Οἶδα

Thanks for creating Little Dark Age Tour.

User:Willsome429 while examining this page as a part of our page curation process had the following comments:

Thank you for making a well-sourced page.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Willsome429}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 16:15, 22 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

• @Willsome429: Thanks! Do you think you could also review this page: Quichotte (novel). I grieve in stereo (talk) 18:17, 28 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for putting this in the wrong section before. My computer is in the shop and I am having trouble editing on my phone. Why did you change the name of the article and move it? Lilipo25 (talk) 02:54, 7 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

• @Lilipo25: I moved the page because there's no other work that shares the title "The Day That Went Missing", so there's no need to add the book's subtitle to the article's title. see WP:BOOKS. I grieve in stereo (talk) 18:00, 7 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 14 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Columbiahalle. Since you had some involvement with the Columbiahalle redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:50, 20 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your recent articles, including Drive Your Plow Over the Bones of the Dead, which I read with interest. When you create an extensive and well referenced article, you may want to have it featured on Wikipedia's main page in the Did You Know section. Articles included there will be read by thousands of our viewers. To do so, add your article to the list at T:TDYK. Let me know if you need help, _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:38, 25 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for letting me know! I grieve in stereo (talk) 05:42, 25 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your edits to Doxology! - Mainly 19:32, 29 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Of course! I grieve in stereo (talk) 19:44, 29 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

I didn't realize how long you'd been editing when I left that message. Your work is great and I hope you stick around! Please let me know if there's anything I can ever do to help you as you continue to contribute. — Mainly 20:07, 1 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Will do! Thanks for the appreciation. I grieve in stereo (talk) 20:16, 1 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited War on Peace, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Audible (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:27, 15 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the WP:User box. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:02, 8 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Frankissstein, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Britain (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:47, 14 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I grieve in stereo. I think your removal of the OCLC number is most unfortunate. I will have to review the discussion that led to the documentation note that an OCLC number is only to be used in the absence of an ISBN. If I cannot find a sufficient reason, I will change the template documentation.

Consider:

• The OCLC that your removed led to a catalog record that lists several sources of ebooks & a free preview. ISBNs rarely do this, unless they are specifically for an ebook.
• Each OCLC catalog record usally contains a link to out editions or formats. Not so for an ISBN, which drives readers to a single edition. This is truly a diservice when an ISBN is for a reprint.
• Most people, when they get an ISBN, think of going to Amazon to get a book. Most libraries are free, & align with Wikipedia's purpose of freely providing knowledge. As Jimmy Wales put it: Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge.

Please be mindful of this, & click on through to see the value of OCLC & other links before you remove them. Also remember WP:5P5.

Peaceray (talk) 05:27, 7 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your message, @Peaceray: I appreciate your thoughts on this matter and your effort to make the Wiki experience better for its readers. I understand WP:5P5 but the template's guidance is worded in a way that gave me the impression that the OCLC parameter is redundant to the ISBN. I hope the infobox template can be fixed to reflect otherwise. I will remember to include and not remove OCLC in the future. Thank you. I grieve in stereo (talk) 06:08, 7 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 26 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

User:Clovermoss submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

I nominate I grieve in stereo for the Editor of the Week. This editor has made several valuable contributions since they first started editing in August, 2019 - including articles like Quichotte (novel), House of Sugar and Drive Your Plow Over the Bones of the Dead, a DYK for Ducks, Newburyport, and dozens upon dozens of improvements and page moves. In this short time they have made 11,500 edits with 82% in mainspace and 12% in Categories and categories talk.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}

Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7 ☎ 19:10, 8 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Congrats!!!! Bobherry Talk Edits 02:19, 14 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi I grieve in stereo, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. However, you should consider adding relevant wikiproject talk-page templates, stub-tags and categories to new articles that you create if you aren't already in the habit of doing so, since your articles will no longer be systematically checked by other editors (User:Evad37/rater and User:SD0001/StubSorter.js are useful scripts which can help). Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! qedk (t 桜 c) 07:48, 19 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

• Thank you!!! I grieve in stereo (talk) 08:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Run Me to Earth, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hmong (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:48, 1 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I see you helped edit the entry for The Hive. I am wondering if it's too soon to create an entry for the final book in the series, The Queens. The book is not released but there appears to be plenty of information out there. Perhaps the entry can contain recent developments/announcements? Just curious. I am considering creating the entry, but not if it's going to be deleted.

CJHuxley (talk) 00:29, 24 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi @CJHuxley:! I don't think the article would be allowed to stay up as it seems to fail WP:BKCRIT as of right now. I believe it's too soon as I cannot find any sources reliable sources that speak of its content or its publication etc. I grieve in stereo (talk) 02:35, 24 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Understood. I'll just circle back to this later. Perhaps after the book is released.

CJHuxley (talk) 23:43, 7 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your recent articles, including Tranquility (novel), which I read with interest. When you create an extensive and well referenced article, you may want to have it featured on Wikipedia's main page in the Did You Know section. Articles included there will be read by thousands of our viewers. To do so, add your article to the list at T:TDYK. Let me know if you need help, _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:55, 4 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Much appreciated! I grieve in stereo (talk) 02:58, 4 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your work on this page!

No problem! Thanks for your appreciation. I grieve in stereo (talk) 18:53, 16 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I need assistance. I misplaced my password to this account. I did not have an e-mail connected to it so I was unable to recover it. I made a few edits without an account and now, after reading Help:Logging in#What if I forget the password?, decided now to make a new account. I need help to carry the content and history of my user page and user talk page over to my new account: Οἶδα (talk) 20:08, 17 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

There is no e-mail connected to your new account either. I recommend fixing this now, to prevent it from happening again. As there is no way for me to verify your identity, I'm reluctant to perform the move on your behalf. Perhaps someone else will do it, so I'll keep the request open. I'll add a "checkuser needed" here to see if they can help. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:50, 17 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

I have now linked my e-mail! But I'm pretty sure my IP is dynamic and has since changed. Οἶδα (talk) 02:20, 18 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

What you ask isn't usually done, for the reasons TBF stated. Typically, a user that creates a new account due to losing access to a prior account simply identifies their new account as a successor to their old account and perhaps links to the user pages of that old account. 331dot (talk) 07:27, 18 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

I'm marking this as "answered" for now. The "checkuser needed" might eventually cause someone with the needed technical insight to approve your request. The section at Help:Logging in should probably be changed to match the actual situation. It is not a policy or guideline and may simply be incorrect. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:50, 18 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Fixed in Special:Diff/964386373/968276370. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:54, 18 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

@ToBeFree: @331dot: Thank you for your responses. So what are my options? Am I allowed to redirect these pages myself (now that I am autoconfirmed) to my new account or is that not permitted? Οἶδα (talk) 20:55, 21 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

The request for checkuser has not been answered yet; the situation may change until the red flag icon is removed and the technical aspect of the request is answered. Until then, there is no final answer and I recommend waiting. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:56, 21 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Additional note: Normally, redirecting another user's talk page (and that's what you technically do, lacking access to the account of someone who could also be deceased or on vacation) is not something one is allowed to do. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:59, 21 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Got it, I'll wait for the Checkuser. Thanks for the speedy reply. As I said previously though my IP changes so, reading over WP:CHK, I'm not sure if checkuser will be of any help. I just want to have my older user page and talk page on my new pages somehow. And preferably to have it known here as well so users don't attempt to reply to me here. Οἶδα (talk) 21:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Checkusers could, for example, verify that you are using the same provider and the same browser user agent. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:03, 21 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

I'm not a checkuser and so will leave the "CU needed" flag alone, but I doubt this would be granted. Just redirect the user and talk pages, declare the relationship on your new userpage, and call it a day. GeneralNotability (talk) 20:25, 28 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Οἶδα, are you able to use your current account with your phone? That could be used to some degree to help authenticate that you are this same person because I can compare it to I grieve in stereo's phone. ToBeFree, Οἶδα is indeed in the same ranges as this editor and I can come back and check after they have used their phone to make an edit. Then I can authenticate them.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 11:32, 29 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

I've made an edit with my phone. Hope that helps. Οἶδα (talk) 17:40, 29 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

It sure does. For ToBeFree and others interested, I would call this   Confirmed that they are the same.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:41, 29 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

A possibly rare exception made possible by technical confirmation. Moved, merged, redirected. Thank you very much, Berean Hunter. 🙂 ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:28, 29 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thank you!!! Οἶδα (talk) 21:42, 29 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

No problem from my side. :) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:02, 30 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hey, is this book really non-fiction? [1] Is there a way to check how law libraries categorize this work? I am under the distinct impression that the book is nothing but jokes meant to seem real enough to rubes. Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:41, 10 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Geographyinitiative: I may have read that article wrong. From the description on that article I took "humorous" to mean it is a compendium of humorous laws, not that they are fictional laws presented for humorous effect. "Non-fiction" does include works presented and asserted as fact even when prevailing information indicates otherwise. But I am having trouble finding more information about the book. Perhaps it's best to move it back to the main 1976 books category for now? Οἶδα (talk) 11:10, 10 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

I agree with moving it back, but the real, deeper question is: is any of the content of the book real? Is there a way to know? Is there a law help desk on Wikipedia? Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:14, 10 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

I wouldn't know more about the book. Sorry! Maybe if more information about the book and its author could be found. And there is a Humanities reference desk that could perhaps help but I have never used it. Οἶδα (talk) 11:20, 10 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi Οἶδα. I recently noticed you created Template:Glass Animals with only three articles to link to. A good rule of thumb (though not a policy) to follow is WP:NENAN—unless there are at least five articles to link to, it's probably unnecessary to create a template just yet. At least for Glass Animals at the present moment, readers could easily navigate between their three albums by clicking to the next in the infobox. Anyway, just a note to bear in mind for the future. (Just a note: I've turned pings off, so replies won't work.) Ss112 06:09, 16 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for informing me! I was unaware of this. I'll remember this going forward. Οἶδα (talk) 06:12, 16 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

It looks like you have consensus to move that article, and it's been over 7 days. Next step? - AppleBsTime (talk) 19:37, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

I usually just wait for a reviewer to process the request or re-list it if they believe a consensus hasn't been reached. It will probably be processed shortly. Οἶδα (talk) 01:28, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Do you know how one becomes a "reviewer"? That sounds like a fun job on Wikipedia. - AppleBsTime (talk) 13:36, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Anyone can close a move request, but you should be a third party who is not involved in the requested move. However, in my experience it tends to be admins who close requested moves. see Wikipedia:RMCI for more info. Οἶδα (talk) 21:16, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Akutagawa Prize, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Reiko Mori.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:22, 19 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your recent articles, including The Books of Jacob, which I read with interest. When you create an extensive and well referenced article, you may want to have it featured on Wikipedia's main page in the Did You Know section. Articles included there will be read by thousands of our viewers. To do so, add your article to the list at T:TDYK. This can be also done through this helpful user script: User:SD0001/DYK-helper. Let me know if you need help, _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 8:16, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. I really do understand the difference between baseball and basketball; I just am due an eye test   Mark^Dask 21:11, 30 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

hehe, no problem. I need a few tests myself.   Οἶδα (talk) 21:20, 30 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

• Nice work on creating a clean article! Ktin (talk) 19:45, 23 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Thank you and I appreciate your additions to the article! Οἶδα (talk) 19:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Duncan Tonatiuh, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Mexican and American.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rob Moose, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dawes.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:30, 28 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi Οἶδα. I came here because you created the Category:Nonlinear narrative novels. I wanted to ask you that should we create category for First (& second) person narrative novels ? What you think ? --Gazal world (talk) 08:00, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Gazal world: I believe such a category would be appropriate. We already have categories sorting novels by other narrative techniques, and the respective narrative point of view is one of the foremost defining aspects of a literary work. There is certainly variation that exists within literature, but works can generally be classified into First, Second, and Third-person narratives. This would likely create large categories (particularly in First and Third-person), but I believe it would be appropriate. I have started with Category:First-person narrative novels. Οἶδα (talk) 14:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Wow. Thanks for creating the first person narrative novel. I will add it in relevant articles. We should also create category for second person narrative, as it is rarely used technique. We will create the category for third person later. --Gazal world (talk) 15:05, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

No problem! I appreciate your contributions. Οἶδα (talk) 15:07, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

You are also doing wonderful work, bro. I just realized that we should also create a category for Stream of consciousness novels. Could you create it please? --Gazal world (talk) 15:19, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Done. Category:Stream of consciousness novels.

Just came across to another category which need to be created: novels with Multiple narrators. But I have only one in mind: Yayati (novel). --Gazal world (talk) 21:00, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Yes! I was thinking the same thing when I previously created an article for a novel with multiple narrators. Although, I believe this will typically overlap with Category:First-person narrative novels. Here is the new category: Category:Novels with multiple narrators. Οἶδα (talk) 21:39, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much for your quick responses. Category:First-person narrative novels also overlaps with Category:Autobiographical novels. --Gazal world (talk) 21:53, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

A tag has been placed on Category:Indian memoirs requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

  Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from a page you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:23, 30 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hope you're well. Saw you'd created the redirect for klara and the sun some time ago , and thought I'd let you know outlets have begun publishing reviews if you're interested in writing the article. — Mainly 17:33, 27 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Much appreciated; hope you are also doing well. I have yet to read the new Ishiguro, but it does sound intriguing! I'll draft a functional article shortly. Οἶδα (talk) 19:05, 27 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 24 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Your DYK hook about Nick (novel) drew 8,421 page views (702 per hour) while on the Main Page. It is one of the most viewed hooks for the month of March as shown at March 2021 DYK STATS. Keep up the great work! Cbl62 (talk) 18:29, 26 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! Οἶδα (talk) 18:30, 26 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Stars at Noon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page A24.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 2 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited First Person Singular (short story collection), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Crème de la crème.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 10 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your recent articles, including House of Day, House of Night, which I read with interest. When you create an extensive and well referenced article, you may want to have it featured on Wikipedia's main page in the Did You Know section. Articles included there will be read by thousands of our viewers. To do so, add your article to the list at T:TDYK. This can be also done through this helpful user script: User:SD0001/DYK-helper. Let me know if you need help, _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for making use of the Nihongo krt template!

I made it, so I'm really excited to see it being used by other people! Kanji first!

JKVeganAbroad (talk) 10:02, 3 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for making it! Οἶδα (talk) 16:56, 3 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi Οἶδα. Just curious if you have plans to nominate the article at the WP:DYK? It is new, well-written, long enough, and appears to be potentially hooky to me. --Ashleyyoursmile! 10:08, 6 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, Ashleyyoursmile! I do not have any plans to nominate the article. Οἶδα (talk) 19:49, 7 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

  A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Untitled Velvet Underground documentary. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 6#Untitled Velvet Underground documentary until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:22, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 18 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

I having trouble adding Rolling Stone, Uncut, and Mojo because their reviews are written in magazine format. Can you add them in the article? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 07:12, 23 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Done! Οἶδα (talk) 16:45, 23 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 17:39, 23 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

After another editor complained about the lack of sources in the Gary Paulsen bibliography article I added https://www.fantasticfiction.com/p/gary-paulsen/. I noticed that you've done most of the editing on the page. If you used another source you might want to add it. Regards, Dan Bloch (talk) 02:56, 19 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Most of the list is copied from an older edit in the author article's page history, which was unsourced. I added some of the missing titles, which were mostly the recent publications from the 2010s, using Goodreads and FictionDB. The Fantastic Fiction author page seems to cover all of those titles though. It should be sufficient as is. Thanks! Οἶδα (talk) 03:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Vanamonde (Talk) 00:03, 24 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited I Don't Live Here Anymore, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vanity Fair.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 29 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 14 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Οἶδα,

Thank you for creating About Joan.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Needs details of reviews in reliable sources when available

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Atlantic306}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Atlantic306 (talk) 00:23, 17 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

I think we need to be rangeblocking in this situation. Sadly, they're on the whole /16 when I pull up range calculator: 97.116.0.0/16 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)), which has a bit of collateral. Mass rollback probably needed too, ex. on contributions of 97.116.125.103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). wizzito | say hello! 09:20, 5 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

I figured as much. They never stop, never communicate, and the changes are wholly arbitrary. I was hoping to bring it up on a noticeboard but have been busy lately. Οἶδα (talk) 13:58, 5 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

A tag has been placed on Category:Cafés in Hungary indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:11, 13 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi Οἶδα, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. However, you should consider adding relevant wikiproject talk-page templates, stub-tags and categories to new articles that you create if you aren't already in the habit of doing so, since your articles will no longer be systematically checked by other editors (User:Evad37/rater and User:SD0001/StubSorter.js are useful scripts which can help). Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Schwede66 10:13, 24 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

I am not very knowledgeable about disambiguation, but may I ask whether your recent move of Sea of Tranquility (novel) is really the best option as a 2003 novel by Lesley Choy with the same name also exists? Thanks for considering this! ~~~~ WatkynBassett (talk) 06:42, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. We typically do not disambiguate articles from other topics of which there are no existing articles. Unless if there is another topic which calls into question what the primary topic is. I believe that is not relevant in this case as Mandel's novel appears by all metrics to be the primary topic. In fact, Choyce's novel does not appear to even meet the notability guidelines for books and such an article for Choyce's novel would be deleted accordingly. Οἶδα (talk) 07:01, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks you very much! This makes perfect sense! WatkynBassett (talk) 07:20, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

No problem, thanks for inquiring! Οἶδα (talk) 07:24, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Not sure if you have read any of the reviews (or the book) but the tide really has turned against Ottessa! — Mainly 17:59, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

I haven't had the pleasure (or displeasure) of reading it yet! I almost forgot it was coming out. The reviews read as fairly polarizing. I'm interested how its unrestrained grotesque develops its characters and the overarching fable. I have long admired her skill in writing unlikable characters, but even I must worry that she's misstepped. Οἶδα (talk) 20:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Let me know if you get around to it! Going to pick it up for a trip later this month. — Mainly 17:15, 1 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Elio, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Aurelio and Cornelio.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Incognito Lounge and Other Poems, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jesus' Son.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 8 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

I see the point of the RM, but I suggest it would be clearer if you specified the term to which you (do not) propose moving it, rather than leaving it to the reader to work out that this is a discussion purely between "nonfiction" and "non-fiction". Thanks. PamD 10:27, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi, what is the issue with using The Guardian music reviews as a source? Referring to their review of Young Fathers - "Heavy Heavy". Thanks! Countrybeef (talk) 15:40, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Countrybeef: No issue with using The Guardian as a source. The issue is that you cited it as being reviewed by The Guardian, which is not exactly accurate. It was published by The Observer, a sister newspaper to the Guardian that is hosted through the Guardian website. It's a very common mistake made by Wiki editors, as the difference is typically signified only by a small The Observer that appears above article headlines or right below the article. For example, if you ever see a review written by Kitty Empire, that's an Observer review. Whereas anything written by Alexis Petridis is through The Guardian. Sometimes both newspapers even publish reviews of the same releases, for example see this article vs this one. Οἶδα (talk) 17:17, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the clarification. I learned something new today! Countrybeef (talk) 17:39, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

No problem. Thanks for reaching out! Οἶδα (talk) 17:41, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello there,

I apologise for reverting your edit without sufficient justification. I usually put a message of the user's Talk page, but I was too slow doing it this time because I was watching the cricket and something exciting happened. I've put an explanation on the talk page. I think the culture section of this article is poor, and I hope to work on it when I get some time. I'd be happy to work with you to improve it. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 07:49, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

I appreciate the message! Οἶδα (talk) 08:24, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Apologies for my neglect in checking the page history here, somehow I missed your addition of atrribution. Sorry for the mistake and thank you for correcting. VickKiang (talk) 21:41, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

No worries. Thank you for reaching out! Οἶδα (talk) 21:43, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Οἶδα,

Do you have a good reason for emptying out dozens and dozens of categories about foreign-language novels and books? If you believe they should be deleted, please make a bundled nomination at WP:CFD. What you are doing is called "emptying out of process" and can be considered disruptive and your edits reverted.

Please slow down and consider how your massive recategorization is affecting the category structure that currently exists on Wikipedia. Just look at Special:UnusedCategories and see all of the categories that have been emptied in the past day. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:33, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

I appreciate the message, Liz. As I had already mentioned on the user's talk page, this is overcategorization. These are all new categories that were created by that user in the last month. It seems the user mistakenly believed that every single novel they come across that is categorized only within a year category, and not within a year+country category, should be further subdivided into such a newly created category. I would contend that user actually needed to consider how their massive recategorization affects the category structure that currently exists on Wikipedia. I am merely moving the novels back into the main year category and adding the preexisting century+country category. The country categories for novels are normally subdivided by genres and by time. I see no reason why the century+country category does not suffice alongside the main year category. You would be needlessly creating hundreds of single-novel categories with no potential for growth. Most preexisting year categories that have been subdivided by country have been created for a reason. A subcategory such as Category:2008 American novels has over 350 pages. If an article for a novel from Turkmenistan is created tomorrow, should I create Category:2023 Turkmenistani novels? I don't see how Category:1949 Cuban novels or Category:1924 Georgian novels are any different. These are single-novel catgeories with no potential for growth. Not to mention such intersections clutter up the page's category list. Both hallmarks of overcategorization. Οἶδα (talk) 06:19, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

  The redirect Monika Willi has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 13 § Monika Willi until a consensus is reached. Nardog (talk) 02:31, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

My edit was properly sourced and summarized what Taibbi actually said about an important subject. I'm not seeing the NPOV violation. — Red XIV ^(talk) 01:51, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

With all due respect @Redxiv:, I suspect you do see. You cited a New Republic opinion piece which included the quote of Taibbi as saying: "If presidents think they will be chased into jail under thin pretexts as ex-presidents, they'll try even harder to never leave office. This is how autocracies are born." You summarized this as: "Taibbi said that holding former presidents accountable for crimes would lead to autocracy". While I appreciate the cheeky framing, this unfortunately does not adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines. Conveniently worded or not, "chased into jail under thin pretexts" and "[held] accountable for crimes" are not exactly the same. A cursory glance into your editing history shows you have a history of this sort of irreverant editorial bias. And if you are perceptive enough to make arguments like this[2] or this[3], then I think you can also understand how you fell short of achieving a neutral point of view. Regardless, I would actually opt to not even include this because adding every opinion Taibbi espouses on Twitter into his Wiki article is an example of what Wikipedia is WP:NOT. Οἶδα (talk) 05:37, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

I saw you recent mass moves of Lists of The New York Times number-one books and the individual years. Was there any consensus reached for these moves anywhere? Such a large and significant restructuring seems to be within the scope of a controversial or potentially controversial move, especially adding the word "The" and removing the words "best seller". Cerebral726 (talk) 12:46, 7 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

No. But I'm not convinced the pages were ever created in line with any consensus. They have always been a neglected mess, and they barely existed before random users were more recently convinced to create the missing pages linked at the Lists pages. Until we ended up with nearly 150 poorly-sourced and poorly-attended-to articles. And I believe you are mistaken. Any article originally titled "List of number-one New York Times best sellers of [Year]" was recently moved there by me, before I moved them again to their current titles. The articles were previously all titled "The New York Times Fiction Best Sellers of [Year]" or "The New York Times Nonfiction Best Sellers of [Year]". So I did not add the word "The". And there are countless issues with these titles. The improper capitalization to start. The second issue being that they are list articles and as such should start with "List of". And no one even considered tackling this until 2023. Ask yourself why that is. Not to mention "Nonfiction" and "Fiction" are misleading because there are more than one list for both. There are actually numerous NYT lists and we do not need individual articles for them all. The third issue was that they are simply incorrect. They are not merely lists of the best sellers–that would entail a massive list–but are specifically lists of the books that topped the list at number one, and should be named to reflect that.

The fourth issue was that they are lists of "books", and should be named to reflect that. "Best sellers" is vague and not standard in these type of top lists articles. I looked to record chart list articles, which are more reliable. Articles like List of Billboard 200 number-one albums. I considered the titles for a while and I believe these titles are the most accurate. There are countless options for "bestselling", "best-selling", "best sellers", "best seller list", "bestseller list" etc etc. And none of them particularly helpful. However, feel free to contest the changes if you believe these articles are better-titled something else. But I am not convinced a title like List of The New York Times Best Seller list number-one best-selling books of 2023 is more accurate or helpful in any way. If you do, then pursue that. There are other issues but I digress. Οἶδα (talk) 20:15, 7 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Benoît Magimel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page François-Xavier Demaison.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:39, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

At ITN there is some help needed for getting the article about Milan Kundera ready for the main page. I believe you could be of help. There are numerous articles on him on JSTOR, yet there is little info on him at the article and a lot is unsourced. I'll try to get it done myself, but I am pretty sure you could be of a valuable help.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 19:43, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 07:51, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:Persischstunden 2020 film poster.png. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of non-free use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of non-free use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable non-free use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable non-free use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

That was a typo. Meant to remove the head. Thanks for fixing it. I just finished reading the book and it will stay with me for a long long long time. Amazing. JSFarman (talk) 21:35, 13 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Ahh, okay. No worries! Glad you enjoyed the book. Michelle has a gift for such detailed prose. And I admire her graceful ability to render sensitive subjects into a lucid narrative thread. Οἶδα (talk) 21:45, 13 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I've known for a while you created an article on Laura Snapes, which was then deleted in 2020, partially because she (or someone claiming to be her) requested it. I understand what I'm about to wonder aloud may be outside of the scope of improving Wikipedia, but I learned of this a while after it happened and was reminded again now after coming across an article written by her, and I am still lost for words as to how she has been extensively discussed and cited, even apparently enough for sources to talk about where she went to school and her relationship status(?), but she was "panicked" upon learning that somebody created a Wikipedia article on her. What? So those details are well and fine to her to be elsewhere on the Internet but not collated in one place? And to editors who voted !delete, a distressed request said to be from her outweighs the amount of coverage there is on her and the amount of things she herself has published? I'm just confused as to how a journalist who has done notable things—written at least one biography on a band and had her name on the byline of hundreds of articles—could possibly be panicked, "distressed" and think that a Wikipedia article existing on her "pos[es] a risk to [her] personal safety". I have never heard somebody claim the latter before. If she doesn't think she's notable enough to have an article, how would any amount of detail on her pose a risk to her personal safety? Again, sorry that this isn't about improving Wikipedia but to this day I find her comments utterly baffling. I could only imagine what sort of place Wikipedia would be if we felt pressured by, let alone fulfilled every request of an article's subject to delete the articles on them. Ss112 13:49, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Ss112:! Laura Snapes....yeah, I recall being dumbfounded by the whole scenario. Admittedly, I remember the article wasn't exceptional. In an effort to demonstrate notability, I included information which, looking back on it now, was definitely unimportant. I remember when the article got nominated for deletion, I regretted overstuffing the article. I thought that it could have functioned a lot more productively as a stub article, à la the article that existed for her colleague Alexis Petridis. And I believe the article was indeed trimmed accordingly.

I just looked over the AfD page again to refresh my memory of where my headspace was, and how Laura had responded to the issue and how she had edited her article. I know I was bummed that she was so upset over the article and rendered it as harassment. However, I was equally disconcerted by her obsession with her Wikipedia article. But I was honestly too disturbed by the reaction and accepted the invocation of WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, so I decided to disengage from the subject altogether. I still believe WP:STUBIFY was a more fitting solution, but that wasn't a hill I was going to die on. I even remember trying to improve the article with a freely-licensed Commons image screesnhot from YouTube, which she was apparently troubled by. What she felt was harassment and "obsessive level of detail" was actually just me using available information to accurately reflect the female subject of a BLP article. As I mentioned at AfD, I only ever added public information that was published by reliable newspapers, magazines, institutions etc. Honestly, I think she simply didn't want a Wikipedia article about herself because she felt it would bring unwanted attention to herself professionally and/or socially. Particularly the inevtiable inclusion of duly sourced information pertaining to her discord with Mark Kozelek and Laura Palmer.

I appreciate Ss112 that you still consider this issue nearly three years later. I still personally do not wish to make any further edits toward the subject in the article space, after having been personally accused of harassment. But I do not hold WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE as gospel, for many of the reasons you expressed in your message. So if anyone is interested in recreating a new article, I would not object. I believe I have learned a lot since then on creating, improving and maintaing articles. But unless I am mistaken, the Laura Snapes article is the only article I've created thus far that actually got deleted. And I would argue it was only close as delete to due to my begrudging aye vote to do so. So I'm not exactly convinced of wrongdoing on my part. Οἶδα (talk) 04:31, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Frankenstein's Promethean dimension is a new article that I encountered as a new page reviewer. It was translated from the French Wikipedia. I've made some inconsequential changes to it. I'm not sure where to go with this and what to tag it with. The tone isn't right. The language is unnatural. Machine translation could be involved, but I haven't checked yet. Do you have any comment about this article in general? Thanks in advance. —Alalch E. 11:02, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

"Frankenstein" in the title refers to Victor Frankenstein, which makes "Frankenstein's Promethean dimension" a subtopic of that article, but in that article there is no discussion of the Promethean theme. But there is some in Frankenstein#Modern Prometheus.—Alalch E. 11:05, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi Alalch E.! I would never claim expertise in translation, which is why I greatly appreciate the artistic faculties that translators exercise. I can see where you're coming from though. Looking over the original article it seems the translation is mostly by rote, transposing each and every element. It is perhaps better than machine translation, but still the article is very unnatural in English. It retains a very French flow in my opinion, which would be fine if it were dealing in more basic information and not analysis. I don't know how much I can help. I'm not sure the article much benefits English readers. I try to remember Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an academic journal. Maybe it would work as an expansion of its parent articles, but it needs to be tagged for tone. I would go as far as to say it should be deleted for its essayistic nature, which is supported throughout by what I speculate to be original research. Οἶδα (talk) 21:48, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much. —Alalch E. 23:55, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Οἶδα. Thank you for your work on Holly (2023 film). User:DreamRimmer, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Good work!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|DreamRimmer}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 16:40, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Small Mercies (novel), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bradley Thomas.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Οἶδα. Thank you for your work on Ad Vitam (company). North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Good start

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 20:49, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Οἶδα. Thank you for your work on Hurricane Season (2023 film). SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Hello my friend! Good day to you. Thanks for creating the article, I have marked it as reviewed. Have a blessed day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 12:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I notice in this edit that the date format is Day-Month-Year. I wanted to see which variety of English was chosen for that article, and I wanted to confirm that British English was chosen. If so, I can tag the article (and Breasts and Eggs with UK English parameters instructing editors to write in British English. As per WP:ENGVAR, unless there's a strong national tie to the topic, the consistent variety of English (or the variety in the first substantial edit) determines which ENGVAR is used.

Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 04:19, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the message WhisperToMe! Yes, British English was chosen. I try to write all non-American articles in UK English. I was instructed in British English, but I mostly experience the American form now. Apologies for any remaining inconsistencies. If the date format is Day-Month-Year, then I certainly intended UK English. Οἶδα (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Οἶδα. Thank you for your work on Marc Missonnier. SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Hello my friend! Good day to you. Thanks for creating the article, I have marked it as reviewed. Have a blessed day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 06:10, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

14.1.24

Hello

I wanted to fill the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milo_Machado_Graner#Awards_and_nominations ; see below the elements I have gathered. But I find difficult to fill correctly the table without damaging it. Can you please help me, or fill it yourself ? Many thanks in advance Babarlecureuil (talk) 11:17, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Done Babarlecureuil: I have added the awards to the table and added the new film. Οἶδα (talk) 15:20, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks a lot

Babarlecureuil (talk) 15:46, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I Saw also : International Cinephile Society Awards Nominated twice on Jan 21, 2024 : - Best Breakthrough Performance - Best Supporting Actor decision on Feb 10, 2024 https://m.imdb.com/event/ev0001892/2024/1/?ref_=ev_eh https://icsfilm.org/our-yearly-awards/2024-ics-award-nominees/

Lack of hyphen : Seems an initial mistake by Le Pacte, corrected but too late, and it had already spread. Agent & producers of other movies use hyphen. Babarlecureuil (talk) 08:46, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Done Babarlecureuil: I have added the ICS award nominations to the table. Also agree on the hyphen, and I mentioned the agent's usage of a hyphen on the talk page. Οἶδα (talk) 17:20, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

i infomred about Benoît Jacquot and Jacques Doillon because of recent news by --Sunuraju (talk) 09:11, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for letting me know. I will try to help incorporate this information into articles. Οἶδα (talk) 09:18, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

i informed that Love According to Dalva got nominations at 13th Magritte Awards and i add Victor Belmondo‎ by --Sunuraju (talk) 11:08, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have copyedited both articles and made several correctons. As you probably noticed, I also created an article for the forthcoming Magritte Awards. Hope I could be of some help! Οἶδα (talk) 10:43, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

thanks and i add information on alain delon because of recent news and i add Holt International Children's Services because illegal adoption scandal Sunuraju (talk) 08:15, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello Οἶδα. I added MUBI as distributor for Perfect Days (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Perfect_Days) on February 24th, but it was removed. Did I edit it incorrectly? Thanks HaroldBishop123 (talk) 06:58, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@HaroldBishop123: As I cited in my edit, WP:FILMDIST outlines that the distributors listed in infoboxes "should be restricted to the country or countries that produced the film and (if different) the country where the film is first released." Perfect Days is a German and Japanese co-production. As already described in the article, MUBI is distributing the film in the United Kingdom, Ireland, Turkey and Latin American regions. All of which are unrelated to the production of the film. Οἶδα (talk) 07:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your edits to Black Box (2021 film). I noticed that you moved the very short plot summary to the lead, and removed the "plot summary needed" tag. That's fine. This is just to let you know that I am currently working on a full plot summary which I expect to upload in the next couple of days - unless you prefer to do that yourself. Mike Marchmont (talk) 09:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello again, Οἶδα. I have now added a full plot summary. Feel free to correct any errors. Mike Marchmont (talk) 19:30, 6 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Glad to hear it! I sort of figured you may have had that in your plans. It's nice to see the article expand. I am not great with summaries so I appreciate your effort. Οἶδα (talk) 19:59, 6 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

anonymous user keep removing Magritte Award for Best Film Navboxes from Close (2022 film) already won Best picture at 12th Magritte Awards by --Sunuraju (talk) 10:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Sunuraju: They appear to be correct because Close won the Magritte Award for Best Flemish Film, but not the Magritte Award for Best Film, which is what that navbox is for. Also, be wary of the WP:3RR (i.e. performing more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period). I wouldn't want to see you to get blocked. If you are reverted and disagree then the safest option is to discuss it on the talk page. Οἶδα (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

oh god i forget it i am such idiot Sunuraju (talk) 02:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

That's okay. Just give it your best shot. Οἶδα (talk) 04:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Οἶδα, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the autopatrolled user right to your account. This means that pages you create will automatically be marked as 'reviewed', and no longer appear in the new pages feed. Autopatrolled is assigned to prolific creators of articles, where those articles do not require further review, and may have been requested on your behalf by someone else. It doesn't affect how you edit; it is used only to manage the workload of new page patrollers.

Since the articles you create will no longer be systematically reviewed by other editors, it is important that you maintain the high standard you have achieved so far in all your future creations. Please also try to remember to add relevant WikiProject templates, stub tags, categories, and incoming links to them, if you aren't already in the habit; user scripts such as Rater and StubSorter can help with this. As you have already shown that you have a strong grasp of Wikipedia's core content policies, you might also consider volunteering to become a new page patroller yourself, helping to uphold the project's standards and encourage other good faith article writers.

Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Aoidh (talk) 09:17, 18 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Just a reminder that when you start an article about a film, it must be filed in one or more "Nationality genre films" categories — e.g. Category:American drama films, Category:Italian comedy films, Category:French science fiction films, etc. These are actually the most important categories of all for a film to be in, because nationality and genre are essential defining aspects of a film, yet I repeatedly find film articles you created where you completely left any hint of nationality or genre categorization off the article. So just a reminder that categories for nationality, genre and/or the intersection of the two must be on any article about a film. Bearcat (talk) 19:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hey @Bearcat: I am aware. By "repeatedly" I assume you are referring exclusively to the recent articles created for films in competition for the Palme d'Or, and not any articles of mine in the past. As you will notice in my other articles, I have always prioritized categorization. I am working to develop these new ones and I am sorry for any pauses. I tried to include nationality where it was clear, but several of the films were a bit difficult to determine the exact and complete production origin because Cannes has not published the companies that produced each film. Several sources I could find were possibly dated and not descriptive enough. I apologize for the inconvenience. Οἶδα (talk) 20:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

What was bad about the edit I made to "American Head"? It received acclaim from most critics, and Fantano gave it a strong 8, why did you try to revert it? It literally says metacritic gave it "universal acclaim" you made a mistake. 3nt3r y0ur us3rn4m3hehe (talk) 20:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@3nt3r y0ur us3rn4m3hehe: Please pay attention to edit summaries. You continue to restore a review from a source (The Needle Drop) which has been determined through consensus to be self-published and is rarely if ever featured on Wikipedia due to it constituting WP:UNDUE weight. You are going to have to specifically make a case for including his review in the American Head article. If you are unfamiliar with Wikipedia or this topic, then I suggest you not try to fight this fight. Unless you are really interested in starting a discussion at WikiProject Albums or opening a new RfC at Reliable sources/Noticeboard. But I will tell you right now that the conclusion will once again be to not include his reviews. Οἶδα (talk) 21:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

can you please explain why it is not allowed? You removed it without telling me. 3nt3r y0ur us3rn4m3hehe (talk) 21:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

also i fully cited the main video of it, I don't see the problem. 3nt3r y0ur us3rn4m3hehe (talk) 21:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

You are saying The Needle Drop is unpublished, he is one of the most renown music reviewers, I don't know why his reviews aren't placed. This doesn't make sense. 3nt3r y0ur us3rn4m3hehe (talk) 21:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

WP:SELFPUBLISHED. Not "unpublished". Οἶδα (talk) 21:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@3nt3r y0ur us3rn4m3hehe: I have explicitly cited the background to to all of this. If you bothered to click on any of the links I have given and read the given material you would know. Οἶδα (talk) 21:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

okay so you don't like that I put Fantano there, okay. But, why did you delete the first sentence "Upon release, American Head received acclaim from critics", what's wrong with that? 3nt3r y0ur us3rn4m3hehe (talk) 21:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I wasn't really focusing on that, but I also did not find it productive. The Metacritic source already indicates the critics consensus. The sentence you added doesn't improve upon that, and more importantly it is unsourced. If you can find an independent journalistic source which explicitly characterises what the reception of the album was then I would have no issue with you adding that sentence back. Οἶδα (talk) 22:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

alright 3nt3r y0ur us3rn4m3hehe (talk) 22:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

why u so defensive on this? I put one sentence in, what is stating that it got acclaim bad? Bro is getting so worked up over this, not every sentence has a citing, anyways there's a whole critical reception ahead of the sentence, it's just recapping it, the whole paragraph is full of citations bro. Open your eyes. 3nt3r y0ur us3rn4m3hehe (talk) 22:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I take it you couldn't find a source in the time between your last post and now? Because now you're just whining on my talk page. First you started an edit war with me and then repeatedly refused to even consult the links I gave you. Also you are wrong that it does not need a citation. And it's worth noting that you summarised the section as "with many saying it is one of their best albums", despite only one of the cited reviews making that characterisation. This is why you need citations. Οἶδα (talk) 22:18, 26 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

okay so just delete that part of the sentence then if you don't like it. 3nt3r y0ur us3rn4m3hehe (talk) 22:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I will repeat myself again: that is unsourced. And if you are trying to piggyback on the Metacritic source then you are essentially just repeating what is already said through that sentence. ("At Metacritic, American Head has a score of 81 out of 100, indicating "universal acclaim", based on 20 reviews.") We don't need an unsourced recap sentence to repeat what is already said. Οἶδα (talk) 22:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

i've already said that that removal is okay, but most albums have that sentence as a recap, so I put it there. 3nt3r y0ur us3rn4m3hehe (talk) 22:28, 26 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

What you are describing is WP:ORIGINAL and is not allowed. You need a citation. Unless the recap is basically repeating what Metacritic already tells us. So I have edited the article to expand the Metacritic sentence, and added a recap. Does this satisfy you?. I'm not going to respond to your other post because it distracts from the purpose of this discussion which presumably is to edit the article to something that agrees with you while maintaining Wiki's standards. Οἶδα (talk) 22:40, 26 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

when did I refuse to look at the links? I looked at them and then responded, then u said I'm making an "edit war". I obviously asked why you reverted my edit and now it's an edit war? I'm defending myself. 3nt3r y0ur us3rn4m3hehe (talk) 22:25, 26 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 62nd David di Donatello, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Carney.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 4 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Cuckoo date should be moved up a week according to the NEON official website to August 2 6218946rr (talk) 16:23, 11 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Done Οἶδα (talk) 19:22, 11 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello, a user I don't know has tampered with the Neon films page. Robot Dreams was not realesed yet, it should be May 31 and Cuckoo should be August 2 6218946rr (talk) 15:15, 16 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

@6218946rr: I have opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Awards-qualifying release dates referring to this issue. Οἶδα (talk) 16:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Apologies, I didn't realize it was a significant violation.. I know the info re Jeanne Taibbi's maiden name which I posted is accurate but I will wait until I can find a reliable source. Yours, Zenon.Lach (talk) 21:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Much appreciated. I do not doubt that your information was accurate, but one must consider that biography articles must adhere to a strict standard of verifiability. When unsourced information is presented in these articles, it must be immediately subjected to removal (see WP:BLPREMOVE). Οἶδα (talk) 03:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Nice to meet you. I am Logan Thomas, a collaborator of French-italian filmmaker Julien Paolini. I’m contacting you because I’ve been trying to translate Julien’s Wikipedia page from French to English and it hasn’t been possible because I don’t have the status of an extended confirmed user to do so. Since you are interested in French “auteur” cinema and are an experienced Wikipedia user, I was wondering if you could help me translate this article into English. Julien Paolini did two features films in France shown in international festivals and he is currently working on an other project with an American producer. It would be legitimate for him to have an English Wikipedia page as his films are attracting some interest in the US. Could you help me in this case please? By the way, do you speak French ? Maybe, we can continue this conversation in French if you want. Thanks in advance Logan75014 (talk) 16:34, 12 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Bonjour,

J'ai démarré la traduction, il y en a plus très long, je mets ça d'ici un ou deux jours. Voir l'ébauche que j'ai réalisé : User:Οἶδα/sandbox/Julien Paolini. Si vous avez des suggestions pour améliorer l'article, merci de m'en faire part. Cordialement, Οἶδα (talk) 08:42, 13 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Bonjour,

L'ébauche me paraît parfaite ! Merci beaucoup pour votre aide.

Cordialement,

Logan Logan75014 (talk) 10:01, 13 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Et voilà, c'est fini !

De plus, j'ai créé un article sur son premier long-métrage, disponible ici : Amare amaro, pour qu'il n'y ait pas de lien rouge. En espérant que ça aide.

--Οἶδα (talk) 23:31, 15 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

C'est parfait ! Très bonne idée pour Amare Amaro.

Merci beaucoup ! Logan75014 (talk) 15:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Merci de tes remarques. Cordialement, Οἶδα (talk) 20:56, 16 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Charles Gillibert, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Black Venus.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:56, 16 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 July regarding a requested move in which you have expressed interest. The thread is ABC News (United States). Thank you. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:57, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

  You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chidananda S Naik. You are invited because you seem to have extensively edited articles and topics related to awards. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 18:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello there, fellow editor Οἶδα. I'm FloorMadeOuttaFloor. I hope this message finds you in the best of health. As you can also make out from the header of this discussion, I require some advice on an ongoing dispute on the page It Ends with Us (film). First, I would like to thank you for mediating this dispute by starting a topic discussion on the article's talk page where any doubts regarding the hidden footnote I added could be resolved. However, I am afraid little progress has taken place with regards this topic.

Shortly after you started that discussion, another revert of your edits would resurface, prompting lengthy arguments on the talk page between me and that specific editor (I do not wish to ping them here at the moment). To sum it up, they state that these sources: [4] [5] [6], mention the film as "a Sony film", despite none of them explicitly mentioning its involvement as co-producer, possibly making this a case of WP:SYNTH. I then lay my case saying that this article clearly calls it a negative pickup for Sony, which the author confirms it is; the editor is adamant, rejecting this statement on grounds that the WGA rejected that appeal, thereby eliminating the possibility that the film is an indie, but adding Columbia in the producer section clearly defeats the purpose of the film being a negative pickup.

I do not wish to impose on you too much, but I will admit I am no expert in dispute arbitration and am working towards a reasonable agreement as soon as possible. I decided to approach you given your prolific activity on that page. While there are noticeable fallacies in that editor's conclusions, I have begun doubting my own intuition due to a relative lack of sources (while there are a few more Deadline articles giving similar info, I have cited only one for now). Therefore, I ask for your guidance on how this dispute can be fairly and amicably resolved to help mitigate it and prevent it from escalating to a full-scale edit war. Thank you for your time. FloorMadeOuttaFloor ^{(Converse here)} 06:48, 20 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the message, FloorMadeOuttaFloor. I have actually been following the discussion but waiting to respond appropriately. I would not claim to be an expert in film financing so I have been trying to make sense of the details here. I read this page about negative pickups in a book. The most recent response in the discussion puzzled me. First I was confused as to why we were deferring to WGA strike guidelines for what we represent on Wikipedia. Then I similarly deduced that the editor was committing WP:SYNTH in the earlier paragraphs by concluding that Sony co-financed. Ultimately, I see a lot of conflicting and ambiguous statements from Deadline and elsewhere which makes me want to simply wait until after the film is actually released. We can appeal for more participation from the film WikiProject, or an appropriate noticeboard, or even open a request for comment. But we should have more information relatively soon. Until then I feel that inviting more participants to a discussion without enough definitive information will not help. I will participate in the discussion shortly. Οἶδα (talk) 16:46, 20 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Bonjour, J'espère que vous allez bien ! Je suis Logan le collaborateur de Julien Paolini, nous avions parlé ensemble au moment de faire la traduction de la page de Julien Paolini en anglais et je vous remercie encore pour votre aide. Le nouveau film de Julien, Karmapolice, est sorti en France le mois dernier et a reçu un excellent accueil critique. N'ayant toujours pas le statut pour pouvoir faire une traduction en anglais sur Wikipédia, je voulais vous demander si c'était possible pour vous de faire la traduction anglaise de la page du film en prenant pour base ce qui existe déjà sur la page française ? En vous remerciant d'avance, Logan Logan75014 (talk) 15:28, 23 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Bonjour,

J'ai mis l'article en ligne ! Voir : Karmapolice. Ce n'est qu'une ébauche rapide, je vais me charger dans les jours qui viennent de sa traduction depuis fr. Cordialement, Οἶδα (talk) 22:02, 26 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Bonjour,

Merci beaucoup pour cette ébauche !

Cordialement,

Logan Logan75014 (talk) 11:53, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

You created at least 20 film navboxes that have not been used at all. Navbox templates that are not used in articles are typically deleted. Do you have a plan for these templates? – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:54, 14 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Done I apologize that I did not complete the job in a speedy manner. I had planned on placing the templates on their respective articles incrementally to ensure the articles included links to related articles and necessary mentions in prose. The task proved more laborious than expected. Of course I wish to avoid the templates being deleted so I have thus completed the task. Thank you. Οἶδα (talk) 00:00, 15 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Well done. Yes, sometimes we get excited about big projects and then find that they involve much more work than we thought they were going to. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:13, 15 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Οἶδα,

Rather than emptying out categories, out-of-process, consider making a nomination at Categories for Discussion for a category rename or merger. This will retain the category history. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Liz. Thank you for the message. I understand. You have warned me about this before, so I understand the procedure. I even suspected you would likely warn me of this. I did not request for these to be renamed because they were created in 2014 by a blocked user and are the only two categories on Wikipedia using the atypical "in performing arts". They contained articles which would be divided into "Adapations of works by", "Films based on works by", "Cultural depictions of" and even "Works by". They are thus unfit to be renamed because that supposes any of these are synonymous with "in performing arts". Merging the category history would also be inappropriate. Οἶδα (talk) 20:44, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello Οἶδα. It happened a week ago, but I only just saw your edit summaries on Lettre infinie and Rêvalité. Can I ask, how did you come across these articles? Are you familiar/do you keep up with socks of AlexLevyOne? Edit: I only just found this thread you created at ANI. Anyway, I wanted to clarify: I had no idea that the articles were direct translations from fr.wiki and I know the articles had/have their issues, but I received notices about images I uploaded being orphaned and thought several of the pages still had a claim to exist regardless of whom made them. Ss112 03:04, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Ss112. I came across those two articles because the articles created by the Cognitivism sock were mass-deleted. Those two, however, were restored to your redirects. I wanted to make sure to cleanup any loose ends post-block. I have not been tracking Albion's sockpuppetry. I was only alerted to it as a result of their rapid creation of translated articles, many of which linked to articles I had created. The good user SashiRolls tipped me off about the extent of their editing lunacy. Most of the articles they created potentially have a right to exist, but they were shoddy and severely lacking necessary sourcing. So to restore any of their edits we should defintely check if they meet Wiki standards. However, as Guerillero pointed, there are still copyright problems with them due to the articles being translated without attribution. No worries though, I wouldn't expect you to know they were translations since the closer only wrote "DENY" in their summary. And apologies if my edit summaries read as undiplomatic, I just wanted to be firm and precise given the context. Οἶδα (talk) 04:15, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Οἶδα, I hope this message finds you well!

I've noticed your valuable contributions related to Belgian cinema, and I wanted to reach out to see if you'd be interested in joining a new initiative—the Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Belgian cinema task force. The goal of the task force is to enhance and expand our coverage of Belgian films and filmmakers on Wikipedia. Your expertise and passion would be a great asset to this effort.

If you're interested, please add your username and any comments to the list of members at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Belgian cinema task force/Participants. Having more users involved will help us gain approval for the task force. I'd love to have you on board! Best regards, Earthh (talk) 09:28, 15 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Seeing how you invoked WP:NOTBROKEN, I thought I'd point out that it may not mean what you think it means. People see that link and assume that it's some essay saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", but that's not it at all. It's saying that wikilinks to redirects are not broken, and that you shouldn't replace [[redirect page]] with [[target page|redirect page]]. However, that's not what was going on at the Twerski page; the supposed vandal was correcting [[redirect page|target page]] to simply [[target page]], which is more straightforward all around and is itself a positive edit (which is not to slight any vandal-denial effort of yours.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:16, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your message, Nat. It was my understanding that while WP:NOTBROKEN reserves special instructions for avoiding piped links that "fix" links to redirects, the general implication communicated in the first two sentences was to not do what the IP sock did. Otherwise I would believe that WP:DOFIXIT would advocate for it. For example, the page Nomadland (film) was eventually determined to be a primary topic and moved to Nomadland. Would I thus be sensible or perhaps more specifically constructive by then editing the nearly 300 articles which link to that redirect to bypass it? It would be "more straightforward all around" but I don't believe itself a positive edit spree. If an editor decides to "fix" a redirect within an edit that substantively changes something else then I normally don't see an issue. But otherwise are you not fixing something that is not broken? The link at Twerski's article was actually created by yourself in 2009[7]. A long holdover for sure, but not needing fixing in an edit which contributes nothing else but this "fix". And certainly not by an IP sock that has hopped to at least 3 different IPs for these Peanuts edits. And is most likely the same sock who has been blocked a minimum of 10 different times for similarly unconstructive bursts of cosmetic edits, totalling in the many thousands. Οἶδα (talk) 18:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

At the time in 2009 when I added that link, what I linked to was actually the home for the page on the Peanuts strip, and was not yet a redirected (as the history of that page will show you.) Had I noticed that it remained in later years, I would have made the improvement myself. And I think your analysis of WP:NOTBROKEN comes to a bit of a halt once you hit sentence three, and there is later text explaining why non-piped links are generally preferable.

Setting aside any issue of "banned user", I am far more positive to editors making small cleanups and general wikignomic efforts than you appear to be. (This is really the sort of thing we wouldn't flinch at a bot handling, if it did so accurately.)

But hey, if you want to spend your time making cosmetic edits to make the article worse just to discourage someone whom you assumed to be banned, believe me, I've been there myself, and I have defended such actions in the past. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:27, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Well then this a discussion to be had at Wikipedia talk:Redirect and not on my talk page. But to be fair Nat, you didn't really respond to what I wrote. You just politely dismissed me as uncharitable and and told me I was making articles worse for reverting cosmetic edits from a blocked IP hopper. As I previously pronounced, I did not further revert because you are not that vandal and you restored it yourself. So I think it is unfair to say that I am making articles worse with this one example. Are you saying that "repairing" every such redirect one comes across makes articles better? So if I spent my time going around bypassing every such redirect with no other valid edits I would be welcomed by the Wiki community for doing so? I don't think so. An admin stated my same opinion at Wikipedia_talk:Redirect/Archive_2019#Questions on NOTBROKEN. And where is the bot which bypasses such redirects? I don't see it. Why doesn't it exist? I know there are bots that fix double redirects. But none doing what you indicated we would readily accept. If my interpretation of WP:NOTBROKEN were seriously wrong then this behavior of fixing redirects would be listed there as being of good reason. I also do not see the text that you alluded to which supposedly explains "why non-piped links are generally preferable", except where it comments on tracking "how articles are linked". I don't see how that is relevant to this discussion. That would be more relevant to the page's example of Journal of the Franklin Institute, which is a subtopic of the page it links to. The WP:NOTBROKEN section opens by declaring that "There is usually nothing wrong with linking to redirects to articles" and does not further prescribe editors to go around making the type of edit we are discussing. So I do not think the page is as specific or unambiguous as you seem to think.

And apologies if you think I was being unfair. But I don't see how I was, and I think it is unfair to suggest I am not positive to editors who perform small cleanups or are otherwise wikignomic. I don't know how my actions to enforce a WP:BLOCKEVASION are revelatory of my general action upon such wikignomic edits. I take it you feel more personally resigned from this kind of conflict-driven back-and-forth after all these years. I get it. But I believe I have my reasons and have outlined them in detail at User talk:67.40.202.59 and ANI. This IP block evader is not Wikignomic. And this discussion just feels all over the place. If you want to further discuss WP:NOTBROKEN then Wikipedia talk:Redirect would be the place for that. But if you want to take issue with my handling of a persistently and flagrantly disruptive IP sockpuppet then I would be bewildered and would encourage you to chime in at the relevant talk page. Otherwise please don't paint my editing with a broad brush because of a single edit in service to WP:BLOCKEVASION, an edit which I will remind you I have not pursued past your restoration. So a user talk discussion of this ilk for an edit so exceptionally minor was frankly unnecessary and precisely why I left my reasoning in an edit summary to you and did not inflate it into something larger. I would appreciate that it if this discussion must continue and waste another second of our numbered days that it continues on the aforementioned talk pages and not on my own. Because we are not going to improve our understanding of either on here. Οἶδα (talk) 08:37, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you so much for helping out on Never Flinch. BananaBreadPie12 (talk) 21:15, 23 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

  No problem! Οἶδα (talk) 21:16, 23 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello! I was wondering if you could check this footnote I made at The Substance#Conception and screenplay to see if it is correct?

 Fargeat uses the term violence in many interviews. In the French, "violence" can be used for both physical and emotional harm and includes internal struggles, moral harm, verbal abuse, harassment, and emotional distress.[1][2][3]

Is this a correct understanding of the French violence? Thanks! :) Caleb Stanford (talk) 06:53, 24 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Caleb! Thanks for reaching out. I would not claim expertise in linguistics but I will offer my personal interpretation: The word violence has far broader meaning in French than in English. There is greater figurative use of the word. There are several uses which when used would likely sound wrong or insensitive in English, where I understand it to function more as an expression of physical force. There are also positive connotations of "violence" but are perhaps less common in the current timeline. To do violence to yourself, or se faire violence, typically refers to overcoming something you do not want to do. I read through the interviews you cited in the article in which Ms. Fargeat uses the word "violence" and it seems clear that she is referring largely to internal violence, the kind you contain in yourself. The kind carried by a woman in reaction to how they are seen and what their body looks like. Your footnote appears accurate. It seems cover all the bases, even including “harassment” and "moral harm" which I understand to be true. From what I have read, she has repeatedly stressed that she wanted the gory violence in the film to be a symbolisation of this internal violence, and that it be expressed at the same level of what she felt her whole life.[8][9][10] Οἶδα (talk) 08:58, 24 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! This is very clear. I will tweak the wording of the footnote slightly based on your reply, if you like, feel free to tweak the footnote further. Caleb Stanford (talk) 17:03, 24 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome! I'm happy to be of help wherever I can. Οἶδα (talk) 23:29, 24 November 2024 (UTC)Reply