elsewhere has begun to creep in with how I interact with well-meaning users here. That's something I will definitely work on and keep in mind in future. Feel free to edit as you please, and I again apologize for any misunderstanding. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:58, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A request

Hi Homeostasis07, apologies for the random message. I came across A Song Is Way Above the Lawn in the new pages feed today and looked at your contributions. It appears that you have created several solid articles, including one FA and one GA, as well as written several other featured and good articles. I think you'd benefit from having the Autopatrolled user-right which would allow your articles to be automatically marked as "patrolled" or "reviewed", and would no longer be added to the new pages queue. You can request the permission at WP:PERM/A. An experienced administrator will review your request. Also, I have a small request. I have a nomination open at FAC currently. It's about a song "Lights Up". You are welcome to comment, if you would like to. Hope you have a great day. --Viridian Bovary (talk) 09:15, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Viridian. Thanks for the suggestion. I'll definitely make sure I ask for that permission before I create my next article, which may be a while. In case you can't tell by now, I'm not very active on Wikipedia these days. ;) But I've finally managed to leave some comments at your FA nomination. Hope you keep well in these troubled times. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:18, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for being kind and helpful. I really appreciate the time you have taken to review "Lights Up" and helped it become a FA. Viridian Bovary (talk) 06:43, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome! Was happy to see it promoted. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 23:48, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request for FAC help

Hello again! Sorry for this super random message. I hope you are doing well and staying safe out there. I was wondering if you could help with my current FAC? I completely understand if you do not have the time or the interest. Have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 03:05, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Aoba47: Long time no talk! ;) I'd love to help with your current FAC, but I fear my presence there may in fact hinder your efforts. I notice the user "Sdbk" has commented at your FAC, a user I've recently voted against at both Talk:Marilyn_Manson#RfC_(allegations_in_lead) and Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2021_August_29#Template:Sub_judice. I fear if they see my name there, they may balk and instinctively vote in opposition to however I vote. I've added the FAC to my watchlist, and will keep an eye on developments over the next week. I hope things work out for you in the meantime. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:55, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response! Both of those discussion involve uncomfortable topics so I can understand your concern. The FAC has already attracted a number of reviewers, which I am extremely grateful for, so I think it should safely pass in the future. How is everything with you btw? Aoba47 (talk) 01:15, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Everything's fine my end, how about you? Only thing of note to report is that I'm supposed to return to the office this coming Wednesday, after nearly 18 months of working from home. Whether that will happen is up for debate still. It seems every time we've been scheduled to go back, the boss gets a call from someone saying they're sick and scheduled for a Covid test, then gets cold feet and tells us to work from home for another 3 months. Can't say I'm hating the routine of working from home though: drop the kids off at school by 8:45, back home and in to my pyjamas for another 5 hours, snacking on whatever I feel like whenever I like. It's been... comfortable. ;) How about you? Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 22:37, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Everything is pretty good on my end as well. I am just trying my best lol. I live in Florida, and unfortunately, it is an absolute mess with COVD, but I honestly do not have anything really to complain about. I am turning 30 later this month and to be honest, I am not excited about that at all lol. Aoba47 (talk) 00:07, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're only 5 years behind me so. Make the most of that time. It goes by far too quickly. =( Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:41, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know right. It's the worst. I shouldn't complain too much though lol. It feels like my early 20s and even my high school years were not that long ago, but I have definitely grown and improved a lot (in terms of confidence especially) so I am going to try to focus on that lol. The best thing we can do is to make the most of our time and try our best to really appreciate it. Aoba47 (talk) 00:43, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FAC

Hey there old friend, I'm glad to glance from the section above that you're doing well. I've also been working from home and can't say I'm unhappy about that situation at all. It's been a busy year for me with various projects. I spent the first few months illustrating a book that comes out in three weeks, and I'm also getting paid to host a podcast as well. Anyway just this week, for the first time in a year, I felt like I've had the time and energy to try and navigate an article through FAC. I've currently got Prison education, which has been an on-and-off again pet project of mine for years, nominated. See here. No pressure, but if you've got the time to comment I'd very much appreciate it. And do let me know if you need anything reviewed now or in the future. Cheers. Damien Linnane (talk) 08:20, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Damien Linnane: I'm glad to see you at FAC space again. ;) I've just had a quick glance at the article so far, but it all seems up to your usual standard—nothing of note to complain about. It's quite a large article though, so it may take me some time before I can comment. I promise I'll get to it though, and will hopefully post my initial comments on Sunday. And thanks for the offer, but I don't see myself nominating anything for GA or FA anytime soon. Just a few little pet projects on my radar, which I'm working on at my own pace. If I continue at the rate I'm going, it'll probably be 2024 before I nominate anything. I just don't have the time or energy I used to have. C'est la vie. =( But I'd be happy to help you out when I get the chance. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:12, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I appreciate it. I'm sure the nomination will be sitting there for a few weeks so no worries if you can't get to it for a little while. :) Damien Linnane (talk) 05:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you don't mind I made a minor copy-edit. No point in complaining during FAC about a stray "a" ;) It's genuinely all I found reading that far down the article. Tomorrow will be a busy day with my nephew's birthday, but hope to have this all done and dusted sometime Sunday evening. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:49, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sdkb

Hi @Sdkb: You may have noticed I removed my last edit to your talk page, per what you wrote. But I thought I'd let you know that I deduced it is impossible to raise the concerns I have about your editing activity on-site, per the template at the appropriate noticeboard. I have privately e-mailed my concerns to a functionary at that project, and hope to receive a response ASAP. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:12, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Important notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ––FormalDude talk 06:19, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Link to said discussion for posterity. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GAN Backlog Drive – January 2022

Good article nominations \| January 2022 Backlog Drive
January 2022 Backlog Drive: On New Year's Day, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage.
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 10+ good article reviews or participated in the March backlog drive. Click here and remove your username from the mailing list to opt out of any future messages. --Usernameunique

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles at 21:18, 31 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]

June 2022 Good Article Nominations backlog drive

Good article nominations \| June 2022 Backlog Drive
On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? Sign up here!
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 5+ good article reviews or participated in previous backlog drives. Click here to opt out of any future messages. (t · c) buidhe 04:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar/Roxette rosette

		The Audio Barnstar
		Great work with this and many like it. Greg Kaye 20:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the barnstar, @GregKaye: Roxette might be a cheesy 80s band, but they're a part of my childhood. It was a real labor of love fixing up all their articles. And thanks for the ping to that other user's comment. I've unfortunately had enough of that particular user for one lifetime, so I won't even dignify them with a response at this point. If you want to know more about that user and why they started editing these sorts of articles, you should read their opening comment at this thread they started called "Pop culture articles related to domestic abuse and gender bias". It's the most blatant self-admission to WP:POINTY editing and WP:NOTHERE that I've ever read, at least on-site. That would end up being a whole big thing, so I won't prolong your thread by starting all that up. Anyway, I'm glad things are working out for you, and hope you keep well. Keep your chin up. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 20:48, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hello again. Apologies for the random message, but I just wanted to reach out and see how you were doing. I hope everything is well and have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 01:28, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Aoba47! So sorry for the delay responding to you. Issues with work/life balance making it practically impossible to go online at all in the evenings now. Aside from that, everything's cool my end. Everyone happy and healthy. How about you? Any projects in the pipeline? Hope you're keeping well. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 21:25, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now it is my turn to apologize for a delayed response and mine is far worse lol. I am glad that you are doing well. I am trying my best, but otherwise, I am solid. I do not have any projects at the moment. I completed a FAC recently so I think I will sit back and wait a bit before trying to do something new. I have had a few false starts so I will take that as a sign that now is not the right time lol. Aoba47 (talk) 23:05, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries about any delayed response on your part. I'm pretty sure I have you beat in that department anyways. ;) The simultaneously good/bad news is that I'm absolutely sick of being taken for granted in my current job, so am actively applying for new roles elsewhere. I'm completely burnt out from working 9am–2am 6 days a week (no, I'm not exaggerating). I was absolutely correct when I said that "promotion" I got all that time ago didn't feel like a "promotion" at all. So... enough is enough. Hopefully, I'll soon be working a nice cushy 9–5 job, and will be able to reintegrate into Wikipedia society in the evenings once again. Let me know if you have any projects in the pipeline in a month or so. I should be good by then. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:26, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September drive bling

		The Modest Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to Homeostasis07 for copy edits totaling over 4,000 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the GOCE September 2022 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Miniapolis 19:22, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Standard ArbCom discretionary sanctions notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Newimpartial (talk) 01:58, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the revert!

Hello! Thanks for reverting me here—that was an unintentional edit; I think I was having trouble with my browser's cache—just a couple edits later, I added a Template:who tag, then, in the very next edit, somehow managed to revert myself. Sorry about that!--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 21:23, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries @Jerome Frank Disciple: I figured it was a mistake. Sort of thing that tends to happen when two users are simultaneously expanding the same section of an article. I'll leave you to it for a while, and come back tomorrow. Happy editing! ;) Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 21:31, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no! It appears we left the article at the same time; either way, all yours!--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 12:50, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We Are Chaos

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=We_Are_Chaos&diff=prev&oldid=1174674676 Hi why is Gritdaily unreliable? it seems like a perfectly fine source. -FMSky (talk) 12:20, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @FMSky: It's a long shot in hell right now, with all of this unresolved, but I do plan on making We Are Chaos at least a GA someday. I started work on the article several months before the allegations surfaced, so felt I might as well finish what I started. I doubt Grit Daily would survive a GA review, to be honest, but if you want to re-add it as a source for the album being rock, please feel free to. There are probably higher-profile sources (i.e., used in more articles; the named source having its own Wiki article, etc.) that could be used to support the same content.

I don't think the Ultimate Guitar source can be used though. There's a policy somewhere saying the AllMusic sidebar can't be used to source genres, so I doubt that UG default page could be used. Happy to be proven wrong though. Hope you're keeping well, and happy editing. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 22:39, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After the trial

Your deletion of the commercial consequences section in Depp-Heard. It seems to make sense to add a comment to say that their film careers appear to be unaffected as a result of the trial. The data included in the section you deleted covered their film production careers during the filing of the complaints to the present date once year after verdict. Why delete it? HenryRoan (talk) 23:47, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One, because a substantial portion of the section was unsourced and irrelevant to the article; it read like WP:Promotion for the forthcoming Aquaman film. That article is about the trial, not Aquaman. Two, because of what I said in the edit-summary. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:48, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	I’m always a little shocked when someone actually stands up for me at ANI. I really can’t thank you enough. Dronebogus (talk) 02:10, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem @Dronebogus: I don't believe we've ever interacted before, but I randomly browse ANI every once in a while and couldn't help but notice that comment I responded to. I don't know how that whole thing is going to end, but keep your chin up. And don't let anyone goad you in to saying something you'll end up regretting. Otherwise, you'll be fine. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:17, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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

Precious anniversary

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]