User talk:InternetEnigma

September 2022

Hello, I'm Serge, an Admin here on Wikipedia. If you're going to keep adding content to Wikipedia, you need to learn how to add references to Wikipedia. Please read WP:REFB for help on that.

The inclusion requirement for being listed on List of concept albums is to have a reliable source that directly calls the given album a concept album. Please work on fixing this or your recently added entries will be removed soon. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 13:34, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Anne Buydens. Thank you. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 12:56, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's controversial to say a 102 year old centenarian that passed a year after her husband died of natural causes. InternetEnigma (talk) 17:43, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Please read the policy about adding your own ideas to biographical articles. Dying of "natural causes" is a fact, something that cannot be interpreted from the available sources. Wikipedia relies on reliable sourcing, which was not met by your additions.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 21:11, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Except it can especially on Ruthie Tompson which both the source and article state she died Peacefully in Her Sleep I.E. the definition of a Natural Death, there is no evidence to suggest that either person died unnaturally or under suspicious circumstances if I was going for a direct cause of death then you would have a point however that is not at all what is happening when your own sources completely disagree with you and prove you wrong on this matter and is completely idiotic to debate that a centenarian and a supercentenarian died peacefully from natural causes, you yourself cannot provide a source to state this fact is controversial and is under high debate whereas everything suggests both parties did in fact pass naturally as many sources state they likely passed from age related causes which is in fact natural causes what more could you possibly ask for. InternetEnigma (talk) 16:52, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 2022

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Mini Ladd, you may be blocked from editing. —C.Fred (talk) 01:20, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Everything I stated is already sourced by one of the linked sources, nothing I said was incorrect or un factual nor was it disruptive . InternetEnigma (talk) 01:23, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You needed to specify which source(s) verify the information. It's not practical to go through every source in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 01:26, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention the page is already poorly sourced by linking to the Thirst Projects current page when he has long been removed from membership for over 2 years now so how about fixing your page instead of threatening to ban me over stating what literally happened thanks. InternetEnigma (talk) 01:25, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing out that update. I've verified that he's no longer on the board and removed that. —C.Fred (talk) 01:30, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"City of Derry ended their relationship with Thompson in July 2020 following sexual misconduct allegations made against him." Gee what source could I possibly be referring to its almost as if you didn't even read the page yet are over here threatening to ban me for stating the literal history of this person it's almost as if you haven't even read the page.

It'd honestly be better if you spent all this energy deleting the page instead of getting all riled up at me. InternetEnigma (talk) 01:30, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And how were they able to predict his apology? —C.Fred (talk) 01:34, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I literally said he was dropped in my edit it's actively like you didn't read the page to begin with. InternetEnigma (talk) 01:32, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The apology was literally uploaded to his YouTube channel that source verifies the misconduct I stated that you deem worthy of banning me for stating. InternetEnigma (talk) 01:39, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.dualshockers.com/what-did-miniladd-do-twitch-ban/

Literally all you see when you look him up is things that I stated happened so no it is not a gross violation when one of your sources even stated it and anyone that reports on him mentions it. InternetEnigma (talk) 01:45, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

November 2022

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to change genres without discussion or sources, as you did at Songs of Pain, you may be blocked from editing. The person is known as an outsider artist but every song's genre must be explicitly named in sources. Binksternet (talk) 23:25, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of one-hit wonders in the United States

The inclusion criteria for the article List of one-hit wonders in the United States has nothing to do with chart results. Instead, it is about having the media call the artist a "one-hit wonder". Each entry needs two such media sources. The assumption is that the media are referring to the artist's audience in the United States. Binksternet (talk) 01:20, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You still continue to ignore my point and keep going muh muh muh anti-billboard clause it's getting ridiculous how you keep arguing such non-points, Ranker.com is not a reliable source the fact that you are citing it is in clear violation of Wikipedia's rules of reliable sourcing where as I have at least provided sources to dispute the claim that this artist classified as a OHW that you are ignoring in favor of continuing to cite what is essentially no different from a Reddit post, also him being big in Puerto Rico is him being big here as Puerto Rico is apart the United States you're continual use of this point because he is a Spanish speaking artist is just idiotic. InternetEnigma (talk) 02:07, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that audience scores are unreliable and should not be used. But Fonsi is found in many other sources, for instance https://thevault.musicarts.com/top-six-one-hit-wonders-from-the-2010s/ and the Stereogum source already cited. Binksternet (talk) 02:40, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Binksternet then cite those sources instead as Ranker.com violates Wikipedia's main rules of reliable sourcing but either way I've still provided enough sources to say he is not meaning he falls into a grey area and should be left off the list until stronger evidence can prove that culturally-speaking he is a one-hit wonder.

Also why is the page called List of One Hit Wonders in The United States and not List of Cultural One Hit Wonders that's been annoying me for awhile since the title is misleading as evident from the Talk Page going back a decade now as it is well established that people think of Billboard when they think OHWs so the change should be made to clear up the confusion. InternetEnigma (talk) 17:52, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 2023

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you change genres in pages without discussion or sources, as you did at Digital Bath. Magatta (talk) 16:52, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:55, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

InternetEnigma (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Not gonna ask for an unban I'll take the 48 hour ban that's fine but I have to ask why am I the only one being banned and not the other user as well because mind you I did provide actual sources numerous times, over a dozen by the end of it, I'd argue their edits were just as disruptive as they only relied on attacking me, appeals to appeals, and argumentative fallacies to discredit anything I put forward and only using original/self published research and opinionated bias to discredited everything I put therefore we should both be timed out for this as that is logically the only fair conclusion here to abide by your own rules as you have it statedInternetEnigma (talk) 04:06, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Not an unblock request. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 04:31, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

April 2023

Please refrain from adding, removing or changing genres, as you did to 20/20 (The Beach Boys album), without providing a source or establishing a consensus on the article's talk page first. Genre changes to suit your own point of view are considered disruptive. Thank you. freshacconci (✉) 14:57, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All information added is already cited by AllMusic which was linked on every page I edited and is a reliable source that is cited even by the Library of Congress as a credible database, the only person making disruptive edits here is you as you clearly didn't bother to even read the pages you were "protecting" from vandalism. Please refrain from further disruptive edits and false campaigns against other users without doing proper research beforehand thank you. InternetEnigma (talk) 22:47, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We don't use AllMusic sidebar genres because they are machine-generated and unreliable. See WP:ALBUMAVOID which lists poor sourcing and mentions this problem.

The essay WP:EXPLICITGENRE represents the working consensus about music genres. More generally, Wikipedia relies mainly on WP:SECONDARY sources which in this case would be published prose descriptions of musical genres written by musicologists, music critics or career journalists. Binksternet (talk) 00:09, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to change genres without discussion or sources, as you did at Go (Mario album), you may be blocked from editing. freshacconci (✉) 04:35, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The person genre warring here is you as again I continue to provide sources for these edits you just don't look at them and claim it is unsourced despite this information already being cited on the page. If you have a problem with this information then you need to remove the sources already cited on the page as they are unreliable it's as simple as that. InternetEnigma (talk) 06:12, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you change genres in pages without discussion or sources, as you did at Business Up Front/Party in the Back. freshacconci (✉) 06:34, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's weird that you are an editor on Wikipedia yet can't read a single thing someone writes. My sources have already been provided you just don't look at them and then claim unsourced. If you have a problem with these sources then you need to remove them. InternetEnigma (talk) 06:45, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:58, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

InternetEnigma (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The reason for my banning is that I made continuous unsourced edits however this is evidently not true as if you look at the logs I did provide sources Frescacconci either just can't read or worse intentionally misrepresented my edits as they constantly claimed there was no sourcing when again if you look at the edits made I did State my sources numerous times which were already cited on the page as credible and reliable sources thus if the information I added cannot be trusted they should have been removed which is something I pointed out numerous times to this user who ignored any point I made and instead continued to insistently claim I did not source my information when that is verifiably false as stated before. I would appreciate being unbanned as this is clearly not a fair application of the rules as I did cite my sources and stated them numerous times throughout only to be ignored because this user didn't like that I was daring to add something they presumably didn't agree with and instead wanted to genre war. Thank you for your consideration and I wish you a lovely day. InternetEnigma (talk) 01:42, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

While you may have a justifiable case to make regarding which genres should be listed, edit warring across multiple articles isn't acceptable even if you're right. It should have been clear to you as of the time of Binskternet's comment above that the changes you were making were controversial and needed to be discussed with other editors rather than unilaterally reintroduced. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:41, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

InternetEnigma (talk) 01:42, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

InternetEnigma (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Problem to me there is that I wasn't the one that started this genre warring and as you can see on the 20/20 page I did bring that topic to discussion which I now cannot participate because my voice has been silenced due to the ban.

I simply didn't think to start discussions on other pages for the reasonable belief that there was no discussion to be had as with the user Binksternet, for as un-credible as their arguments have been in the past as a user who has cited Ranker.com as a reliable source and has tried to discredit the Library of Congress as a reliable source because it doesn't use informal terminology in an academic setting, I have seen that they are at least partially open to discussion and actually responds to my counter-points where as freshacconci did not nor was even willing to have or participate in a discussion as shown by this very talk page where a discussion could have and was attempted to be had at 3 separate times and yet they didn't bother to respond and continued to claim the same exact thing despite being shown to be verifiably false showing to me that they had no intentions of acting in good faith here, this is further exemplified by the fact that they haven't even bothered to participate in the 20/20 discussion the edit that started their whole campaign further showing that my initial belief was correct as they are evidently not interested in having a discussion on the topic meaning the threads would just be left empty and nothing productive would have come from it.

It also is worth noting that their edits were actually far more disruptive than mine which can be shown on the page for Mario's Album Go where I had repaired and archived a dead link I had discovered during my investigation with that edit having since been undone with the reasoning being the edit is "unsourced" and with no attempt to repair and archive the link on their end, this is clearly disruptive and inherently damages the page and it's credibility so I again can't see how I'm the one deserving of banning in this instance for disruptive editing.

I would appreciate an unbanning but I would also be happy to at least have my sentence shortened so that I can actually participate in the discussion on the 20/20 page and counter pretty blatantly incorrect claims that didn't even address my points, (they ignored 2 of my sources and claim my entire argument is discredited and I'm not even allowed to argue against it).

It's hard to see how this was even a controversial edit when it's already included in numerous sources that are already cited on the pages with only the 20/20 page having more than 1 user disagree with it which was then brought to discussion even if it will evidently be pointless by the initial arguments that have been presented, all of these user's actions make it hard to see this as anything but an abuse of power by a senior user and just hates genres or something at least from my perspective.

I would very much appreciate if you could reconsider my unban request as this ban just seems super unfair to me and I would like to get back to adding useful contributions to the Wiki, thank you for your time and I wish you a lovely day and a peaceful night. InternetEnigma (talk) 08:55, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are blocked, not banned, those terms have different meanings. Blocks are not a punishment("sentence") but a means of preventing disruption to Wikipedia, in this case that caused by your edit warring. Being correct with your edits is not a defense to edit warring, as everyone in an edit war thinks that they are correct. You spend a lot of time discussing others in this request when you should only be discussing your actions. The block can be removed early if you commit to not edit warring in the future and tell us how you will handle editing disputes. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 10:19, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Please place new posts at the bottom, thanks. 331dot (talk) 10:19, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

InternetEnigma (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Seems like 311dot just completely ignored the situation and gave me a boilerplate response so allow me to restate my edits were in line with Wikipedia's guidelines and were backed by already trusted sources therefore there was no justification for their removal with the reason being given was unsourced editing which isn't true and I already showed I was willing to discuss the topic but was ignored and instead constantly told my edits were not sourced I've also shown that the users edits were disruptive when removing an archive link for being "unsourced" I don't understand what more I can say. I don't enjoy edit warring I don't like participating in it but when my edits do not violate the guidelines then there is no reason for them to be removed I don't know what more I can say at this point it just feels like everything I put is already decided to be wrong I've made my case but it just feels like there's no point in trying anymore if the cards are stacked against me anyway so whatever at this point it doesn't matter since other users just clearly don't like me and I'm apparently such a threat to the integrity of this community because I dared to make pages more reader friendly, I just don't understand this communities obsession with genres, genre warring and burning genres at the stake or why you allow senior users to start them and remain unpunished but you do what you do I'll just not exist here as much anymore since I am evidently not wanted here and I just don't have the energy to keep fighting in a system so stacked against smaller users, my health is already failing anyway why waste anymore time fighting a losing battle, sorry for the inconvenience and thank you for your time InternetEnigma (talk) 12:45, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

User no longer wishes to be unblocked. Yamla (talk) 15:28, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lost literary work, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Achilleis. 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) 06:02, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024

Please do not add or change content, as you did at List of lost films, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. iMDB trivia entries are not reliable sources per WP:USERGEN. Belbury (talk) 08:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with citations on this entry is that there isn’t really that great of choices in what to cite, Lost Media Wiki for instance isn’t eligible for citation as it’s another wiki and the rest of the sources eligible are a Medium blog, which has inaccurate information, or tweets and video clips of Mr. Jones talking about the film thus I think it can be acceptable in this instance to use IMDb as a source until a better one can be found or is made like I stated I would have used a better source if it was available it just isn’t as Wikipedia doesn’t allow for video citations or the like. InternetEnigma (talk) 10:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia can actually cite a director's WP:SOCIALMEDIA - although not for an "exceptional claim", which I think is probably the case here.

Sometimes Wikipedia just has to skip mentioning something, if reliable sources don't exist for it yet. Belbury (talk) 10:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Offensive language

You used a shortened version of schizophrenic on a talk page and in an edit summary both in reference to Twomad which according to google is offensive. Per Wikipedia:AVOIDABUSE this type of language should not be used. Thank you. Sahaib (talk) 07:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is unironically how Twomad both was described by his peers and would describe himself, the term itself is meant to describe insane ramblings on the Internet such as what Twomad had been doing for the past year so it was appropriate to describe his insane ramblings. InternetEnigma (talk) 12:53, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to House (TV series). Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 20:46, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

InternetEnigma (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I provided 2 different links for sources, one being a news source even, and am immediately banned for a month I can hardly see how that is justified, you constantly get on smaller users for “genre warring” yet when mods or admins do it you turn a blind eye how is that at all in the spirit of this Wiki’s intentions, I wasn’t even properly warned as mind you the original post cited the incorrect rule that I “violated” this is just incredibly inconsistent with Wikipedia’s guidelines. I would appreciate being unbanned please and thank you, have a lovely day.InternetEnigma (talk) 22:21, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You don't seem to understand why you were blocked. You should read through the policies and guidelines linked on this talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You've been warned about this over and over again. I can count more than ten such warnings on this talk page. You've been blocked for this twice before. How you can claim that you weren't warned is, frankly, staggering. How you can think a link to a wordpress blog counts as a WP:RS is also concerning. Any admin is free to unblock you (without consulting me) once you clearly demonstrate that, unlike very many of your edits since 2022, you finally thoroughly understand and will comply with WP:RS and WP:CITE. I'm just not seeing that at this time. --Yamla (talk) 00:56, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 2024

Hello! Thank you for your contributions. While it may have been in good faith, I have reverted your edit on The Silence of the Lambs (film) because it is an uncontroversial fact (and not an opinion) that no other horror films have received the Academy Award for Best Picture. It is also a reason why the film is notable. If you have any questions, comments, or concerns regarding this revert, please do not edit war by reverting again; instead, we can have a civil discussion to reach consensus. Thank you! xRozuRozu (t • c) 00:37, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not a fact as definitions of what is and is not Horror varies widely therefore it is a highly controversial and inflammatory statement to include on the article, movies like The Shape of Water & Parasite are considered by some to be Horror movies and more esoteric individuals consider Schindler’s List as one as well, it is an incontrovertible fact that it certainly was the First Horror to win Best Picture that is undeniable, except for maybe Rebecca but that’s a niche take at least, but to definitively say it is the only is inherently inflammatory and should be removed as a result. InternetEnigma (talk) 01:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quick reminder about the genres of such Best Pictures: Parasite is considered by most to be a comedy-drama film about inequality, Shape of Water is considered by large margins a dark fantasy set during the Cold War, and Schindler's List depicts the horrors of the Holocaust with a industrialist saving Jewish employees from the Nazis' concentration camps and mass murder. Either way, they're not considered horror films. 2601AC47 (talk) 13:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, Rebecca is not listed here. 2601AC47 (talk) 14:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have completely missed the point I was making, definitions of Horror are subjective what one person considers Horror isn’t inherently going to be considered Horror by someone else, some people don’t even consider Silence of The Lambs to be a Horror movie, this includes the Academy, it is why it’s an inherently inflammatory statement to have listed on the article which is why it should be removed.

Plenty of sources agree and disagree with the view of these films as Horror.

Examples:

https://the-avocado.org/2021/07/23/queer-horror-101-rebecca-1940/?amp=1

https://www.horrormovietalk.com/2020/08/11/how-parasite-becomes-a-horror-film-spoilers/amp/

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/18/movies/get-out-the-shape-of-water-horror-oscars.html

Whether you agree with these opinions or not is not the point I’m trying to make but rather that it is an inherently controversial & inflammatory statement to have on the article when there are many conflicting sources on the matter at hand. InternetEnigma (talk) 22:57, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Next time, though, consider getting consensus from other editors, like from WikiProject Film. 2601AC47 (talk) 23:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

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

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

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]