User talk:Homeostasis07/Archive 3

The seedling is taken as a delicacy by the sower who's mowing down the nursery; the reaper is hiding in the flower bed, and they're each thinking over what the other said: 'We each disturb the earth, but you my friend, yeah, you did it first, yes you did.'

Two updates
I added an FUR for the image from the Zapruder film. Also, a user has decided to review Marilyn Manson's article for GA status! MagicatthemovieS - User talk:MagicatthemovieS 22:20, January 4, 2018 (UTC)

Quick Question
Hi Homeostasis07! I was wondering if you were planning on using a bot to archive the links in the "Coma White" article. If not, I could do it myseelf, but someone ould have to teach me how to do it. thanks for letting me know! MagicatthemovieS - User talk:MagicatthemovieS 22:20, January 6, 2018 (UTC)
 * Damn. Sorry. Completely forgot about that. Will do it now. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk) 22:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

MM GA
If you want to jump in on the GA process for the MM article, that would be very welcome. The only issue there right now is something about the article's discussion of the band's "triptych." MagicatthemovieS - User talk:MagicatthemovieS 22:20, January 12, 2018 (UTC)

Marilyn Manson (band)
The band's article is now a GA! Just wanted to let you know. MagicatthemovieS - User talk:MagicatthemovieS 22:20, January 13, 2018 (UTC)

A humble request
Would you be so kind as to robo-archive all of the links in the MM that haven't been archived? Thanks! MagicatthemovieS - User talk:MagicatthemovieS 22:20, January 14, 2018 (UTC)
 * Tried doing it, but the bot isn't working. Will try again tomorrow. Homeostasis07 (talk) 02:22, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your prompt response. MagicatthemovieS - User talk:MagicatthemovieS 22:20, January 14, 2018 (UTC)
 * Still not working (keeps freezing). I definitely won't forget about this one, though. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk) 02:31, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Nope. The bot isn't happening. I've tried at least 20 times these past 24 hours. The bot itself seems to be working fine, but when it finishes with the article, it just loads onto a blank page. Strange. I guess I'll just have to go through the entire article and manually archive those references myself. :( Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Finally. It still looks like there are a couple of unarchived links there, though. Those will need to be manually saved @ archive.org. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:09, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

"Get Your Gunn"

 * I just nominated "Get Your Gunn" to become a GA and I figured that you might be interested in reviewing it. Thanks for being so awesome! --MagicatthemovieS

Your GA nomination of Beautiful Monsters Tour
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Beautiful Monsters Tour 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) 14:01, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

The article Beautiful Monsters Tour 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:Beautiful Monsters Tour for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Freikorp -- Freikorp (talk) 01:21, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

The article Beautiful Monsters Tour you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Beautiful Monsters Tour 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) 22:21, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

"Lunchbox"
I fixed the article for "Lunchbox" and nominated it. -- MagicatthemovieS (talk) 20:13, 27 January 2018

"Long Hard Road Out of Hell"
"Long Hard Road Out of Hell" is ready for review at your convenience. -- MagicatthemovieS
 * Will be a few days before I can get to it. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:29, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I had a question for you: what artists outside of MM are you interested in? I ask because I was wondering if you might be interested in reviewing articles about songs by Charles Manson or Elvis Presly if I spruced them up. Thanks so much! -- MagicatthemovieS
 * Yeah, I wouldn't mind doing that. It may end up causing you more problems in the long run, though. Even though I review all articles fairly according to the criteria, someone may end up challenging all of your good articles if they see that a large number of them were disproportionately reviewed by one user. You know, "Hey, Homeostasis07 has been reviewing all these articles by MagicatthemovieS. Investigation required!". Take my word for it: there are people/administrators on this website who get off on causing as much stink and mayhem as they can, and they get away with it too. Friendly warning. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk) 02:03, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thus far, you have reviewed 5 out of my 14 GAs. Is that a disproportionate amount?
 * Now 6 out of 15. ;) And that's not a disproportionate amount, no. I was just sayin'... people find any excuse they can to bitch and make trouble for ordinary, decent users on this site. =( By the way, I'm only realising now that I never thanked you for the barnstar above. Didn't mean to be an asshole. Thanks. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

"Look at Your Game, Girl"
I recently got the article for the Charles Manson track "Look at Your Game, Girl" to GA status; I was wondering if you would be so helpful as to archive the links in the article? Thanks so much! -- Magicatthemovies

Lest We Forget: The Best Of
Hi! It's been awhile! I've begun sprucing up the article for Lest We Forget. I understand that you cannot review it for GA as you have significantly contributed to it, but I was wondering if you might like to help me get it to GA level before I nominate it. I was thinking that perhaps I could create a decent "Critical recepion" section for it while you could create a "Commercial performance" section? Let me know if you like that plan.--MagicatthemovieS
 * Yeah, sounds cool. To be honest, I've been procrastinating on Manson articles, because the thought of doing another one basically from scratch fills me with dread. Not to mention having to read 100+ sources. Tag-teaming something sounds like a good idea. ;) There's another project I'd like to get finished first, so it might be the middle of next week before I can get to LWF. Homeostasis07 (talk) 20:00, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I see you're online. My little project took a lot less time than expected, so I'm free to start on Lest We Forget now. Just so we don't keep getting in each others' way (edit conflicts), I'll work from my sandbox, and then just post the whole thing to the article in one go. This might take a few days, BTW. Homeostasis07 (talk) 22:23, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Cool! Do you think that I should add info about the "Personal Jesus" video to the Lest We Forget article or is that best suited for the "Personal Jesus" article?
 * Couldn't hurt. I wouldn't dedicate a whole sub-section of Lest We Forget to the music video, though. The "Personal Jesus" article would be the best place for such a thing. Then I'd include 'highlights' from that version on LWF. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk) 22:49, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I've made use of all of the LWF reviews I can find, and I think the "Background" section is sufficiently large. That didn't take as long as I thought it would. :)
 * Ditto. Just added my first attempt at a commercial performance section to the article. Feel free to re-do anything you don't like the look of. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk) 20:15, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Your "Commercial performance" section looks great. I have two questions - 1) would you be OK with me nominating the article for GA at this point and 2) are you aware of a Wikipedian who might be interested in reviewing the article for GA. (I'd appreciate it if you would ping me in your response :)).
 * Yeah, the article looks cool now. Just a couple of small things I'd like to change, if you don't mind. I think your best bet for finding someone to review it would be to contact any of the users who are waiting for their own articles to be reviewed here, and ask them if they'd like to trade reviews with you. There's only really one other user I know of who'd be willing to review it for you, but I still owe them a favour from late last year, and I wouldn't feel good asking them without delivering on my end first. Sorry. Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:19, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much
I love getting thanked for my contributions. I put a lot of time and effort into them, and this motivates me to continue to contribute. Rock on. UnsungKing123 (talk) 22:11, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No, thank you. I'm expanding the Jill Valentine article right now, so that vandal/test IP edit would've caused me to get one of those "Your edit could not be saved due to conflicting intermediate edits", or whatever it says, which would've wasted 30 minutes of my life. But your undoing the edit fixed that. So thanks. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk) 22:16, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

New Manson article
I was wondering if you'd like to tag team another Manson article - preferably one we can build from the ground up.--MagicatthemovieS
 * What do you have in mind, ? I'm assuming Twins of Evil: The Second Coming Tour, but possibly "Revelation #12", "Saturnalia" and "JE$U$ CrI$I$"—all of which I believe decent-quality articles could be written for. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:30, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * When I say "the ground up" I mean an article like Rock Is Dead (Marilyn Manson song) that has very little info. I don't care which article you choose, so long as it's extant. Or who knows, we could clean up a big, messy article like The Beautiful People (song). Your choice.--MagicatthemovieS
 * I'm happy to work on whichever article you intended. "Rock Is Dead" is my favorite MA track, BTW. I was just dropping some massive hints with all my other suggestions. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Added all the charts I could find, and removed the Unreferenced tag. I'll sort out the Track listing section tomorrow. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:56, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I finished the critical reception section and added stuff to the background and composition sections. How about I finish the composition section while you finish the music video and background sections, the I'll write the lead. Does that sound fair?--MagicatthemovieS
 * Yeah, that does sound fair. Doable, on the other hand. =( I'm decent at writing prose after I've read and disseminated from a bunch of reliable sources, but I've not even checked for sources, let alone determined which ones are reliable. And as you can see, I barely did a hack job on Formats and track listings and Charts in the same time it took you to do all that good-quality work on Composition and Critical reception. I should be free to try and do this tomorrow night, but you should know by now that I don't work as fast as you do. ;) It may end up taking me a week or so to do that. Speaking of Critical reception, I found this in my quest of finding more chart positions—Billboard's original review of the track, which also goes some way to explaining why it was released via Maverick, and not Nothing/Interscope. Perhaps you could incorporate that somewhere? Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:01, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * We're in no rush =) Also, I clicked on the Billboard link and found the review of the song, but no info on why it was released through Maverick. Am I missing something?--MagicatthemovieS
 * Damn. It was this issue of Billboard that had details about Maverick/the song's release/potential follow-up, et cetera. Re-reading both this and the actual article, I doubt it'd be much use, though. Seemed a hell of a lot more substantial in my memory. I remember: seeing that article made me look up Baxter (Baxter (electronica band) album)—which I noticed was also released on Maverick. Then it finally clicked why those two Baxter songs appeared as b-sides on "Rock Is Dead". ;) Also, what do you make of the Formats and track listings section? I used the Tracklisting template because it was already there, but it looks a bit ridiculous to me. Would it be better to use a plain format, like the one used on I Don't Like the Drugs (But the Drugs Like Me)?
 * I have no strong feelings on the issue; do as you please--MagicatthemovieS
 * Perhaps you could find sources on the song's background & video, and then I could do the writing? I would've done it already myself if I could find such sources.--MagicatthemovieS
 * Sorry. I've tried to find sources for both sections, but have come up empty. Well, there's this source, which I know you're aware of (you added it to several articles; but I can't even access that site right now because it flashes a notification: "It looks like you've been blocked! If you're browsing from within the EU this is because we're still trying to make our website fully GDPR compliant.") Stumbled on this talking about Manson's cover of "Golden Years"... but other than that, I couldn't find anything even MA-related. I'll have a look again tomorrow (when hopefully I won't have to work 5 hours of f—ing overtime), but don't hold your breath. BTW, this is my talk page, so you don't have to ping me. I'll see your response from my Watchlist. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:08, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Here's my idea - in the background section, we can add more stuff about MA but not "Rock Is Dead" specifically. Then you can summarize the Music video section the way that it does on the page for "All in My Head (Flex)" (not necessarily as detailed, though). Does that sound like a good idea?--MagicatthemovieS
 * You'd probably have more of a chance of getting this to GA if the content of Background related to "Rock Is Dead", and not the album. Or do you not plan to bring this to GA? If so, then, yeah: we can do what we want... pretty much. ;) If we can't find content about the song's background (I don't remember ever reading Manson talking about this song specifically), then maybe you might be better off merging Background with Composition. And I wrote the synopsis section for "The Mephistopheles of Los Angeles", so that shouldn't be a problem. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:26, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * What are your thoughts on the current state of the Background section? Is it GA worthy? (At the very least, the Matrix section relates to the song specifically - I'd argue that the preceding paragraph does as well.)--MagicatthemovieS
 * The background section looks awesome. I'll be honest, I didn't really believe you'd ever be able to do it. I've just spent another hour or so looking for sources for either 'background' or the 'music video' sections, and couldn't find anything of any substance. The only thing of any use is this interview of him talking about performing RID at the 1999 MTV European Music Awards, but he doesn't even mention the song title. I suppose you could use it if you found another source confirming it was RID he performed. But I don't even know what section you could use it on. And I'll be able work on a synopsis for the music video in a couple of days. Homeostasis07 (talk) 19:04, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I have to admit, I'm struggling here. There's clearly no "Mephistopheles of Los Angeles"-level story in the Rock Is Dead video. You can direct-source a certain amount to the actual video, but what could that be for Rock Is Dead, aside from the basic "performance-based video... featuring band members Manson, Ramirez, Gacy, 5, Fish"? There is no story. And, being honest, I can't even find a halfway decent source confirming Samuel Bayer as the video's director. I'm officially stumped on this one. =( Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:22, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * According to this link http://bloody-disgusting.com/editorials/3344860/worst-best-music-videos-marilyn-manson/7/ MM directed the video. Maybe adapt the Bayer credit from God is in the T.V.. You can write a short synopsis of the video - describe the band's odd outfits. It doesn't have to be long. The GA for "You Must Love Me" barely mentions the song's video, as that video lacks a story line (or anything interesting).--MagicatthemovieS
 * Added what I could to the Music video section. You might want to re-arrange some of it. Homeostasis07 (talk) 21:34, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Good job. I don't think the section needs re-arranging. I'd include a sentence on how the song played over the end credits of The Matrix and how the video was included on the Matrix DVD. Also, if there's info out there on the track's certifications it would be useful to include in the article. I nominated the track for GA. Thanks for your help! =) P.S. Do you know of someone who might like to review the article?--MagicatthemovieS
 * Done. The single doesn't appear to have been certified anywhere. Good luck with the nomination. ;) And, sorry, but I haven't really been involved with good articles in nearly 2 years now. I don't know anyone currently involved in reviewing articles. Homeostasis07 (talk) 22:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd greatly appreciate it if you archived the links in the "Rock Is Dead" article. Thanks so much!--MagicatthemovieS

Roxette Baladas En Español
Hi friend!i'm new in edit wikipedia. I edit with real data it was published in October, I remember it perfectly, I bought the album in October, I have the ticket It also appears in the sales lists in the final week of October. It is wrong both on the Roxette page and on other sites. It was published in OCTOBER. this album exists Spanish announcement with the exact day and month as I have edited I also have a ticket and the announcement in which the return of Roxette was promoted with a specific date. https://www.qobuz.com/gb-en/album/baladas-en-espanol-roxette/0724385441455 https://musicbrainz.org/release-group/71ffdcc7-8c2e-3121-a1fd-15a69b6060d6 http://afyvecharts.blogspot.com/2007/08/1996-albumes-2-parte.html Thank you. Nayriel (talk) 04:27, 8 June 2018 (UTC)Nayriel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nayriel (talk • contribs) 04:24, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi. Welcome to Wikipedia. Thanks for the sources: the Qobuz and chart sources confirm the album was released on October 21, 1996. I'm happy to add that to the article now. But, also, this edit: please know that in Spanish, only the first word and a proper noun in a title is capitalised. Happy editing! ;) Homeostasis07 (talk) 19:10, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks friend My English is basic. What to capitalize is the title, it is coherent to put each word in capital letters when it comes to a title, it is like a "name" and then it is usually abbreviated. Song titles, movie titles usually go the first letter in uppercase. Then tell you otherwise, 'Have A Nice Day' was officially released on February 22, not the 17th. There is the announcement in several countries saying something like "Roxette returns on 02/22/1999" and the ad was the cover from the album — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nayriel (talk • contribs) 17:39, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi again Yes, it is common in many languages to capitalise (almost) every word of a title. But not in Spanish, or Swedish. Please see this. Also, Have a Nice Day was released in Europe on February 22, but it was released in Japan on February 17. The earliest release should always be used. Cheers. Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:00, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi friend Homeostasis07# The earliest release should always be used????????? then there are Roxette albums that were released in Japan much later and the first release and / or the global launch is counted. En todo caso se debería especificar fechas según países, todas las fechas, pero su regreso oficial a finales de los años 90 y en mayoría de países fue editado el 22 de febrero de 1999. The logical thing to do is to count the first date, which is when the album is released, the date when it is already surprising, the first date is always where it is published in more countries and the first date is when the Roxette itself announces it, the same Roxette are those who say the date of departure and their manager, it is logical to respect the date they say their own authors. I'm Spanish. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nayriel (talk • contribs) 17:11, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * ¡Hola! Gracias por responder. No me importa mucho qué fecha se usa en Have a Nice Day. Sé que debe parecer extraño, pero entiendo que la fecha más temprana debe usarse en todas las páginas. Pero las reglas no me importan mucho. Quiero mejorar todos los artículos de Roxette para todos. =) Podemos eliminar la fecha japonesa por completo, si lo desea. Disculpas por mi español. Soy irlandés. Mi español es igual que un niño de 6 años. :( Homeostasis07 (talk) 22:46, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Hola Homeostasis07 jajajaja, tu Español es muy bueno, y oh Irlanda! (es preciosa) Es que la fecha de editado que cuenta, es la primera que es cuando la "sorpresa" es liberada. Además en muchos album la primera fecha es la Mundial o la primera fecha es dónde se edita en más mercados. No se trata de reglas, sino que intentemos poner datos oficiales y reales (dentro de lo posible claro). Es que yo leo muchas cosas en wikipedia que no tienen nada que ver con lo realidad (sobre Nintendo, sobre Roxette) Cuando me he decidido a editar en wikipedia es porque escribo datos oficiales y reales (aunque a veces incluso la web oficial de algo también puede estar equivocada) Yo suelo contrastar con la web oficial, con los datos en entrevistas sobre los propios artistas y con mi memoria o mis datos, en el ejemplo de 'Baladas En Español' es que me acuerdo perfectamente porque además ocurrieron cosas en esas fechas en mi vida, y tener el ticket, y con 'Have A Nice Day' existe el anuncio, el ticket de compra y además también ocurrieron situaciones que relaciono y por eso me acuerdo. Eres muy amable, pero también eres muy cabezota jajajaja (lo digo con cariño) corrigiendo todo lo que edito jajajaja. Saludos :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nayriel (talk • contribs) 22:10, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * ¿Cabezota? ¿Yo? Sí, he sido etiquetado así antes. No quiero serlo, pero lo soy. ;) Prefiero usar la fecha más común primero, pero los usuarios de Wikipedia me han dicho lo contrario. Es por eso que lo hago, aunque no estoy de acuerdo. Particularmente para álbumes extraños como Have a Nice Day: "Wish I Could Fly" fue lanzado más tarde en Inglaterra que en cualquier otro lugar / "Anyone" no lanzado en algunos países en absoluto / "Pay the Price" no lanzado en cualquier lugar excepto Japón / "Stars" tenía una extraña liberación también. Hay muchas razones para las excepciones. Como dije, no me importa mucho la fecha. Escribí (casi) todo el artículo. La fecha no me molesta. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk) 22:52, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Querido amigo, es que 'Have A Nice Day' no se editó antes en Japón, normalmente en Japón lo publican después y con temas bonus extra. O en algunas ocasiones en Japón han podido editar algo antes pero promocionalmente. 'Anyone' era la gran apuesta de EMI y Roxette para ser single y de primera idea era lanzarlo mundialmente, pero viendo que tenía poca repercusión omitieron paísea. 'Pay The Price' sí fué single (sin video) en Japón. 'Stars' tuvo éxito, pero muy poca promoción, y no fué un single de liberación extraña (al menos lo que yo sé). Inglaterra es un mercado difícil para artistas no anglosajones. Roxette podría haber vendido mucho más, y podría haber tenido mejores posiciones en las listas de singles si hubieran promocionado en condiciones. Yo sabía de singles y discos editados por buscar mucho, sino no hubiera sabido hasta encontrarme con sorpresa en las tiendas de música. Hoy en día con internet es más fácil saber, pero si en radios y más promoción para Roxette les hubiera ido mejor. 'Anyone' recuerdo que me enfadé que fuera single, por que yo era un adolescente y pensé en "otra balada?" ahora me arrepiento. Es una gran balada, soy amante de las baladas me gustan más. 'Touched By The Hand Of God' yo la hubiera compuesto sobre todo para Marie y plan balada.'Have A Nice Day' es uno de sus mejores album, es potente y moderno, y es su último album con ventas millonarias. Gracias. Saludos

@Homeostasis07: Amigo, ¿Tú sabrías poner datos de ventas? Yo sé los millones de discos vendidos hasta 'Have A Nice Day', más o menos, pero estaría bien saber cuántos han vendido de 'Charm School' que creo son 700.000 o 1 millón (que está considerado en los charts como un album de regreso de mucho éxito, pero en ventas me parecen pocas ventas), saber cuánto de 'Travelling', y sobre todo cuántas ventas de 'Good Karma' (que este tuvo promoción en youtube incluso, y además en muchos charts de países que hacía años que Roxette no vendía, según los charts parece un album con muchísimo éxito, ya que entró en las listas de ventas de muchos países, y volvió a las listas de ventas de países en los que hacía años y años que no estaban). Gracias. Saludos — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nayriel (talk • contribs) 15:07, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey. Perdóname por no haber respondido antes de ahora. Vi tu mensaje, pero otras cosas me distrajeron, luego me olvidé de ti. =( De todos modos, debes ser muy cuidadoso al agregar ventas de álbumes a Wikipedia. He visto a muchas personas excluidas del sitio porque no incluyeron un "reliable source" con su información. Las ventas del álbum en Roxette discography fueron las únicas ventas de álbumes que pude encontrar. Si puedes encontrar ventas para álbumes recientes, según "reliable sources" (Billboard, Yahoo! Music, hell, even Swedish newspapers como Aftonbladet o Göteborgs-Posten), me encantaría agregar ventas para usted. =) Saludos. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:27, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * ^ Only realised after I posted it that I said "sales" or "album sales" literally 6 times. The silly things you do when writing in another language. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:30, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The Innocence Mission - Pioneering.ogg
Thanks for uploading File:The Innocence Mission - Pioneering.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) 17:21, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Born Villain (film)
I'm trying to get the article Born Villain (film) to GA...would you like to divide up the work? You could write the plot synopsis as I complete the critical reception section. MagicatthemovieS (talk) 04:52, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I'm not gonna be able to help you on this one. Between my non-Manson projects, I've been working on "Cry Little Sister". But I've also noticed that Personal Jesus was pretty much decimated last year, for no good reason, so that's my next priority. And when I start editing "Personal Jesus", I'm expecting the users who decimated that article to vindictively turn up at Sweet Dreams (Are Made of This), citing the same "problems". There's a battle to be had there. So... I'm probably gonna be busy for the next 2 to 3 months. =( Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:58, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand. Quick question- do you think the "Background and development" section of Born Villain (film) looks good now?--MagicatthemovieS
 * Yeah, the Background and development section looked fine to me, Sorry about the failed Good Article nomination, though. I'm sure once you're actually finished with the article, Aoba47 will have no problems reviewing it again. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk) 22:22, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Aoba47 is taking a long break from Wikipedia. The last 11 articles I got to GA weren't reviewed by you - would you be willing to review the Born Villain article once I fix it?--MagicatthemovieS MagicatthemovieS (talk) 20:12, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Ordinarily I would (since I owe GA 4 reviews anyway), but see this: "To review an article you must: Not... have made significant contributions to the article prior to the review". And I'm actually #4 in the article's list of "Top 10 Users by added text" of all time, so it probably wouldn't be a good idea for me to review this one. Let me know what your next nomination is though, and I'd happily review it. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk) 22:48, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Re Valentine FAC
Hi. I do remember it now. But since the whole thing with the user currently known as SNAAAAKE!!, I've distanced myself from RE-related articles. Having read through it, I don't see why it should become an FA. When the time comes to renominate it, please contact me and I'll happily add my voice and any comments I might have then. --ProtoDrake (talk) 08:08, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks I'll ping you when I renominate (probably early September). Homeostasis07 (talk) 17:20, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Finetooth
Hi Homeostasis07. I'm largely inactive on Wikipedia this year, and I won't be taking part in the Jill Valentine reviewing or the proposed FAC. Best of luck. Finetooth (talk) 15:08, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No worries Thanks for letting me know. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk) 17:21, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Tintor2

 * Hi. I'll see if I can assist these weekend as it's a bit late here. If possible, could you review Lady (Devil May Cry) which I recently nominated? Also, talking about Resident Evil characters, shouldn't Leon and Claire's articles be given new images based on the remake? Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 01:07, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I can review Lady for you. Might be the end of next week before I can get to it, though, so if you find someone else willing to jump on it in the meantime, let me know. ;) And I'll try to find updated images for Leon and Claire (I didn't upload the JV image, though). Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:40, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Well, the feedback I have is:


 * Is the table of games needed if the prose states each year?
 * That table has been there since the last peer review. I don't really see the need for it myself, since every game of note is mentioned in prose, and those mobile games are almost exclusively godawful. I think removing it might cause some problems down the line with other editors, though.


 * The Nemesis picture for some reason has no relevance to be used. I would advise give it a bigger approach in regards to why is the image needed for the article.
 * I've flipped the latter two images around (now the image showing Voth cosplaying illustrates the paragraph detailing how Valentine's appearance has been based on Voth, and the RE3/Sienna Guillory image illustrates the paragraphs detailing the costume's critical reception/usage in the film. I think this sorts out both this and your last point.


 * The comics could be explored in other appearances.
 * Done.


 * The first paragraph of appearances feels a bit out of place.
 * I added this later based on comments made at the peer review, from a user who admittedly knows a lot more about literary than video game characters. They wanted the setting introduced first, and then "narrowing down to the [JV] specific details". I'm sure there's a way for it to be done right, but I'll have another go in a couple of days.

I hope it becomes FA. Cheers,Tintor2 (talk) 01:16, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The reception seems nice though the cosplayer image might need a bigger relevance to be included.


 * Thanks for the response, I've done most of this. I hope you don't mind if I respond beneath each point. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:40, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

bridies
I'll just stick my response to your pin here, under a convenient Jill Valentine title. Yeah, I remember. I probably wouldn't (and definitely wouldn't promise to) participate in an FAC, in terms of giving a qualified yeah or nay. But I'd definitely say that the issues that jumped out the first time seem way better handled now. The pic at the top has the original costume (and the later, better, and has it happens, curvier; which I think is about the best balance you could for a between both get in terms of what goes at the top of the article). Some reference to the original ideas and development (I think sticking the quote from 15 years later about being against sexual objectification might actually tip it towards recent-ism and yells that the article isn't going to be all about sex appeal; just where the quote is placed, rather than the quote itself. I'm not sure though, and am not going to make it a point of contention). There's some context about the second game and her being absent from it; maybe it was always there and I didn't catch the need for it at the time: it occurred to me later that your point about the game coming out of nowhere, critically, and that the (real world) character development wouldn't get any kind of attention until the sequel(s) and establishment of a prolific franchise didn't look good to some when you were talking about going to the third game as the farthest back sequel. The reason for that was obviously that she didn't appear in the second game; but it's only obvious if one knows the games (but not obvious to someone who doesn't know the games. Obviously. I mean you'd think.). The other think I wondered about was that there is something relevant to the gameplay, which is kind of there in between the lines of the next quote: Jill is the tech person, right (explosives and lockpicking are mentioned; though along with firearms)? Chris was more Rambo type, which doesn't go very far in a game like this, but he could take a bit more damage; while Jill could take shortcuts if the player could puzzle them out (the piano piece that opens a secret door when played; but is only viable in the Jill arc because Chris can't play piano. And then they flipped things in the sequel with Clair/Clare being the riding-into-town-on-a-motorbike character, and Leon being the naive guy in a uniform). I'm nitpicking and going off on a tangent there (and if you used strategy guides, it might be original research and all that). Anyway, bottom line is the issues I had seem to be taken care of as far as they can (IIRC you were waiting on old print reviews, Japanese reviews, etc. when the last FAC was closed. So again I don't really have the time to wonder about whether that's an issue that's been taken care of as far as is possible, one way or another). I guess you could just link this diff if it (not getting old reviewers back) becomes an issue again. Sorry for the block of text.... bridies (talk) 16:20, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I like the block of text, It's very Kafkaesque (literally). ;) BTW, I'm a relatively new editor of the article (the user you interacted with before was, who was pretty much driven away from the article and wants nothing more to do with it). I read every prior FAC and peer review, so I know exactly what you're talking about, though. I get your point about recent-ism, but the quote from Mikami is where it is to do pretty much exactly what you said (that the article won't be "all about sex appeal", which was a big problem for certain editors in the past). Hmm... and I like what you say here about Jill being technically proficient and therefore suitable to the situation/Chris being a Rambo figure not particularly cut out for the environment. As you say, it's basically there in the article already ("between the lines"), but I'll try and find a reliable source online describing it properly and include it on the article, because it's a good point worth explicitly mentioning. If I can't find an online source, Freikorp sent me scans of all his offline sources prior to me working on the article, so I'll hopefully find something along those lines in there, if I can't find it online. Thanks for your thoughts. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:40, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the lack of reply on this: I got pretty ill for a bit starting around then (I think that big post up there was just literally a bit feverish... as you noted I overlooked the fact you are not Freikorp, lol). There may be some thoughts up there of use, but otherwise it's just speculative thinking out loud. I'd again just reiterate that it, at a minimum, looks in much better shape than when I saw it at FAC. Whether it can pass FAC (not sure if you've taken it there yet) is anyone's guess, FAC being what it is even without the gender politics minefield. Good luck anyway. bridies (talk) 16:37, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No problem I hope you're feeling better. ;) I'm still working on the article with another user (via its talk page), so it's not gone to FAC yet. I guess we'll see how it goes. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:56, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

The Great God Pan
My next nomination is the article for the horror novella The Great God Pan. Thanks for being so awesome and helpful! MagicatthemovieS (talk) 23:37, 11 August 2018 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS
 * This might take me a while For one, I've never reviewed a literary article before, so I'd need to read all this before reviewing The Great God Pan. Straight away, though, I don't see a single source in 'Synopsis', and you need to merge the single-sentence paragraphs in 'Adaptations' and 'Legacy'. It's definitely an interesting article worthy of GA, it just needs a bit of tightening up. Let me know when you're ready. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:39, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "Synopsis" sections of film or book articles do not need sources. Also, I modeled the Legacy section off of the similar section on the GA for The Narrative of Arthur Gordon Pym of Nantucket. The article is ready. Thanks for your concerns! Also, another editor has agreed to review the article, so I will take a rain check on your offer to review one of my articles. Thanks so much! MagicatthemovieS (talk) 00:52, 12 August 2018 (UTC) MagicatthemovieS
 * I understand, I really am not familiar with articles for novels/novellas. Let me know when you want another artist/band/album/song article reviewed. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:39, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Jill Valentine and Claire Redfield
Could jill image be replaced? I've seen some images on fandom On Jill that could be better and seen some for Claire either but not a white background. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.148.237.167 (talk) 11:19, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

A Simple Request
I got the article The Great God Pan to GA status and I would be so thankful if you would archive its sources.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 20:13, 21 August 2018 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

"Colors of the Wind"
I just nominated the song "Colors of the Wind" for GA and would be thankful if you would review it.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 23:31, 23 August 2018 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS
 * Damn. I had spent the past two hours reading the article and checking sources, when I noticed that someone else had jumped to review it. Maybe the next one, (You should know by now that it takes me a couple of days to have enough free time on my hands to review an article, so maybe give me a few days notice before your next nomination?) Homeostasis07 (talk) 21:22, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the inconvenience.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 21:45, 24 August 2018 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS
 * I wasn't bitchin'... just sayin', is all. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk) 21:45, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I you have any interest in doing so, you can jump in on the review. Also, you are awesome.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 13:25, 25 August 2018 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS
 * Thanks. ;) But Cartoon network freak has probably already begun his review (reading it, taking notes, etc.), so it's not a good idea for me to step on their toes. Homeostasis07 (talk) 19:03, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Damn, I'm sorry you've been left waiting this long. I'd do the review myself at this point, but I'm not entirely sure of the procedure for this situation: I'm just assuming I'd need to leave a message on Cartoon Network Freak's talk page, asking them to recuse themselves. I'm not sure that's the "proper" procedure, though. But If they don't start the review in the next 48 hours, I'll do it myself. ;) Homeostasis 02:21, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

A note
I saw your comment on Aoba47's talk page, and just wanted to leave you a note to say that I'd be very sorry to see you stop editing here, regardless of how things go with JV. I haven't followed that epic so can't comment, but this is a place where even the best-intentioned processes crash and burn on occasion. I hope that it goes well, of course, but if it doesn't, that doesn't mean the rest of Wikipedia is worthless. I remember the review of Pale Emperor as a very productive interaction; I hope we have more in the future. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:46, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks I'd like to say I was being dramatic on Aoba47's talk, but... yeah, that was pretty much the gist of it. I might edit album articles every now and then (2/3 years) for the indie bands/artists I love, but everyone else could pretty much fend for themselves. I know it's a long shot, but there wouldn't be any chance you [an FAC regular] would be interested in reviewing JV next time around, would there? A lot of the people I'm contacting have been saying that they've run scared from the article, but I have a feeling quite a few of them might pop their heads in at FAC4, just for the fun of throwing a few hand grenades around and seeing what happens. Having someone like you there might curtail some of that ugliness. That's a long shot, though, so I'd understand if you don't need the headache. Just thought I'd give it a try. ;) Cheers. Homeostasis07 (talk) 14:27, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd be willing to participate. I should probably read through the old FACs first, though.  What state are things in now?  Is it ready to nominate again, in your view, or is there work to do to address issues that were raised?  Is anyone else actively involved with the article? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 14:46, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Wow That was unexpected. I was thinking more along the lines of you reading the article as it is now and reviewing it at the next FAC. ;) I hope I've not guilted you into doing something you don't wanna do. Of course, you're free to read everything for yourself, or I'd happily provide you with a cheat sheet (I've read every prior PR review and FAC several times at this point). The current state of things: I've been working on JV since April, re-reading every FAC and PR and trying to incorporate as many of those suggestions/ideas/comments as I could. I thought I did a good job of [independently] doing that, but FAC3 was closed back in June because I hadn't contacted previous commentators, which is what I've been doing since then: verbatim transcript of conversations I've had with all 21 of those "previous commentators".I'm currently waiting on two users [of those 21] to get back to me with their comments—hope you don't mind if I ping them here ( and  because they expressed genuine interest in looking at the article, but it seems they've forgotten about the messages I left on their talk pages a week ago). I'm happy with JV as it is now, but will work on any issues they might raise before renominating (even if they don't want to get involved in FAC4). I'm hoping to renominate @FAC by the end of the week. Homeostasis07 (talk) 22:52, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, sorry, I did forget. I’ll look at it tomorrow. Sergecross73   msg me  23:24, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Homeostasis07, I read through (most of) the transcript you linked to, and I'm afraid I don't find it encouraging. It's not a good sign that Sarah and Ealdgyth did not respond, and the conversations with Czar, Niwi3, and Victoria are also worrying.  Without even having looked at the article yet, I think another FAC would not go well.
 * You've certainly reached out to the previous FAC commenters, but I think the implied request was "reach out to those commenters and work with them until you have a consensus that the article is featured quality", and that's not the case yet. I think the most I could offer at this point would be to leave a note for Sarah and Ealdgyth asking them what they think the right path forward would be.  They might not reply to me, either, of course. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 01:01, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No, the conversation with Czar did not go well... in the sense that he accused me of being a paid advocate, then vandalised the article, and then threw a fit when I called him on his vandalism. The conversation with Niwi3 was actually incredibly productive—if you read it to the end, you'd see that we ended up collaborating quite well. Ditto the conversation with Victoria, minus her point that I include character details from the novels which aren't discernible from either the games/films. The fact that  or  never responded to any of my messages... that's their business; I can't be held responsible for them ignoring me altogether for several weeks and having a bot archive my messages without response. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:31, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm going to withdraw my offer to participate. I don't think another nomination is likely to succeed without the active involvement of editors who have opposed in the past.  That's not always true of failed FACs, but I suspect it will be the case here.  I'm not denigrating the work you've done on the article, and for all I know you've resolved every outstanding issue, but I think a collaborative approach to this would have the most chance of success.  Good luck with it, anyway; I hope I'm wrong. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 10:31, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks I don't know if you were genuine in your offer of approaching SlimVirgin and Ealdgyth, but if you could message them briefly, I'd appreciate it. Like I said, I already tried, without success. Maybe my interaction with Czar scared them off (I doubt they saw it though), or maybe they just don't wanna be involved anymore. If it's the former, mea culpa; if the latter, then it's not really fair to hold the article back on the basis of outdated criticism which I've already made a good-faith effort in addressing. Homeostasis07 (talk) 11:51, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I was sincere, but as you've pinged them they can see this thread and follow up if they wish -- and in fact Ealdgyth has commented at my talk page. To your other points: I'm not saying that anyone is at fault, just that for highly contentious articles it's best to approach them with as much consensus from all contributors as possible, and for whatever reason that's not what's happened here.  That's why I'm pessimistic.  Anyway, best of luck. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 01:53, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delayed response, two 18-hour shifts in a row. But Ealdgyth responded below as well, and doesn't want to be involved again, for reasons I completely understand. I don't know what impression of me you've been left with, but I genuinely have tried to approach this entire project with the aim of achieving "as much consensus from all contributors as possible". It was the five opposing editors I contacted first: two of whom responded, although one of them has since retired from Wikipedia altogether on health grounds and won't participate at FAC4; two others never responded (Ealdgyth being one of them, she explained why below); as for what happened with Czar... let's call that a "personality clash", which I hope to rectify in the near future.I'd like to point out now, to everyone – specifically  (considering what she said on your talk page, Mike) – that I'd ideally be free to re-write Jill Valentine from scratch and have new reviewers judge it based on FA criteria alone, without the "drama"/conflict of the previous FACs. But the way FAC3 was closed suggested I could never renominate without asking for everyone's opinion, which is why I've gone about this project the way I have. And although it would be nice to have contributions from every previous commenter – positive or negative – I, obviously, can't demand time from either the 2 opposing users, or the 7 supporting users who also didn't respond. I can only do what I can do... nothing more. Homeostasis07 (talk) 22:26, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the follow up note. Well, my impression is that you're genuinely doing your best to resolve all the issues, in good faith.  The interaction with Czar does concern me, as did the request from Victoria for you to strike a comment that you did not strike.  I'm not assigning blame in either case, just saying disagreements with the prior reviewers are not a good look going into another FAC.  I think, in your shoes, I might have started with a talk page or PR discussion prior to any editing, and I would have tried to get piecemeal improvements done with consensus built on the way.  I would have made getting consensus higher priority than fixing the problems, because I wouldn't have known whether my fixes were fixes if they weren't accompanied by consensus.  As a couple of people have said, there's no obligation on the part of reviewers to help fix the article, but without active participation by some of the commenters, such as Sarah, the rewrite is almost bound to run into difficulties once you get back to FAC.  That leaves you in a very difficult position that is not your fault (I'm remaining agnostic on the question of whether a different approach on your part could have avoided the personality conflict you mentioned).  When I offered to contact Sarah or Ealdgyth, it was because I felt the best way to help the article reach featured status was to engage two very strong editors who raised issues at the last FAC.  I have a long-standing good relationship with Ealdgyth, and have worked with Sarah slightly on a couple of things, and I was willing to try to use that relationship to at least understand why they did not respond.  Ealdgyth has responded and it doesn't look like Sarah will, and so you're no better off.  Hence my conclusion: for whatever reason, the latest round of work was done without the active involvement of key editors.  That makes me very pessimistic.
 * I hope that clarifies it -- I've tried to frame this without assigning blame anywhere, but the circumstances are not good for another FAC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:29, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice No offence, but another peer review clearly isn't the way to go for this article. The last one was closed in frustration after 8 weeks, primarily as a result of... ah, never mind. I noticed on your response to Ealdgyth on your talk page that you said you haven't read the last peer review. It's obviously still there for you to read, if you want to. The take home: the previous custodian hasn't edited the article ever since, and pretty much told me to, umm... 'go away', when I e-mailed him about collaborating. This topic is heated on all sides, so it's no wonder so many decided to stay away and/or were reluctant to get involved. I chose to go one-to-one in the hope of avoiding a repeat of the nastiness, and striking a balance between both sides. Anyway, that's pretty much all I want to say on this aspect of the article, at least publicly. Feel free to e-mail me if you want to talk more... succinctly. Again, cheers for the advice. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:12, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

HS07: Sorry, I've been horrible at following up my original edits, because all I'm doing is unnecessarily dragging this out. I've been fairly inactive on Wiki over the past couple months. I will resume my go-over of the article and make any additional tweaks if needed. sixty nine  • whaddya want? •  01:12, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks and  Take all the time you guys need. Despite what Mike is saying here, this is still something I'd like to get done. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:31, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep prodding me if I forget, I won’t get upset, I promise. My editing time has been more limited than previously, and my time here keeps on getting tied up in admin duties, or my own pet projects. Sergecross73   msg me  01:36, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I just read it over. I no longer personally have any objections to it. I think things are generally handled pretty well. My only change I'd suggest is more of a personal pet-peeve - to remove where it says a game is "canon" on the game appearances timeline. I generally feel mentioning which entries are "canon" is more of a fansite thing than a encyclopedic topic, and generally leads to arguments erupting over it too. I totally get it when its some narrative-heavy franchise article or something, but I don't think it's really worth mentioning in the context of a character article like this. Just my two cents - if you disagree, feel free to leave it in, I won't make a stink about it. Sergecross73   msg me  12:51, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks I've removed all the (canon)'s from the box. You're actually the 2nd person to mention that Table/Timeline (the other being Tintor2, above). The box was added during PR2, at a time when there wasn't anything else to illustrate the article. There are 3 images now though, so I'm verging on the point of removing the table entirely (I never have the heart to remove someone else's work, so I probably won't). Cheers for the feedback. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:46, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I can tell you that the most important reason I didn't reply was my own major issues with trying to move, having sick in-laws, a husband needing surgery early this year, more sick in-laws, still trying to move, sick friends with no relatives who are in ICU and thus leaving me to deal with having the medical power of attorney, plus my own off-wiki attempts to actually research my own books and articles plus helping others in my field with research and data. I don't control what the FAC coords do - it isn't my fault that they want you to get me to do something I have repeatedly told people on wiki that I just don't necessarily have time for. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:16, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding, And sorry to hear all this. I hope the rest of 2018 and the next few years are more peaceful for you and all your loved ones. I have to say, though, that your reputation precedes you... multiple users have mentioned you by name at every stage of this project (i.e., you're the first thought that comes to their minds when it comes to source reviews). To be honest though, Jill Valentine has come a long way since FAC1 back in July 2017, and I'm confident and more than prepared to stand by the reference quality of the article as it is now; I think even the most pessimistic of source reviewers could look at JV and not see a problem (either with source quality or with statements in the article being attributed to those sources). So, with the greatest of respect, I think it's OK for you to sit this one out. ;) Of course, you're free to peruse the references at your own leisure to see if there's something you don't like. I'd appreciate any feedback you may have, but completely understand if you don't have time (and I hope you won't mind if I use a diff. of your message above to explain your absence to FAC coords during FAC4). Regards, Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:46, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

The Hills Have Eyes
I was wondering if you would like to review and/or archive the links for an article I nominated for GA: The Hills Have Eyes. Thanks!MagicatthemovieS (talk) 17:09, 3 October 2018 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS
 * Sorry man, I have 3 different Wikipedia projects up in the air at the moment. And between Wikipedia and my real life, I don't necessarily have enough time for those 3 other projects, let alone any additional reviews. Look on the bright side, though: my nomination of Portrait of an American Family has been waiting for a review since June... I'm sure you won't be waiting that long. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk) 02:13, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Would you be so kind as to archive the links for the article?MagicatthemovieS (talk) 04:10, 12 October 2018 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS
 * Done. And congratulations on yet another good article. What are you up to now... 40? You're one hell of an editor. ;) And a belated congratulations on getting The Great God Pan to good status. The progression of that whole thing was a curious affair: I've just noticed the reviewer being congratulated on their talk page, but none of those users said a word to you. As the author, you definitely deserved a lot more of the kudos. I doubt that article would've appeared on the main page were it not for your work. So, again, well done. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk) 22:59, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Trish (Devil May Cry)
Hello. I don't know if you are interested but I've been planning to nominate Trish (Devil May Cry) since it had two major copyedits. Is there any issue you find there that might be a big obstacle for the article? Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 00:04, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll try to take a look tomorrow, I'm still working on Jill Valentine so I'm pretty tied up. But I can give a few general tips. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:31, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I've just gone through Trish's article and did what I could. Feel free to change anything you don't like. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:51, 11 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot. The article now got three copyedits. I'll nominate it.Tintor2 (talk) 23:53, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Born Villain
I recently re-nominated the horror film Born Villain for GA just in time for Halloween. Would you like to review it, or are you still very busy? MagicatthemovieS (talk) 23:03, 22 October 2018 (UTC)MagicathemovieS
 * I'm still fairly busy, but there's a definite lull. I'd be happy to review this. I've already started taking notes, and may be able to post my review tomorrow. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:35, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

"Bad Girl"
I nominated the Manson duet "Bad Girl" for GA; would you archive its links? Thanks so much!MagicatthemovieS (talk) 23:03, 30 October 2018 (UTC)MagicathemovieS
 * The bot isn't working right now. I'll try again later. Homeostasis07 (talk) 19:36, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Done. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk) 02:13, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Elton John
Hi Homeostasis07, I'm thinking of getting the article for Elton John to GA status; would you be willing to review it once I nominate it?MagicatthemovieS (talk) 18:51, 9 November 2018 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS
 * Sorry, but I wouldn't have time for a project that big. Good luck with the nomination, though. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:26, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

"Running to the Edge of the World"
I was wondering if you might like to tag team the "Running to the Edge of the World" article; I can tackle the section on the video and the song's critical reception, you can tackle the composition section and maybe add a background section. Does that sound good to you?MagicatthemovieS (talk) 23:18, 27 November 2018 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS
 * Sorry Magic. I'm in the thick of it with my own projects at the moment. I might be able to get to this in a couple of weeks, if you don't mind waiting until then. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:42, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Email
Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 10:37, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I saw your e-mail, but decided against replying to it. Mainly because I found it incredibly difficult to believe that someone associated with McFarland "happened to stumble upon" that conversation at Czar's talk page, especially since searching for variants of your username revealed you'd never edited the page before. Shortly after, I received a further two e-mails about my conversation with Czar [one of which was incredibly nasty], so I took the decision to disable off-site communication altogether. I won't be HARANGUED by multiple users in multiple venues. I've made it perfectly clear that I'll take action against this nastiness when I feel it's appropriate to do so (i.e., when I genuinely feel like something can actually done about it). That action will be at my behest... no one else's. Homeostasis07 (talk) 02:39, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Another editor pointed me towards the discussion since it mentioned a potentially concerning issue with The Wikipedia Library, one that I'd like to take seriously. I completely appreciate you wanting to take action on your own terms, but the implication of your accusations is that someone involved in TWL is acting in contravention of the NDA they signed, I'd therefore appreciate it if you could provide me with further information. If there genuinely is some nefarious and threatening activity happening, I can stop it happening again.
 * Also, for the record, I have edited that page before, from my volunteer account. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 10:30, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

"Talkin' John Birch Paranoid Blues"
I just nominated the article for an obscure, but interesting, Bob Dylan called "Talkin' John Birch Paranoid Blues" for GA; the article is short. Would you like to review it for GA?MagicatthemovieS (talk) 17:57, 19 December 2018 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS
 * I see Drown Soda has already agreed to review. I wouldn't be up for reviewing anything until after the new year, so it's probably best if DS does it. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:29, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The review has been finished; would you kindly archive its links?MagicatthemovieS (talk) 01:26, 20 December 2018 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

Xmas

 * 2018 XMAS.pdf FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:55, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Help with FAC

 * Hello again! I was wondering if you could help me with my current FAC? I understand if you do not have time or are not interested though; just wanted to ask. Have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 23:41, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Definitely! Might be nice to contribute to something that has a hope of passing. ;) I was one of those saps who had to work all through Xmas, but the added benefit of doing that means I'm not back in work until January 7. So lots of free time between now and then. I most definitely won't be online during New Year's, but I'll review either before then or shortly after. Cheers. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:06, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I hope you have a great break from work and a wonderful New Year's! Aoba47 (talk) 01:16, 29 December 2018 (UTC)