User talk:Pyxis Solitary/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

ANI

Tenebrae – February 2017

Tenebrae : 23 February 2017

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. -- Tenebrae (talk) 02:18, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


AN3

Hi. I have removed your incomplete report with the suggestion that you engage with the ip user on their talk page (recommending you speak plainly rather than use templates) and on the article talk page. Let me know if there are any issues whatsoever, and I'll see what I can do. Thanks. El_C 17:05, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Don't know how what a complete report is supposed to look like, but thank you for taking a look at what I brought to attention. I'll keep fingers crossed that there be no [1]. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 07:28, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
El_C: He's done it again. This time I filed an AN/3: User:172.91.91.69 reported. Obviously, the article has become a target for disruptive edits by this IP-address only editor. And I still think he's using a VPN. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 05:23, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't see it as disruptive. Also, the report is still incomplete, and you actually need four reverts to violate 3RR. See my detailed notes that close the report. El_C 05:45, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
El_C: After the plot was written long ago -- and edited by several editors -- one IP address editor comes along and changes the term "make love" to "have sex". When another editor changed it back to "make love" (which is the correct description because they stop to gaze at each other tenderly and one whispers an endearment to the other) and same editor added "kiss for the first time" (which describes precisely what happens in the story after they've been together for several days), the IP address editor changes it all back to "have sex". When a second editor returns the description back to "kiss for the first time and make love", the IP address editor again changes it to "have sex". This is not disruptive? Perhaps the best term for this kind of behavior in Wikipedia should be antagonistic or combative. The euphemisms for "make love" are: have sexual relations, be intimate, copulate, have sex. However, there is a difference between "making love" and "having sex". The difference is in the emotions involved. Making love involves sex -- but having sex does not necessarily involve love. And what you see in the film is two women who, after several days in each other's company, express their love for each other through the emotions involved in the sex they engage in. Big difference. To describe what happens as merely "have sex" is a pedestrian description -- or as said by another editor, uncouth.
The report not being complete eludes me. It's not like Wikipedia instructions go straight from A to B. Wikipedia instructions are not written for laymen. How many hoops have to be jumped through? Pyxis Solitary (talk) 08:26, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
See, had you said all that to the IP, preferably on the article talk page or their own talk page, you could fill that field about attempting to resolve the dispute. El_C 08:31, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm now headed straight to the article's Talk page. :-) Pyxis Solitary (talk) 08:35, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Good stuff. You are now well on your way to resolving the dispute. Don't worry, it will get resolved. El_C 09:01, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Voila! Pyxis Solitary (talk) 09:13, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
I left the user a note. Now we wait. El_C 09:24, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Two quick notes related to LGBT cats

First, using null edits to put discussion points (like [2]) is really not an appropriate use of them per WP:SUMMARYNO. If you were reverting and putting that in as the summary, that's fine, but as a null edit, that's a bit problematic; that's why we have talk pages.

You're right. I should have responded to your summary comment on the Talk page. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 08:20, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Second, on the cat for The Walking Dead, my issue is that from the category name "lesbian-related television programs" only, shows like The Walking Dead absolutely do not fit into, but I see that the category's inclusion criteria is dealing with any show that has a lesbian character. (Same up the LGBT-related tree from that cat). Just because there's a lesbian character does not necessarily make the show lesbian-related. That's why I think there's category naming problem. It's fine if the cat was "television programs with lesbian characters", and then making a second cat "lesbian-related television programs" where lesbian is a central theme of the show (eg, Orange is the New Black fits into what I would consider this type of category as LGBT aspects are a central theme). --MASEM (t) 14:26, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't disagree that the category name needs to be amended. But I don't think the bureaucracy that permeates Wikipedia would accept two categories that are somewhat similar to each other. Perhaps it should have been titled (imo) "Television programmes with lesbian characters or themes". What is the branch of the mothership where you can get thumbs-up for revising a category title?
Btw, The Walking Dead is included in List of LGBT characters in television and radio and List of dramatic television series with LGBT characters. And because of this, the main article should have a "See also" section where the lists appear to direct readers to them. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 08:20, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Quick question!

Hello Pxyis! How are you? I was just curious, would you happen to know the WP where it mentions that producers are only included in the infobox, not executive producers, line producers, etc? Vmars22 (talk) 14:25, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

@Vmars22:. Hello, back! I'm doing well, thank you. Hope all is well for you too. The infobox guideline is found here:
Template:Infobox_film#Parameters : producer : "Only producer credits should be included, not executive producers, associate producers, etc."
Cheers! Pyxis Solitary (talk) 02:30, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you so much! Have a great night. Vmars22 (talk) 02:49, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Absence & Carol

Hi, how's it going? I read your message. I know I've a lot to catch up on since my long-ass break. Not back full-time (doubt I'll be for awhile), I'm just slowly working on expanding a couple articles first. I'll get back to helping on the article when I'm ready to devote adequate attention to it. Cheers Lapadite (talk) 02:44, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@Lapadite77: Oh me gosh! I got so excited when I got the email that you'd left a message. You're back! How lovely.
I've been wiki toiling and humming Ol' Man River while at it (Tote dat barge, Lift dat bale, Ya git a little drunk and ya lands in jail....). Carol was nominated for GA in September. But it failed because the nominator had not contributed to the article. So I renominated it on March 6th. No one's reviewed it since that first reviewer.
Glad you're here again. :-) 'Till next.... Pyxis Solitary (talk) 11:57, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
There's a lot to sort through *grinds teeth*. The Carol article needs critical reviews cited in the critical reception section, not my favorite task I'll admit. I'm focused right now on improving this article. I saw you edited on the OITNB article, do you watch the show? If you do, we could use some help improving Orange articles. Lapadite (talk) 00:55, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
I would help edit OITNB if I could, but I only watched Season 1 (bad lesbian. bad. bad. bad.). If and when you do add more content to Carol's critical reception section ... prepare to wear a tactical helmet. That's all I'm gonna say. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 04:29, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Ahh but you start adding them. I can just copy edit :P . Really though, don't expect me to start on that section anytime in the near future; I'm rather burnt out from the time and work it took/is taking researching & putting together the commentary section of that ^ Vause article for 4 seasons+, and there's more to be added & improved in the article. Me and critical reception sections right now: https://media.giphy.com/media/3oKIPC8BhfIYIVGnVm/giphy.gif Lapadite (talk) 05:06, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Bullet edit / Tinkering accusation

While it was not my intention to "tinker" your comment in a way that makes you upset. I just read WP:TALKO:

Specifically where it says "..Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments:"

  • Fixing format errors that render material difficult to read. In this case, restrict the edits to formatting changes only and preserve the content as much as possible. Examples include fixing indentation levels, removing bullets from discussions that are not consensus polls or requests for comment (RfC), fixing list markup, using <nowiki> and other technical markup to fix code samples, and providing wikilinks if it helps in better navigation. Another helpful template is the Talk page Reflist, {{reflist-talk}}. The template should be placed after the discussion that includes the references, as it will include all references before the template.
  • Fixing layout errors: This could include moving a new comment from the top of a page to the bottom, adding a heading to a comment not having one, repairing accidental damage by one party to another's comments, correcting unclosed markup tags that mess up the entire page's formatting, accurately replacing HTML table code with a wikitable, etc.
  • Sectioning: If a thread has developed new subjects, it may be desirable to split it into separate discussions with their own headings or subheadings. When a topic is split into two topics, rather than sub-sectioned, it is often useful for there to be a link from the new topic to the original and vice versa. A common way of doing this is noting the change at the [then-]end of the original thread, and adding an unobtrusive note under the new heading, e.g., :<small>This topic was split off from [[#FOOBAR]], above.</small>. Some reformatting may be necessary to maintain the sense of the discussion to date and to preserve attribution. It is essential that splitting does not inadvertently alter the meaning of any comments. Very long discussions may also be divided into sub-sections.

All that happened was I misinterpreted your line-break as two separate comments (from separate users). I didn't tinker with the content of your posts. Perhaps you should read, WP:GOODFAITH; now we both learned something today. Have a good day. DA1 (talk) 13:46, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

You know what's missing from all your yada yada yada? An apology. You stepped into my parlor ... there and here. So I'm going to make this as easy to understand as possible. The first paragraph of WP:TALKO states:
"The basic rule—with some specific exceptions outlined below—is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission."
Don't assume anything. Don't assume what an editor meant to do in their comment. No one here has a crystal ball, nor can they read minds. Muster the courtesy to ask first before you indulge the hubris that makes too many editors on Wikipedia believe that they are somehow endowed with superior intent and knowledge. And most importantly, learn to bite the bullet and say "I'm sorry I did that." Your dick won't fall off because of it. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 06:53, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
You have serious problems if the mistaken insert of a * before your line warrants this response. I did not delete or edit the content of your post. Perhaps use your time for more productive efforts? And this "crystal ball...read minds" comment applies to you more than to me. I'm going to have to request you to strike out your lewd comments, and take a time to read WP:UNCIVIL.
"stepped into my parlor...there and here"; I don't know what this is supposed to mean, but since this stems from our original discussion perhaps it is only appropriate to call on the respective admin present at said discussion before it gets even further out of hand NinjaRobotPirate DA1 (talk) 16:08, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
@DA1: if you find that you don't get along with an editor, the easiest way to resolve that is usually to just leave them alone. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:35, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
For the record: there was no "original discussion" between us prior to your comment here, in my Talk page. You copyedited my comment in MOS/Film Talk @ 20:23, June 11, 2017 without an explanation in the summary. Two edits to the page later, I removed the unwanted bullet from my comment @ 12:50, June 12, 2017 and left a summary about it. Three edits to the page later you wrote a summary @ 01:03, June 13, 2017 that was a message for me to read my Talk page. 'nuff said. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 22:49, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Notice

Amaury – June 2017

Drop it

Hijiri88 – July 2017

Hijiri88 : 6 July 2017

This is getting ridiculous. You do not have a right to dismiss every comment I make just because I disagreed with you on the two threads about you. I don't think you have even read most of the sixteen comments in question -- pretty much every one not about you and Tenebrae was unanimously approved of by everyone who did read it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:26, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

How exactly was Alex's "name alluded to" in this quoted text? I was alluding to a different editor who apparently contacted Alex off-wiki to badmouth me. I guess it's possible Alex was lying and no one emailed him, but he has been emailing other people, in which case what I wrote could have possibly been alluding to him if I bought into that idea, but it's a pretty outlandish theory and I was not invoking it.
But of course, it's a lot more likely that you are fully aware that the above remark was not about Alex, and you just wanted to canvas someone to come in and start helping you attack me. It's the same reason you posted this (which I only noticed now). If I were the drama-hog that y'all seem to think I am, I would report you for this blatant canvassing/tag-teaming, but I'd really rather just forget this whole thing happened. Would you kindly drop it? Please? If you have a legitimate grievance with Tenebrae (and I respect Softlavender's opinion enough to believe that there is something there based on her saying there is), then I will try to help you work it out if you want, but I don't see why I should put up with you "recruiting" people to help you "fight" me just because you didn't like the help I already offered.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:05, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
"I don't see why I should put up with you "recruiting" people to help you "fight" me".
Stop with the false accusations. You chose to involve yourself in two ANIs that affect me and dragged two 1 2 editors into them without letting them know you'd done so. I did what Wikipedia expects its members to do when non-participating editors are talked about — by name or by implication. If I wanted to "recruit people" ... I can contact them in private. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 12:36, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Let's be clear: If I "dragged" those two particular editors into those discussions, I was dragging a whole lot of other editors in too. Yes, I did comment on SR's long-winded writing style, but I was just as critical of my own style, and I specifically stated that I didn't think it was deliberate on his part. And you yourself had made much more specific allusion to SR before I showed up anyway. I specifically name-dropped another editor, and even stated that they had been harassing me -- you chose not to notify that editor, because when you went to their user (or user talk) page you saw that they were banned and would be unable to help you undermine me. The only reason I linked that diff of a comment by ATW at all was because I have been accused of being "paranoid" about people sending emails about me around, so I either needed to present hard evidence that such a thing has been happening in the last two months or not mention that such was a possibility. I did not write it with any attention of "dragging anyone in".
I quoted Yunshui when I told you that casual sockpuppetry accusations were never acceptable and explicitly referred to his block of AffeL. When I mentioned that I have a history with unilateral closes that offered "advice" that was not enforceable on its fact, I was paraphrasing BU Rob13's opinion on Mjroots's close of an ANI discussion more than a year ago. My allusion to my past discussions of plot summaries was an explicit reference to something said by Curly Turkey on Drmies's talk page in the aftermath of the TBANning of Darkknight2149 following a discussion that was partially spear-headed by Softlavender, who had in turn made a string of somewhat unusual requests for evidence specifically in the form of diffs when evidence of other forms had already been provided in a discussion of Endercase in which discussion MjolnirPants and David Tornheim had also been central players, and it was to that discussion I alluded when I asked Softlavender not to make nitpick over a lack specifically of diffs when enough evidence had plainly been provided in other forms. If you ask for advice from experienced editors, you will get hundreds of (often subconscious) references to precedents that have no direct relation to your problem and are not being brought up for the purpose of relitigating past disputes.
The requirement to notify editors that they are being discussed on ANI is based on the assumption that you are asking for said editors to be blocked (or banned); notifying everyone who is casually namedropped or whose comments are vaguely alluded to or who may be vaguely interested in the discussion because they commented on similar discussions months or years ago is impossible and likely going to annoy a lot of people if you try to do it; cherry-picking those who, because they might still have a bone to pick with one user, might want to comment is canvassing and us-versus-them-ism.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:15, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
This is my Talk page and this is a formal request: stay away from my Talk page. Any further communication from you on my Talk page will be considered aggressive behavior. You've been warned. Pyxis Solitary talk 22:41, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Pyxis Solitary, I'm looking over that ANI thread, though not gladly: Hijiri has a tendency to be verbose, and I have no interest in the conflict that started it all. However, I just wanted to say that if I see one more of those condescending "^ Drama" interspersed in someone's comment, I will block you. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 13:24, 13 July 2017 (UTC)


ANI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive958#Advice_to_keep_a_distance_defied_by_editor_Tenebrae

No excuse for your verbal attack in an edit-summary

Tenebrae – July 2017

Tenebrae : 10 July 2017

Your frivolous ANIs continue to be rejected. But if you do another edit summary like this one, you will find yourself in an ANI and I am very certain that admins will not take kindly to you. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:19, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I told you on 13 December 2016 to stay away from my Talk page, and in that ANI to stay away from me. Thank you for providing more evidence about your conduct. Pyxis Solitary talk 12:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
If you're saying you have the right to insult and verbally abuse me and I cannot call you on it, no admin would ever agree to that. Don't be verbally abusive and I have no reason in the world to come here. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Who the fuck said that summary was about you? You and The Histrionics Queen are perfect bedfellows. It was not smart to post any message in my Talk page at all, but specially less than 24 hours after the ANI was closed. My request in that ANI for you to "stay away from me" has not only become an official record, but you are required to stay away from my Talk page because of it. Now, go away before I change my mind and bring your activity here to the attention of an Admin so that he or she can formally warn you to not post comments/messages on my Talk page. Pyxis Solitary talk 11:43, 12 July 2017 (UTC)


Your GA nomination of Carol (film)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Carol (film) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ribbet32 -- Ribbet32 (talk) 21:41, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Carol (film)

The article Carol (film) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Carol (film) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ribbet32 -- Ribbet32 (talk) 17:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Seven days from this message = 17:01 22 July. I will do my best to handle what's needed to be done. If what it takes cannot be addressed 24 hrs before that time, I will notify you. Pyxis Solitary talk 10:22, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Critical response section done. Miscellaneous done. Pyxis Solitary talk 13:23, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Carol (film)

The article Carol (film) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Carol (film) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ribbet32 -- Ribbet32 (talk) 17:02, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Zip-a-dee-doo-dah, zip-a-dee-ay
My, oh my, what a wonderful day! Pyxis Solitary talk 23:00, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:07, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi

Sorry for dropping by. It came to my mind recently I should apologize for an inappropriate remark I made a while back. Hope all is well. By the way, I have been thinking about potentially improving Feminism in Japan to GA standards, and I would appreciate if you have any pointers. Best regards, Alex ShihTalk 04:24, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Water under the bridge. Thank you for your message. I know you're friends with H and friends support each other. I'll take a peek at the article, but must confess that outside of samurai women and geigi I'm not very familiar with the history of women in Japanese culture. Pyxis Solitary talk 08:28, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, and about the duplicate links

Thank you very much for the terrific additions to the List of LGBT-related films directed by women. I've also started a talk page thread there on the subject of duplicate links and why I think they are of value on that list. Regards, GetSomeUtah (talk) 12:02, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Categories

I would be extremely careful about the category Category:Gay-related television programs primarily that you are making the category too diffuse, against how the category system should be used. A show by virtue of having a gay character does not make it "gay-related TV", as you did for The Walking Dead (what gay themes does it explore significantly? Yes, there's two canon gay characters but their sexuality is a tiny factor relative to the overall show). As the higher LGBT-related TV program category states, it should be reserved for shows where there is significant issues related to the gay character or themes. --MASEM (t) 06:15, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

No. That's an argument for avoiding acknowledging that a tv series includes gay male characters (and lesbian, bisexual, transgender). If a tv series includes gay male characters, then the category is apt. See: List of LGBT characters in television and radio and List of dramatic television series with LGBT characters. Pyxis Solitary talk 06:39, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Having a gay character does not make the show gay-related, especially if the themes are not discussed beyond a few moments. That's what the parent Category:LGBT-related television programs category sets out - that inclusion on the list is if the LGBT content is significant - so this sub-category needs to stay within that as well; instead you're crafting a definition that goes beyond what the parent category says. --MASEM (t) 06:47, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Nope. You're refusing to accept that when a series has separate and individual gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender characters, it should be acknowledged. Sub-categories are cross-classifications used to find articles when a specific subject is being searched for. Noting the inclusion of L/G/B/T characters does not translate into a series being "LGBT". The description of the categories specifically states:
  • "live action and animated television series, made for TV movies and pilots that include one or more gay male characters."
It does not say the series, movies, and pilots are LGBT. It's clear that you've got a personal problem with this matter. Pyxis Solitary talk 06:53, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
I have zero issue on the LGBT aspect, I'm worried about the diffusion issue with the category, given how the parent category is specifically designed. If you look at Category:LGBT-related television programs, it specifically distinguishes a show that just happens to have a LGBT character (which then should be listed at the list pages indicated), rather than being included in the category about LGBT-related content. Since "Gay-related television programs" is a sub-cat, it must take that same approach. That list does include the list of gay characters, so you have that (but now just looking through, I suspect there's a lot of original research too, taking statements made in show out of context). But to take the case at hand, there is nothing "gay-related" about The Walking Dead; just because two characters on it are gay does not make the same anything about gay-based themes. Looking through the list and your contributions, there appear to be several cases like this. Again, where the gay characters are central to the show's theme (eg Queer as Folk), absolutely makes sense in this category. But just including them in the category simply because there happen to be gay characters is not appropriate per the parent category's definition nor our category scheme. --MASEM (t) 07:05, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Category:Gay-related television programs has been nominated for discussion

Category:Gay-related television programs, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. AussieLegend (✉) 14:21, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: I don't see it. Please provide the exact link that takes you directly to the discussion about it. Txs. Pyxis Solitary talk 14:34, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Found it. Pyxis Solitary talk 14:35, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Pyxis Solitary. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Discuss on Talk page - not using edit history

This edit is not how to discuss matters - most people wont see it. There is an open discussion for the matter on the talk page Talk:Doctor Who#Categorizing as Gay- or Lesbian-related. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 23:57, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Category:Gay-related television programs

You can't revert a change claiming "No decision was reached by consensus in Talk page re wording of lead. There's only a discussion involving 2 editors" and then add your own text without seeking consensus for your changes as you did at Category:Gay-related television programs.[3][4] At the very, very best that is hypocritical. Per WP:STATUSQUO I have reverted to the version added by the CfD closer. I'm happy to revert to the pre-CfD version if that is what you would prefer but, given the outcome of the CfD and the closer's comments, any change requires consensus. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:53, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

PS: unfortunately, the discussion has been poxed. You shall understand why. 217.61.14.127 (talk) 10:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Why am I not surprised? Word to the wise: ignore. Here's a tonic that will help you forget drama queens. :-) Pyxis Solitary talk 08:55, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Hey!

I just noticed that "Crazy Ex-Girlfriend" was added twice. Once under "Fear the Walking Dead" and the other under "Narcos" And "Janet King" was added twice also (under Empire & Looking) Overlord790 (talk) 11:46, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand your message. Can you be more specific? Pyxis Solitary talk 22:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
On this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dramatic_television_series_with_LGBT_characters. But nevermind, it was removed :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Overlord790 (talk • contribs) 23:22, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Greetings

Hey! I'm really serious about helping you edit the page, but sometimes I have questions, because I'm still learning. I was wondering if you could suggest a faster way that I could contact you? Hope this doesn't seem too weird. Overlord790 (talk) 21:29, 24 January 2018 (UTC-4)

@Overlord790: I will answer any questions you have as best I can. Usually it's better to do it on an editor's talk page. If for whatever reason you need it to be private, you can email me: in the left column, under Tools, there's "Email this user". By the way ... welcome to the baptism of fire.  :-) Pyxis Solitary talk 06:06, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who like Black Mirror

Hey! I saw that you edited the article Black Mirror and thought maybe you would be interested in this new user category I created?-🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 11:10, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Michigan Womyn's Music Festival

Hi, Pyxis, regarding my revert of User:LikkerdySplit's change of "cisgender" to "natural-born" at Michigan Womyn's Music Festival:[a] I know you're not crazy about the term cisgender in general, and wikilinking it at Michigan Womyn's Music Festival as you did, was fine. I believe you would much rather have eliminated the word from that sentence entirely, and only wikilinked it in a bending-over-backwards effort to compromise, so that folks could get a more nuanced view of it by clicking through to the article, perhaps in the bargain reading some of the objections to it; am I right? So in that sense, it was an example of you making a great (and laudable) effort to be neutral, even when it grates on you. I totally get it; so bravo for that, and don't think it goes unrecognized. And thanks for your efforts to stay neutral, it's a standard I aspire to as well. Anyway, enough praise () and back to the matter at hand:

In your efforts to be more than fair, I think you may have overlooked some other possible solutions that might be more to your liking, and still remain neutral. Even though you and I don't feel the same way about that word and I don't object to it at all (except mildly in certain contexts for being too high-falutin'), nevertheless I think you would have been well within your rights to seek another solution that would avoid having the word there. For example, I would see nothing wrong with putting "non-transgender" there, or if you think that would get too much pushback, then maybe a compromise like "[[cisgender|non-transgender]]", or "[[cisgender]] (i.e., non-transgender)"[b] or something similar. Everything else being equal, my preference would be to keep "[[cisgender]]" there, but everything else isn't equal, since you voiced an objection, so maybe others feel as you do, and we should try out an alternative, to see if there's consensus for it. For my part, I would not revert a reasonable change on your part in an attempt to find consensus there. (Am a bit afraid someone else would, but per WP:BRD we could just take it to Talk and try to find consensus there, depending how much it bothers you, and how much other support you think you'd find. I know at least a few editors who believe as you do.)

As a kind of concluding note, I just wanted to say that I appreciate your contributions. I know that in this topic area, we will often disagree on things, perhaps more than we'll agree, I don't know. But that's okay, AFAIC. It might even be a good thing. I clearly see that your efforts are towards building the encyclopedia, and that you strive to remain neutral in an area which is clearly of importance to you. In a way, I think our opposing stances on some of these issues, might make us ideal partners for improving a whole raft of articles in this topic area. One of my peeves, is that some editors on both sides of this question (or any question) devolve into complete partisanship in discussions, and are unable to get past that, to the detriment of the encyclopedia. There are certainly editors that largely agree with you in this topic area, that I don't trust as much as I trust you; and absolutely ditto for editors who agree with me, as well (although I have less problem with the latter, because of my own bias ). So, I thought, if you're willing, we could maybe be a team for just keeping each other (and others) honest, in areas of controversy in this area. If I make a change or a revert, and I question whether I'm being fair or not, or whether I'm letting bias creep in, I know that if I call on you, you'll give me the straight dope without being partisan, and I bet that in a lot of cases, the articles will be the better for it. I would hope that you would feel the same way. And don't hesitate to {{trout}} me, or revert me, if you feel I deserve it in some given situation. But in any case, just wanted to reiterate that I appreciate your contributions, even if I don't always agree with them, and I think that the encyclopedia is definitely the better for them. Have a great rest of your weekend! Mathglot (talk) 00:43, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Not ignoring you. I've been burning my candle at both ends and need to really focus on your message before responding. :-) Pyxis Solitary talk 16:16, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Not a problem; I've been burning mine on three ends, so take your time. And anyway, this is your talk page, so you don't have to respond if you don't feel like it. Mathglot (talk) 08:57, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
@Mathglot: Imagine my surprise when, at first glance, I expected to read a finger wag about my edits in that article.
I appreciate that you have noted my "efforts to stay neutral". When I edit Wikipedia, I very much try to stay impartial (even when the little devil on my shoulder tries to tempt me in the opposite direction) and when necessary back-up my edits with sources.
Any subject/term/minutiae associated with transgender has become a third rail within and outside the LGBT community, and there are too many words that have become weaponized. I don't know how a compromise regarding the word "cisgender" could be feasible when it has become a term so tied to the politics of transgenderism and used unquestionably nowadays.
As for your proposal ... if an edit of mine is insufficient or incorrect, I don't object to you or any editor doing what needs to be done. And when I am in the wrong I own up to my poor decisions and mistakes.
You are a conscientious editor and I could already tell from your edits that your efforts are in the best interest of Wikipedia. Thank you for your message. :-) Pyxis Solitary talk 13:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


Notes

  1. ^ A minor, O/T aside about recent history at that article: in a previous edit there, I reverted you on a question of duplicate links in sidebar and Portal; however I don't feel strongly about that, and if you want to revert back, be my guest.
  2. ^ For those who have Nav pop-ups enabled in their Preferences, the parenthetical explanation following a wikilinked term is redundant, but I don't know what percentage of users that is, plus it doesn't work on mobile, I don't think.

Re: Adding false information

Re: Your edit of Katherine Barrell. Wikipedia is not a fan site. If an actor's name does not appear in the opening credits BEFORE the title of a series = they're not a "main" actor. Pyxis Solitary talk 12:49, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

She got promoted in season 2 and became a series regular. This was addressed in the 2017 comic con by Emily Andras herself, even though her name did not appear in the opening credits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Llamaizfab (talk • contribs) 11:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

@Llamaizfab: Nope. She has always been a series "regular" but she's not been promoted to "Main" cast. Her name always appears after the show title, sometimes after another actor's name. It's important that you understand how actors are billed in a TV program and what it means. Also, every claim in Wikipedia has to be supported with a verifiable source ... and none exists to support a change in her status in her article and the article for the series. There is no press release announcement to support it. There is no reportage to support it. Until her name appears before the show title, together with Melanie Scrofano, Shamier Anderson, Tim Rozon, and Dominique Provost-Chalkley ... she's not "Main" cast. What you think and what you wish were true is your point of view -- not fact -- and does not comply with WP:NEUTRAL and WP:VERIFY. Pyxis Solitary talk 12:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Neutral notice

A move request regarding Deadline.com / Deadline Hollywood, an article you have edited, is taking place at Talk:Deadline Hollywood#Requested move 11 March 2018. It is scheduled to end in seven days.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:19, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Help me! with Moving a page

Please help me with changing the title of a list. The list is currently named List of situation comedies with LGBT characters. Per WP:MOVE, it has a descriptive name that applies to a particular type of television comedy, but the scope of the list has been extended to include comedies that are not necessarily "sitcoms".

On January 24, 2011‎, this list specifically for TV comedies was created with the comedies from the // Sitcoms // sub-section of the general Lists of television programs with LGBT characters. However, the title given for the list referred to "situation comedies" (compared to List of dramatic television series with LGBT characters, which makes it relevant for crime dramas, horror dramas, fantasy dramas, etc.)

I want to move "List of situation comedies with LGBT characters" to List of comedy television series with LGBT characters. With this change, I believe it more accurately describes its purpose and usage.

However, I've never done this before and besides moving the list to a revised name, the former name would also need to be updated in whatever lists and articles it is linked in and I have no experience with automated editing tools. Thank you. Pyxis Solitary talk 10:41, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, you can request for moving at requested moves. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 12:07, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Ok. Thank you for replying. Pyxis Solitary talk 08:49, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Citation Barnstar
Thanks for your work on citations! I think I finally figured it out, thanks to your help.

Take a look and see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boise_homosexuality_scandal AnaSoc (talk) 01:52, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

You're getting closer. But you are still using numbers (<ref name=":0">) for refnames and Wikipedia specifically says you can't. When you cite a book you're citing World Catalog/OCLC as the source -- you need to use the book itself as the source, and the Wikipedia article for the publisher (if it exists) needs to be linked. Dates are also not year-month-day: you can do (a) day-month-year or (b) month-day-year ... with the month spelled out. Experiment using the Cite > Templates in the editing toolbar on your Sandbox. Until you get it right, use these templates (add different source info, of course):
  • <ref>{{cite web|last1=Doe|first1=Jane|title=It Only Seems Hard To Get|url=http://www.pyxis.com|website=Pyxis|accessdate=16 June 2018|date=June 16, 2008}}</ref>
  • <ref name="Doe2018">{{cite book|last1=Doe|first1=Jane|title=It Only Seems Hard To Get|date=2018|publisher=Pyxis|pages=0-60|edition=1st|isbn=978-0000000000}}</ref>
Pyxis Solitary 04:03, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Apparently, when the article is in edit mode, re-used references are numbered. But when I publish the article, the numbers disappear and letters appear. On the Boise article, all I added was the D'Emilio and Freedman book; the other references predate my existence on Wikipedia. Those are the ones with the dates listed incorrectly. So please check again--I think I am conforming. I appreciate your help.AnaSoc (talk) 21:55, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Valid HTML

Please stop using <br>. It's <br />. When you use invalid markup like <br>, it wrecks the syntax highlighting (an option under the Preferences menu), including on talk pages, from the insertion point on down.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:59, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I'll try to remember. However, Line-break handling has no preference. Pyxis Solitary 05:07, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Not episodeography

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#Filmography content. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:12, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Sworn Virgin

Hi. Please don't use the article's external links section as a WP:LINKFARM. They should be used as inline refs in the body of the article. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 11:48, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

(1) The list of links is not "excessive" and are "useful content-relevant links"; (2) All links are associated with the production and distribution of the film. If an editor uses one or more of the links as a citation in the article, they can then be removed from the section. (Perhaps you can contribute to the article, as I have done, rather than deleting content?) Until the article is built up, there is nothing in WP:ELNO that excludes any of the links involved. Pyxis Solitary yak 11:59, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Pot – Kettle – Black
Stop icon
Your recent editing history at Sworn Virgin shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
And please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 11:15, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
You're the one that is edit warring with another editor. I'm prepared to defend myself with evidence of your conduct. See article's talk page. Pyxis Solitary yak 11:28, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
[ The pot calling the kettle black ]

List of dramatic television series with LGBT characters

You're quite welcome! Once I noticed that there were coding screwups in the table that I was really struggling to find in order to fix, I decided it was time to buckle down on the long overdue chronological ordering issue so that the coding errors would be easier to find. It actually wasn't as much of a crazy time sink as it looks like it should have been, because especially once you get to the 2000s and 2010s there were large chunks of the list that could just be copied and pasted in one shot instead of 500 separate ones. We might still want to consider whether there's a need for further order refinement — for example, within each year's individual group of entries, should their secondary sort logic be "year of ending" or "strictly alphabetical" (e.g. in 1993, should Sisters be listed after NYPD Blue because S comes after N alphabetically, or before NYPD Blue because it ended earlier? Or should we just not worry about secondary sort orders at all since the list is resortable on both criteria anyway?) Apart from correcting a couple of obvious sorting errors I didn't re-sort the list that carefully, precisely because there's room for different opinions about the secondary sort order — but that's where the much bigger time sink would have been (and will still be if there's a consensus to change it).

But yeah, I agree that the list looks a lot better, and will hopefully be at least somewhat more manageable now — so thank you kindly for the props! Bearcat (talk) 15:35, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

@Bearcat: I think a quest to have the show names alphabetized within each section will eventually hit a wall when those editors that don't understand alphabetization, or don't care to do it, start adding rows. You can include a Notice to editors, you can provide instructions written in the simplest terms, and still some editors will either not understand the guidelines, or will deliberately ignore them. Whatever may or may not be done down the road to the layout, what you did is outstanding. :-)  Pyxis Solitary yak 14:18, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Killjoys Intertitle.png

Thank you for nominating File:Killjoys Intertitle.png for deletion. I have re-uploaded it, and added the correct copyright information through the use of the "edit" function. Cheers. -- AlexTW 07:12, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: If I were you, I'd edit the summary to say exactly what the title card is: a screenshot from an episode broadcast on Space channel. The Space watermark appears on the screenshot. Syfy may be a co-producer, but it has no involvement in the title card that was uploaded and the media was not "obtained from ... Syfy". Pyxis Solitary yak 10:27, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Copyrighted images in Commons

Hi Pyxis. I think we both worked on the InfoBox image of "The Haunting of Hill House" movie poster. I was editing the summaries to remove the Long Plot templates and noticed the poster image was marked for speedy deletion (it was uploaded to Commons) in the Talk page. So I quickly snatched the official poster visual from Netflix's official Facebook page (can you believe they don't have official press kits?) and uploaded it, with the typical Fair Use tags and explanations. But I think you must have done the same before, and I failed to notice (there was no comment in the Talk page). Thing is, mine is there now. I'm sorry if I accidentally overwrote yours. Ferkijel (talk) 07:58, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

"Speedy deletion" relates to a file being deleted when another has replaced it -- or a file that does not comply with Wikipedia policy. My file is a screenshot of the title card from the first episode, versus a promotional image. That's what should be included in the infobox whenever possible. The file I uploaded is awaiting an administrator review and deletion of the old file. I'll restore the file to the article. Thanks for letting me know. Pyxis Solitary yak 08:01, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for understanding; it was an honest mistake (I'm a rather inexperienced editor and failed to notice that the comment referred to another file that was no longer there). Hopefully no harm done. Ferkijel (talk) 10:52, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

File:The Haunting of Hill House.jpg

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:01, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Pyxis Solitary. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pyxis_Solitary/Archive_3&oldid=1154283152"