User Talk: Hollyforest

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

Welcome!

Hi Hollyforest! I noticed your contributions ↗ and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

{{Clickable button|Help:Introduction|Learn more about editing|class=mw-ui-progressive|style=margin-left: 1.6em;}}

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia ↗ page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

{{Clickable button|Wikipedia:Teahouse|Get help at the Teahouse|style=margin-left: 1.6em;}}

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

{{Clickable button|Wikipedia:Task Center|Volunteer at the Task Center|style=margin-left: 1.6em;}}

Happy editing!  '''Jay8g''' <small>[<nowiki />V•T•E ↗<nowiki />]</small> 21:51, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

:Thank you! Hollyforest (talk) 21:56, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

The Films about psychopaths and sociopaths category

Hi. I see you are adding :Category:Films about psychopaths and sociopaths ↗ to a lot of articles. I've had to revert a few of these. In one case you added this category to Dexter, which is a TV series, not a movie. In at least two more you added the category to articles that do not describe any of the characters as either psychopaths or sociopaths. You should only add that category to articles for movies that are primarily about characters who are named as psycho- or socio- paths in reliable sources ↗. Otherwise it is just your judgement that the articles fits in that category, and that is not permitted on Wikipedia. Thanks, Opolito (talk) 22:08, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

:Please stop adding these categories to further articles. A significant percentage of your additions are wrong and this is starting to be disruptive ↗. Thank you, Opolito (talk) 22:12, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
:Hi, tv series do not count as films? I named the category "films" and not "feature films" to include features, shorts, documentaries, series etc. You mean I should create separate sub-categories for all these? Hollyforest (talk) 22:21, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
::TV Series do not count as films, you would need a separate category for those. Note that the bigger problem here is adding this category to articles that do not have reliable sources ↗ that support it. Opolito (talk) 22:27, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
:::Ok, thanks, I will undo my own additions for tv series. Can standalone documentaries still go in the category, or I need a separate one as well? Hollyforest (talk) 22:32, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
::::Documentary films would be valid within that category, yes. As long as there are reliable sources ↗ in the articles that say the documentary is about sociopaths or psychopaths. Opolito (talk) 22:58, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

March 2025

25px|alt=|link= ↗ Please stop your disruptive editing ↗.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute ↗ with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page ↗, and seek consensus ↗ with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution ↗ page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards ↗.

If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ↗.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at :Mothers' Instinct (2024 film) ↗, you may be blocked from editing ↗.  Opolito (talk) 22:16, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

:I had no intention whatsoever to be disruptive. Celine (Anne Hathaway's character) in the movie has clearly psychopathic tendencies, it didn't cross my mind that this could be considered a subjective interpretation. Although indeed I can't seem find relevant citations to back this up, so I understand your point, I'll be more careful. Hollyforest (talk) 22:30, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
:Hello again, I've just checked and I see that you reverted my category addition on a lot of movies which have a wide consensus with numerous sources talking about their central characters being psychopaths or sociopaths: Funny Games is a classic about two psychopaths torturing a family, the main guy in Wall Street has been described by film scholars as a clear example of corporate sociopath, I Care a Lot and Fatal Attraction feature female leads who have been described as sociopaths, I Saw the Devil is about a detective playing cat and mouse with a psychopathic serial killer, Terrifier is about a psychopathic clown torturing and murdering people, and more... Why did you revert these? Hollyforest (talk) 22:59, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
:P.S. You even reverted Misery, which features the most classic example of a female psychopath, the way Normal Bates is in Psycho, appearing on numerous articles described as such. What's happening? Hollyforest (talk) 23:05, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

As I have explained to you at least three times above and multiple times in edit summaries: just because you believe that a character "has clearly psychopathic tendencies" does not allow you to add that category to the article. There '''has''' to be a reliable source ↗ in the article that explicitly says the main character(s) are either sociopaths or psychopaths. You just reverted my edit to Misery ↗ but nowhere in the article do the terms "psychopath" or "sociopath" appear, let along with proper sources. Wikipedia articles are about what the sources say, not about one editor's interpretation. Please read our core policies about verifiability ↗ and maintaining a neutral point of view ↗. And please undo you reversion on Misery. Opolito (talk) 23:13, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
:Just in case you're concerned that only Opolito has raised these concerns, Hollyforest, they are absolutely correct in that you should not be adding categories to any articles where the category is not supported by reliably sourced content ↗ within the article. Not only should the category be defining ↗, it needs to be sourced ↗.-- <span style="color: Navy;">'''Ponyo'''</span><sup><span style="color: Navy;">''bons mots''</span></sup> 23:17, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
::I've explained below in detail to Opolito, with an analogy. If the plot talks about characters behaving in ways that are objectively described on the pages about psychopathy or antisocial personality disorder, then the category should apply, without the need to specifically mention the word "psychopath". It's like the category about violence agains women, for which acts of violence which are objectively identified in the plot are enough to add the category, without having to specifically read the expression "violence against women" in the sources or the article. Hollyforest (talk) 23:43, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
::Here's an example, the movie The Bad Seed ↗ from 1956, about a psychopathic little girl, does not mention the word psychopath in the article or the sources. But in Psychology Today ↗ there is a detailed article about how the novel The Bad Seed ↗, on which the movie is based, "exposes readers to the risk of psychopathy in children". The movie does the exact same thing and it's objectively obvious from just reading the plot on wikipedia, but I can't add the category now because of this overly strict understanding of objectivity in this case. That's not constructive, because this way a classical movie which clearly talks about psychopathy, and one of the very few that talk about psychopathy in children, can't be tagged as such. Hollyforest (talk) 00:07, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
:::Then you have a very easy way to add the category. Just add properly sourced information to the article first, then add the category afterwards. Opolito (talk) 00:16, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
::::Ok then, that's what I'll do if time allows me. I was hoping that adding categories wouldn't be so strict. Hollyforest (talk) 00:25, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

:I had already undone my reversion of your reversion on Misery seconds after I did it, I clicked publish in error, sorry about that, my intention was to add more reliable sources as you requested, but I see that those can only be added in the article itself.
:These are not my personal opinions, and it's clear from the article and the sources that the character is a psychopath, there is no need to specifically look for the word "psychopath". As an analogy, there are many films in a category about violence against women, yet "violence against women" is not seen word-by-word in the articles or the sources, that's because it is obvious from the plot. If the plot talks about someone killing or beating women or some other violent acts, objectively that category applies. In the same way, if the plot talks about characters behaving in ways that are objectively described on the pages about psychopathy or antisocial disorder, then the category should apply, without the need to specifically mention the word. Your interpretation is too strict and the reversion of many of my additions and adding this disruptive editing warning is overzealousness. Hollyforest (talk) 23:35, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Grimmfest logo.webp

35px|text-top|left|⚠|link= ↗ Thanks for uploading ''':File:Grimmfest logo.webp ↗'''. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use ↗. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media ↗).

Note that any non-free images not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion ↗. Thank you. --<span style="font-family: monospace, monospace; color:#69C">Min☠︎rax</span><sup>«¦'''talk'''¦»</sup> 00:12, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Ext. Car. Night ↗ moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Ext. Car. Night ↗. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because '''it consists of machine-generated text'''.
I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page ↗.
When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 ↗ (talk • contribs ↗) 16:23, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:I did not use AI on my edits, quite the contrary, I remember writing very carefully the production info and other sections on this article based on multiple sources which I have cited. So I'm not sure what's happening. Hollyforest (talk) 17:25, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
::The plot summary in particular reads as highly LLM-generated to me. I tried running the page through a few LLM detectors, which agreed the page contained machine-generated text. Other sentences, such as {{tq|This longstanding collaboration fostered a deep mutual understanding, enhancing on-screen chemistry and performance dynamics}} also read as AI-generated. I'd suggest re-submitting via WP:AFC ↗ if you want a second opinion, though it may be worth going through to improve the flagged sections before you do so. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 ↗ (talk • contribs ↗) 18:06, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
::Furthermore, this is the third link on the page: https://cineuropa.org/en/newsdetail/455597/?utm_source=chatgpt.com. Source=chatgpt.com is fairly damning. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 ↗ (talk • contribs ↗) 18:12, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
::Thanks for pointing this out, I must have confused this with other movie articles I manually wrote/edited based on interviews with cast & crew. For this one I must have used AI in come capacity, I don't remember exactly to what extent. I'll try to reedit and resubmit if time allows me. Hollyforest (talk) 21:22, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

May 2025

25px|alt=Information icon ↗ Hello, I'm Wasianpower. An edit that you recently made to :Draft:Ext. Car. Night ↗ seemed to be generated using a large language model ↗ (an "AI chatbot ↗" or other application using such technology). Text produced by these applications can be unsuitable for an encyclopedia ↗, and output must be carefully checked. Your edit may have been reverted ↗. If you want to practice editing, please use your sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks.{{PAGENAME}} ↗ 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 ↗ (talk • contribs ↗) 16:24, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ext. Car - Night Poster.jpg

35px|text-top|left|⚠|link= ↗ Thanks for uploading ''':File:Ext. Car - Night Poster.jpg ↗'''. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use ↗. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media ↗).

Note that any non-free images not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion ↗. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:27, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Ext. Car. Night ↗

25px|alt=Information icon ↗ Hello, Hollyforest. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Ext. Car. Night ↗, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted ↗, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it ↗ again or request ↗ that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted ↗ so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 17:06, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;flex-basis: 40px">40px ↗</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''2025 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2025|end}}-1 day}}. 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 2025 election, please review the candidates ↗ and submit your choices on the '''2025|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:00, 18 November 2025 (UTC)</small>

</div>
</div>

June 2026

25px|alt=Information icon ↗ Please do not add or change content, as you did at :List of films featuring psychopaths and sociopaths ↗, without citing a reliable source ↗. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources ↗ to see how to add references to an article. ''Please review WP:LISTV ↗ and WP:CIRCULAR ↗. A film simply being bluelinked is not sufficent to include it on this list without providing a source.'' DonIago (talk) 14:43, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

:I have added references to most of them, even thought in many cases they weren't needed. Case in point: When a film is a documentary about a real psychopathic killer, it's self-evident. Anyone removing those titles instead of just adding a reference or asking others to add one before removing, is engaging in a form of soft vandalism on the list. A movie featuring a psychopath is often self-evident from the storyline. Same as movies featuring serial killers. You wouldn't ask references for a list of movies featuring serial killers when it's obvious that the movie is about a killer who kills multiple times. True that psychopathy is a bit more subjective than serial killing, but still, removing without at least a prior warning is excessive. Hollyforest (talk) 15:11, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
::Yes, and I haven't touched the items where you added a reference. But, how is it self-evident from reading a collection of titles that one is a documentary, or that the storyline is about a psychopath ↗? As for asking others to add a reference, the list had been tagged for at least several months prior to my making any changes. I ''strongly'' encourage you to review WP:VANDALISM ↗, since you seem unaware of how that term is properly used here, and it's highly inappropriate to accuse another editor of even "soft" vandalism unless it meets that definition. And yes, per WP:LISTV ↗, I would indeed ask for sources for any other list as well. It's not sufficient to claim "it's obvious"...and besides, if it is obvious, then finding a source should be a trivial matter for any editor who wishes to retain an item on the list. DonIago (talk) 17:21, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
:::I understand. You have removed numerous titles in July 2025, something I've only observed today. It took me a lot of time to add them back manually, one by one, and add references. I wish I only had to add references, that would've saved me unnecessary work. I'm not as experienced as you are with regulations, but I did observe the following: many times, when articles have lots of unsourced info, but it appears to be done in good faith, editors will choose not to remove it, but flag it for the lack of references instead, in the hopes that in time, people will add those references. Because otherwise it can be disrespectful for the passionate work people put into those articles, and detrimental overall for Wikipedia, hence why I felt this is almost a form of vandalism. I see at the page you linked that disruptive editing and other forms of problematic editing is not considered vandalism, although colloquially is referred to as vandalism, which is what I meant, hence why I made sure to call it soft.
:::As a conclusion to this: I put a lot of work into creating that list and identifying as many movies about psychopaths and sociopaths as possible. For some I could find the time to add references, for others I did not, as I assumed others will see that the work was done in good faith and not delete it, as was the case with numerous other lists and articles. Also because I found it to be obvious for many of those films. Just an example: removing the documentary Aileen: Life and Death of a Serial Killer ↗, about America's infamous woman psychopathic killer, is like removing a film called JFK: Life and Death of an American President from a list of assassinated American presidents, just because it has no references proving that JFK was indeed a president and that he was indeed assassinated. Technically such a removal would be correct maybe, but one could argue that it's made either in bad faith or without much care, because it being added in the first place was obviously valid and in good faith.
:::Anyways, things are not as obvious as I thought, hence no worries, I won't be making any more additions or re-additions without references. Have a good day! Hollyforest (talk) 22:06, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
::::Thanks for understanding (at least to some degree) where I was coming from. FWIW, if the list hadn't already been tagged for several months at the time I removed the unsourced entries, I would have tagged them myself rather than removing anything. I do try to give people a fair shot to improve sourcing before I delete (WP:BLP ↗s can be a different matter for obvious reasons). Happy editing! DonIago (talk) 03:11, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::Of course, thank you as well, I've understood by now that you didn't act careless or in bad faith. Hollyforest (talk) 07:36, 23 June 2026 (UTC)