User talk:Pyxis Solitary/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Re Meghan Murphy edit

Hello. The reason I deleted the “residence” field is that it is removed from Infobox:person and will eventually be dropped support. It would be better as a sentence in the subject’s biography section. Alex 06:40, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

It's important that you provide a summary for your edits, particularly when they are deletions of content. I checked the discussion at Template talk:Infobox person and, as decided by consensus, removed the parameter from the infobox template. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 07:39, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of List of dramatic television series with LGBT characters: 2020s

Hello, Pyxis Solitary,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username TomCat4680 and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged List of dramatic television series with LGBT characters: 2020s for deletion, because it doesn't appear to contain any encyclopedic content. You may find our guide for writing quality articles to be extremely informative.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top. If the page is already deleted by the time you come across this message and you wish to retrieve the deleted material, please contact the deleting administrator.

For any further query, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|TomCat4680}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

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

TomCat4680 (talk) 04:20, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of List of dramatic television series with LGBT characters: 2020s for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of dramatic television series with LGBT characters: 2020s is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of dramatic television series with LGBT characters: 2020s until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 08:36, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from List of dramatic television series with LGBT characters: 2010s]] into List of dramatic television series with LGBT characters: 2020s. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Creating a list for a new decade by using the format of the lists for previous decades cannot be done without jumping through hoops. Wikipedia sure is yoked with a heck load of bureaucracy. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 13:39, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Neutral notice

As an editor who commented at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film between Jan. 1, 2019, and today, you may wish to join a discussion at that page, here.--Tenebrae (talk) 23:50, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

ignore the undo notice on User talk:Flyer22 Reborn

Sorry. A slow screen update resulted in an unintended undo of your edit. Meters (talk) 07:00, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm sure that F22 will do with it as she will. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 07:10, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

very innneresting

edit history - it wasnt me, I just followed on after the creation...

I just looked at the history. But still, you contributed more RS than it had before. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 11:05, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

been editing far too long and very much in a very lazy manner, looks worth investigating, I do hope that my classic forgot everything adding things at the article 2016_Tasmanian_energy_crisis has no excuse now that you have offered a method and all... JarrahTree 10:54, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia can be so confusing (and frustrating) sometimes. But if I can help someone in making editing easier to do, it makes my day. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 11:01, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

mind you, I have a very strong attitude towards visual editor...JarrahTree 11:04, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Good or bad? Because I think VE sucks big time because it screws-up wiki markup, particularly when used to edit tables. See Wikipedia:VisualEditor#Limitations. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 11:08, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

you said it there, I try not to use it but get forced to use it in wikidata JarrahTree 11:21, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I try to cope with talk page things with a heavy usage of rater for assessment, therein lies a long and complex array of project tagging issues where few ever tread... JarrahTree 11:26, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh, you must mean the jaws of Hell. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 11:33, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

indeed, been there for 10 years or so... that explains a lot... :| JarrahTree 11:40, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Drive-by article feedback

At the risk of getting the snark, I was a bit surprised to see this mixed up with the "toxic" and malicious editors in your cranky box: "You'll also deal with editors who will drop by articles and leave comments in their talk pages telling the rest of us what said articles need and/or how to improve them — but they, themselves, can't be bothered to do it."

Surely that feedback is a good thing. It's like a user who can't program giving you a bug report on your software, or a diner at a restaurant correctly explaining that the steak arrived cold (the fact that they couldn't cook a better one isn't really relevant).

These may well be people with good intentions and useful knowledge who know that their attempts to improve the article will be instantly reverted due to one of a thousand WP:MYSTERYRULEs that they haven't got time or inclination to memorise, or (my favourite) some kid with Twinkle who wasn't sure whether the edit was good or not, so played safe by kneejerk-reverting it. Equinox ◑ 02:37, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Aggressive behavior on your part.

Radiohist – March 2020

Radiohist : 30 March 2020

Please do not leave aggressive messages as the one you left on my talk. My edit on the article was not in any way disruptive. As you can see the series has been cancelled in 2019 and is not ongoing. https://tvline.com/2019/09/15/no-good-nick-cancelled-season-2-netflix/ Therefore, the show needs to be placed before those from the respected year that are ongoing. I will do just that. Kindly do not block me for that "vandalism" on my part. Thank you.:)Radiohist (talk) 07:12, 30 March 2020 (UTC) @Radiohist: This has nothing to do with the series that ran for one season only (which, by the way, there was no reason to move it from where the row was originally added). Did you not bother to look at your edit, which I linked in my message on your talk page? As for being aggressive, pointing out what you did to an article and referring to all the previous advisories and warnings you have received about your editing is not "aggressive" -- it's a statement of fact. I didn't leave a ,  ,  ,  or warning on your talk page. However, if you don't care about what you do to an article ... there are editors that do, and they will not hesitate to put you on notice about it. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 07:34, 30 March 2020 (UTC) Kindly do not threaten me. Look, I don't care to know what is going on in your personal affairs, but kindly do not vent about it by attacking me. I am transgender and your aggressive behavior is affecting me terribly. That being said, to the matter at hand. You are wrong. Feel Good premiered on March 18 and High Fidelity premiered on February 14th. If there is some small detail I am missing, please let me know.Radiohist (talk) 07:53, 30 March 2020 (UTC) @Radiohist: Do not make this personal and do not respond with a pity-party. Keep your personal situation out of it. This is strictly about how you have edited the article. It doesn't matter if one series premiered in March and the other in February. Series are added according to the year they premiered -- not by the month of the year. They are added by editors whenever they add them. If you think series in these television-related lists (which represent hundreds of series) should be added chronologically by the month of the year, then you need to seek consensus for it. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 08:18, 30 March 2020 (UTC) @Pyxis Solitary: Thank you sooooo much for calling my identity a "situation" and something that deserves "pity". I hope you are happy that you are violating W:NPA. And judging by the the talk page there is no consensus or discussion that ended states that "They are added by editors whenever they add them." There has been no such decision. Why did you not just start a discussion and we could have decided how to list the series. Yes, I made a mistake when copy-pasting No Good Nick in an attempt to place it higher than the 2019 shows still in production because it is no longer ongoing. The minute I saw it I was going to correct it, but you sent out a passive aggressive message and then made hurtful comments. Please note, that other editors and administrators will never take such bullying tactics with such patience.Radiohist (talk) 08:36, 30 March 2020 (UTC) Using your being transgender as a tool to say that because you are transgender my behavior is "affecting [you] terribly" is a pity-party. Get over yourself. Have you pulled the same tactic when other editors and admins have left warnings on your talk page? Just because there was no RfC about it years ago, and no editor long ago wrote an instruction that series are added whenever an editor adds one, does not mean that it hasn't been how the lists have been edited, because the manner of how series are added is evident in the lists themselves. Consensus about how a list is edited is implicit in how that list has been normally edited and is, therefore, presumed to exist. Editing on Wikipedia is based on consensus ... by reason of norm or by RfC. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 09:12, 30 March 2020 (UTC) Feel free to check for yourself whether "I have pulled the same tactic" ever or whether it is all in your imagination. I also suggest you read transphobia and homophobia. I reiterate: I have already initiated a discussion so we can make the chronology of the list more like List of animated series with LGBT characters: 2010-2014 where it is listed by premiere date.Radiohist (talk) 11:06, 30 March 2020 (UTC) "I also suggest you read transphobia and homophobia." Exactly what do you mean by this statement? Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 11:26, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

About the List of comedy television series with LGBT characters page and future organization

While I'll grumble all day about you reverting my edits and disagree with your reasoning, as it was not a big change to the page, as a small amount of content was removed, mostly related to tables, in accordance with what you said, I started my own discussion on the talk page about ideas for future organization, as that page is a mess. I had thoughts of removing all the unsourced content and noting it on the talk page, but that would hollow out the page to nothing, as there is a LOT of unsourced stuff on there. I have already had my series of fights with people over the pages I have edited on LGBTQ animation and I don't wish to fight with you, as I think we can work something out, with each of us working together to improve the page.--Historyday01 (talk) 21:05, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I guess its goodbye

Historyday01 – April 2020

Historyday01 : 2 April 2020

Considering the nature of your comments on my talk page, which I've deleted as I don't think its productive to keep them there, it seems it will be impossible to have any discussion with you on improving any of the pages you consistently edit focused on LGBTQ characters, specifically those in dramatic or comedic shows. At every turn, you've bashed me over the head with not knowing this rule or that rule. I don't care to be part of that and as such, I don't feel its worth talking to you whatsoever about any of those pages, whether List of comedy television series with LGBT characters, List of dramatic television series with LGBT characters: 1970s–2000s, List of dramatic television series with LGBT characters: 2010s, or List of dramatic television series with LGBT characters: 2020s. Other people can wallow in the despair of those pages. If I do make any edits to those pages, they will be minor, only focused on adding sources, but I doubt I'll make any changes at all.--Historyday01 (talk) 13:36, 2 April 2020 (UTC) What you did to my talk page comment: 13:12, 1 April 2020. The message I left on your talk page about breaking up my comment to insert your individual responses: 07:44, 2 April 2020. WP:TPO (Editing others' comments) is real. Wikipedia policies are real. They are enforceable. I inform and advise. I give a heads-up. In some instances where someone has behaved in a persistently confrontational or abusive manner, I give an official warning and que sera, sera. The ship going the wrong way is steered by the offending editor. Whatever continues to happen is in the hands of that editor, but there is one thing an advised or warned editor cannot say after the ANI hammer is brought down: "I wasn't aware about XYZ policy or guideline." Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 03:15, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Let It Snow

Per the article history, it was actually gutted just a few hours before you posted your question to my talk page, by an editor who explained nothing whatsoever about why they were removing so much content — their edit summary was just "crew add", not any explanation as to why they were blanking so much content. So in a situation like that, what we do is just revert the content back into the article.

There are sometimes legitimate reasons to remove content from an article, such as if it's wrong or defamatory or tangential and irrelevant to the actual topic of the article — but (a) I'm not seeing a reason to believe that any of those things were true in this instance, and (b) if a person does have concerns that some or all of an article's content is any of those things, then they need to discuss them somehow (i.e. explaining them on the talk page, or at least using an edit summary that clearly states their issue, or nominating the page for deletion instead of simply erasing it) rather than simply erasing content without explanation.

Simply put, the only acceptable process for removing content (problematic or otherwise) from an article requires us to know why that's being done — so without a properly documented explanation of what the purported "problem" is, we just revert the edit that removed the content, which I've already done. Bearcat (talk) 14:45, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

@Bearcat: Thank you, Bearcat, for your response and for handling it so swiftly. I expect the editor (Brainoniel) will do it again, to a different article. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 07:07, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Revert on List of dramatic television series with LGBT characters: 2010s

Whisperjanes – April 2020

Whisperjanes : 21 April 2020

Hi there! I just wanted to give a friendly reach-out because I see you’ve reverted one of my edits. I’m glad you were able to revert it and find a source. However, I was a bit concerned by the edit summary you wrote, which said in part, “Don't delete content if you don't make an effort to find a source.”. I just wanted to remind you of the Wiki policy WP:UNSOURCED. The burden of proof is on the editor that adds content to an article, not a passing editor. Regardless of policy, I reverted an edit made to a sentence that already contained a "citation needed" tag and on an article that already has a maintenance template for unsourced content. I assume the editor saw the words "citation needed" before they edited, unless they didn't look at the sentence they were editing. I also waited first to see if they would come back and add a citation, and they did not, so I reverted. I'll try to be more conscious in the future, since I unfortunately this time forgot to leave a message about the reversion on the IP's talk page. But I just wanted to let you know, because I worry with edit summaries like that that new users might get the wrong idea about what they are and are not allowed to revert. Just a thought. - Whisperjanes (talk) 03:50, 21 April 2020 (UTC) WP:CITENEED > "A "citation needed" tag is a request for another editor to verify a statement: a form of communication between members of a collaborative editing community...Though readers may be alerted by a "citation needed" that a particular statement is not supported, many readers don't fully understand the community's processes. Not all tags get addressed in a timely manner, staying in place for months or years....If a statement sounds plausible, and is consistent with other statements in the article, but you doubt that it is totally accurate, then consider making a reasonable effort to find a reference yourself." WP:UNSOURCED > "If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it." I've been editing these lists for a very long time and the majority of edits made are GF. There are many GF editors who do not know how to add citations. I go out of my way whenever I can to find sources to support an entry. But there are also television programs that do not receive media coverage and when nothing has been written about them or a character in them, then the best option is including the name of the program's particular episode and/or the season & episode number. "I also waited first to see if they would come back and add a citation, and they did not, so I reverted." IP editor 27.71.204.20 added two characters to the series @ 04:00, 19 April 2020. You undid his/her edit @ 04:07, 19 April 2020 — 7 minutes later.  Seven minutes.  No Wikipedia editor with experience editing this project will agree that seven minutes was long enough "to see if they would come back and add a citation". If you want to be a constructive editor, the last thing you do is assume anything about another editor's intent. And if you see content that is probable but a source is missing? You try to find it and add it. That is a core element of a collaborative project. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 08:33, 21 April 2020 (UTC) I'm really not sure how to reply to this at all, and I've struggled a few days thinking about this. I find some of the words and phrases said upsetting ("If you want to be a constructive editor, the last thing you do is assume..."), and some of the statements as unverifiable ("No Wikipedia editor with experience editing this project will agree...") or written as a command ("You try to find it and add it."), so I am unsure on how to reply. I came here with good faith in mentioning that the phrasing you used in your edit summary could be misconstrued by new editors, and offering a short explanation of why I reverted, but this turned into something much larger. All I can say is that I'm sorry if I offended you by something I said or did. And if I did offend you or I said something impolitely, that was not my intention. I feel like I also must clarify a few things. I never said I thought the edit was "probable" or "verifiable". There was no source in that table section, and the section had already been unsourced and tagged "citation needed" for at least 2 years. Most of the edit said, "Althea is either lesbian or bisexual, having kissed her fellow female survivor, Isabelle", which seems like original research. Kissing does not make someone lesbian or bisexual (you could be straight, asexual, pansexual, etc and still kiss), but "having kissed" is being used as the reason for sexuality in this sentence (which made me think the edit was based off of original research). I have seen lots of characters added to Wiki LGBT lists along with incorrect information based off of fan assumptions or original research of sexuality. Regardless of that, having a citation needed tag does not mean an edit cannot be reverted. In your quotes above, looking for citations before reverting is written as a suggestion, while in the policy WP:UNSOURCED, "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material..." and "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed..." are written as definitive statements. I also do recent changes patrol -- In my experience, I don't think I've ever seen a new IP editor come back past 7 minutes to add a citation (unless their edit was substantially long), since they tend to add their citations immediately. And I have seen other experienced editors revert unsourced edits before 7 minutes passes. Regardless of how you would have preferred me to act, I could only go off of my best judgement and my own past experiences. I've considered your suggestions, and will use them to be more cautious in other revert scenarios in the future. Unless you have something else you'd like to talk to me about, there's not much more for us to discuss. We seem to both care about verifiability on Wikipedia, but we seem to have different opinions and approaches. I would politely suggest though that you read the policy WP:CHOICE and that you think about it for future interactions with other editors. Even though I don't think it was your intention, some of what you have said to me have sounded like demands and have been uncomfortable for me in our interactions so far. - Whisperjanes (talk) 07:30, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Alex 21 – June 2020

Alex 21 : 2 June 2020
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. -- /Alex/21 05:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC) Much ado about .... http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1039#Pyxis_Solitary's_reverts_and_attacks

195 Lewis

I saw the comment you left when you changed my edits and wanted to leave you a note here so you don't think I'm edit warring. The pilot did, in fact, premiere in 2014. I know the policies around sourcing well and accidentally tagged the wrong citations. I have added three new sources with the correct year. Citrivescence (talk) 23:18, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

question about verification of content

Hi! I noticed you removed where I added Katrina Lenk's birthday to her page. (Understandably so, because I didn't add a source)

My question is, would a dated Instagram post recognizing her birthday by the musical in which she is currently starring in on Broadway suffice as reliable enough evidence to keep her birth date in her bio?

Thanks :) Smorestxllison (talk) 06:18, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I just left you a message on your talk page. Re birthday: WP:BLPs require "high-quality sources". If Lenk, herself, acknowledges her birthday on the stated day on her own Instagram (or other SM service) account or her official website, then it would be acceptable as a source because it is a source "linked to the subject" herself. Someone else recognizing her birthday on their Instagram account is not a high-quality source. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 06:28, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! I will check to see if there is one anywhere and definitely start to familiarize myself with the rules for crediting sources :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smorestxllison (talk • contribs) 06:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Glad that you did not take it personally, as many editors tend to do. The more you learn the workings of Wikipedia, the easier it becomes to edit without hurdles. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 06:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

List of made-for-television films with LGBTQ+ characters moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, List of made-for-television films with LGBTQ+ characters, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 06:07, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Synoman Barris: I did not "create" this list. The list existed for years as List of made-for-television films with LGBT characters ... and an editor, without discussion or consensus, moved the page to List of made-for-television films with LGBTQ+ characters -- then, within 24 hours, it was moved back to the original name. Said editor took it upon himself to move many pages with "LGBT" in the title to "LGBTQ+" in the title. The editor was admonished and he deleted all comments ("Undiscussed moves") from editors who objected to the page moves. The page List of made-for-television films with LGBTQ+ characters does not and should not exist. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 06:36, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Pyxis Solitary Oops, sorry for that, the whole process was automated, feel free to tag the draft. Apologies for disruption. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 06:45, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Synoman Barris: No worries. Moving all those pages created (as another editor said) a difficult WP:FAITACCOMPLI situation. May I ask ... what do you mean by "tag the draft"? Is there a particular template for requesting deletion (there are so many templates in Wikipedia that I can't keep track of them). Txs. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 06:57, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Pyxis Solitary, Do you know of WP:Twinkle Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 06:59, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Synoman Barris: Oh, heck. Yes. I assume that "speedy deletion" is the way to go. Txs, again. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 07:01, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Pyxis Solitary, Yeah, already did it for you and welcome. Happy editing :) Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 07:06, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

::::::You can use it to tag article quickly for Speedy deletion , if they meet the criteria. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 07:02, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Looks like I might be late to the party but yeah: don't just blank pages and leave them there. It's like littering! I do recommend WP:Twinkle if you can use it, there's a handy menu for tagging pages for speedy deletion. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 21:35, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Jeraphine Gryphon: I blanked only one article, realized my error immediately, and reversed the blanking. But from what I have just witnessed in the matter of the "LGBTQ+" pages that were created after page moves that were reversed within 24 hours, going about it the right way is a waste of time because any Admin can give everyone else the finger salute and keep garbage pages because ... that's what he wants. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 15:57, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Redirects

Stop blanking them. They exist for a reason. Primefac (talk) 21:50, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Primefac: You've created a shit farm of unnecessary pages by removing requests for deletions for the "LGBTQ+ in title" pages. These pages were the result of several moves that were reversed within 24 hours. Nothing links to them. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 15:47, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

No, but they are still valid search terms; see WP:R#KEEP #3 and #6. They are clearly not the best search terms, but someone might try to search LGBTQ+ and then they'll get a hit. Primefac (talk) 18:56, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

^ Yup. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 19:21, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

What Wikipedia has needed to do is improve its search engine. There is no logical reason for why conducting a search of letters "LGBT" should not immediately also include results for "LGBTQ", and vice versa. If you do a Google search of LGBT you also get results for LGBTQ. In Wikipedia, all the king's computers and all the king's techies can't improve the system and assimilate the definition of comprehend. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 01:21, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Cold Squad

Template:Cold Squad has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. TheTVExpert (talk) 21:56, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Question about content on your user page

Hi Pyxis, I had a quick question about this line in your user page: "XX from spark". I was just wondering what it meant, it seems like an interesting line. Thanks! 3nk1namshub (talk) 05:51, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

@3nk1namshub: The female sex has two chromosomes: XX. To spark is to activate. "XX from spark" = Female from conception. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 12:17, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

@Pyxis Solitary: Oh okay. If you don't mind me asking, why do you place such importance on chromosomes? I mean, for all you know, you might be intersex, or have androgen insensitivity syndrome. 3nk1namshub (talk) 18:13, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Chromosomes are the building blocks of humans, animals, and plants. It's as simple as that. I could have been XY, but turned out XX -- and I'm damn glad to be double-X. I don't mind anyone asking questions about my self-description, but thinking there could be more under my skin is a giant leap of gender-politics overkill. I don't care for queer ideology where every human is considered a specimen, including your mother and father. One of the best things about growing older is what you finally realize about people: that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 11:14, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm really not sure how science is "politics", or how queer ideology makes people specimens. Could you elaborate? I just don't see any reason to be proud of something like genetics that literally nobody has control over. 3nk1namshub (talk) 15:15, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Since this is my talk page, not the talk page of an article or a discussion among editors elsewhere, your inquisitiveness about me has reached the end of the road. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 03:36, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I apologize if I've offended you. This will be my last response; be wary of dogwhistles, they may be louder than you think. Take care. 3nk1namshub (talk) 03:49, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Give people credit for knowing who they are, where they stand, and how much they'll let others get away with. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 04:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Bots sucking more than usual

Regarding this edit at Michfest, you know about {{bots|deny=botname}}, right? Mathglot (talk) 10:03, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

No. I wasn't aware of it before. Most times bots make good edits. Lately though, some are making questionable or incorrect ones and I won't jump through hoops to report them. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 10:11, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Requesting some help

Hi,

Recently initiated a new Draft:Sexual politics and looking for proactive help in updating and expanding the article. Please do see if contributing to Draft:Sexual politics would interest you.

Thanks and regards

Bookku (talk) 02:13, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Please do not abuse an edit summary to make an unwarranted criticism of another editor, as you did earlier today[1]. See WP:SUMMARYNO.

My edit was a drive-by disambiguation edit[2], where the criteria I applied was whether it was an appropriate disambiguation. It did not impede the ability to revert a previous edit '.. and in any case WP:AWB doesn't facilitate the viewing of diffs of previous edits.

Next time you feel minded to snipe like that, please post a msg on my talk rather than abusing the edit summary. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:58, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl: "My edit was a drive-by disambiguation edit" - a disambiguation edit does not change the location of a template, nor edit ISSNs and spacing. If you did not deliberately make these edits, then there is something going wrong with your use of AWB.  "It did not impede the ability to revert a previous edit." Yes, it did. The system returned message that the revert had to be done manually. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 12:28, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

@Pyxis Solitary, the other changes were WP:GENFIXES, automatically done by AWB unless disabled.

TWINKLE offers a simple way of reverting back to the last edit before the bad one. You should try it, and stop whatever game it is that leads you to waste your time and mine by moaning about drive-by-disambiguation edits.

If you want to pick a fight, go and pick it with the IP who made the edit which you actually contest. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:35, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Great post

[3]. I hope you don't mind me saying, but what an excellent, articulate, well-thought-out piece you wrote the other day. What's even more refreshing to see is that this has come from someone within the community, that there are problems within the community that didn't exist before. I much admire what your generation went through and what you did to achieve equality. Cassianto^Talk 07:57, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind comment. We may be older now, but a heck of a lot of us 'troublemakers' are still around. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 08:04, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Portrait of a Lady on Fire

Why are you jumping to the conclusion that my edits were outright disruptive? I based my edit on the layout of The Thing (1980 film), as so few cast members are featured in the film and a subsection for a cast of four people seemed unnecessary. My alternative idea was to replicate the layout of Eraserhead, simply including the cast members in the plot section.

I get that you disagree with these edits, but accusing me of being disruptive instead of simply disagreeing is in outright bad faith, and it's disappointing to see from an active editor such as yourself. Please try to assume good faith for editors like me who, while possibly differing in viewpoint, are very evidently not trying to harm or detriment articles. Sock (tock talk) 04:38, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Gonna add on that I forgot you called my edits "senseless" beyond simply disruptive, which is beyond assuming bad faith and into being outright disrespectful. I made an edit that I believe improved the article, opting to go for it when I had the idea. So while I have no problem with being reverted—that comes with the territory—I have a big problem with the attitude you've taken towards what are relatively minor changes for no clear reason, treating them as if I deleted all trace of cast members entirely rather than simply altering the method in which they are presented. Sock (tock talk) 05:13, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Why did I jump to that conclusion? Because that's what it was. Deleting an MOS:FILM section without even bothering to provide an explanation in the talk page is disruptive -- and insulting to other editors who have contributed to the article. I am always amused by anyone who suddenly comes across an article and decides that, of all the editors who have ever contributed, it had been waiting for him/her to come along and do their thang on it. Bold editing works best in long-standing articles when changing an existing structure is explained in their talk pages. The problem with swallowing the bold editing pill, however, is that any edit can be considered bold, and that includes reverting someone's "bold" edit. And your "bold" edits need more than "See previous edit" as an explanation, particularly when the previous edit had no summary. I disagree with the notion that having a cast section of four actors is unnecessary. And I, for one, think that injecting actor names into the plot description interrupts the narrative. Actor names in plot descriptions are like sidewalk cracks, causing readers to trip on them. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 10:10, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

You provided a lot of clarity actually, and I apologize. My edit summary for the aforementioned "previous edit" must not have saved, because I did write a description of the change on the first edit before removing the cast section on the second, as I was editing on mobile at the time. That completely explains the conclusion that I was just rearranging things willy nilly. I'm not sure why my edit summary didn't publish, but that's a separate issue. Cast sections are one of those areas, along with infoboxes, that seem to have a ton of different opinions on them, so I understand your approach in general. That said, I still think assuming bad faith in an edit that was not meant to be harmful or detrimental—and acknowledging that it was not an improvement in your opinion—is an unfair conclusion to jump to calling someone senseless and disruptive. We disagree on a layout choice, it's not like the cast section was written like the massive Avengers: Endgame paragraphs and I just blanked it for a table, it was a list of four actors. Sock (tock talk) 13:29, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Now that you explained what went wrong, I rescind the disruptive edit conclusion. When you notice that your browser had a hiccup when you saved your edit, you can always add a missing, or forgotten, summary with a dummy edit. There are so many editors on Wikipedia who like to f-around with articles, that it's impossible to know the difference between an idiot or jerk and a good faith editor when material is deleted and no explanation is given for the edit. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 04:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

That's totally fair. Edit history is such a nightmare to experience on mobile, and more than anything this has told me to completely abandon mobile editing until they overhaul the app. I totally see your perspective clearer now, and I'm really glad we had this discussion even if I probably could've taken a breath before getting grumpy about it. Thank you for hearing me out and talking with me! Sock (tock talk) 01:09, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 08:55, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

With regard to your abusive edit summary...

at WikiProject Women Artists, Firstly, referring to me, or indeed any editor as Thick as in your statement (Not i.e. which means "id est" (in other words). Thick editors don't bother to go to the Visual arts article to see the full description, which states: "The visual arts are art forms such as painting, drawing, printmaking, sculpture, ceramics, photography, video, filmmaking, design, crafts, and architecture.") is not acceptable behaviour on Wikipedia.

Secondly, the paragraph at the top of the page clearly states;- Actresses and women musicians and their works seem to be well-covered at Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians and Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, except for films which pass the Bechdel test, which should be added to this project. Any problems about women in any of these categories can be discussed here on the talk page.

Hope that's clear.

14GTR (talk) 12:13, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

"seem to be well-covered". The key word is seem. Unlike the verb "are", the verb seem is open to personal interpretation -- and interpretation becomes POV. There is nothing in the description that states unambiguously: "this project is not for filmmakers (i.e. film directors)". Until then, WPWA also applies to women film directors. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 13:16, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

The context makes it clear that film directors are covered by WP Actors and Filmmakers. If you wish to directors in to be included WPWA, bring it up on the talk page.14GTR (talk) 13:29, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't need to create a discussion about directors being included in WPWA because they're not excluded from WPWA.
"Context"? Context is read between the lines. Editors are not required to speculate and read tea leaves before editing an article.
If you don't want film directors to be included in WPWA, then you start a discussion about it in the talk page. The lead states:

"Actresses and women musicians and their works seem to be well-covered at Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians and Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers."

Is the word "directors" anywhere in that statement or the lead as a whole? No. The specific word you see is "actresses". Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 06:42, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the reversion (Joyce Porter / lesbian literature)

I don't know how often one gets thanked for a reversion, but I just wanted you to know that I appreciate being corrected when I've made a judgment error, by someone who has a better grasp than I do of (in this case) what does and does not belong in a particular list. Whether I appreciate it or not is, of course, beside the point--the point being what's best for Wikipedia--but just for the record I do appreciate it. And, having noticed plenty of dubious items diluting other lists in other articles, I certainly don't want to be part of that problem.

And I'm additionally glad that I visited your talk page, because glancing at it has clued me in to the existence of "dummy" edits. That's a functionality I've wished for on more than one occasion, not realizing it actually existed! Jcejhay (talk) 13:10, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, I gotta say that it's refreshing to find an editor that doesn't take a revert of their edit as some kind of personal attack. As you pointed out, what matters is what's best for Wikipedia, and the public it serves. Thank you for your kind message. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 14:30, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Regarding "Roots" section of Radical feminism article

Since you apparently have access to the source (Linden-Ward & Green 1993 p.434), I'm wondering if you could help resolve the issue I brought up on the Talk page of Radical feminism. Did this source specifically emphasize early radical feminism's failure to address "working class" issues (that would be of concern to more minority women) or did it simply say "issues of meaning for minority women"? If the source emphasized "working class" then we should probably include that idea in the article. FBPlunger (talk) 16:48, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Unless your browser settings or firewall are preventing it, you should have no problem accessing Internet Archive. Here's the direct link: https://archive.org/details/americanwomenin100lind/page/n5/mode/2up
It's a limited preview, but the trick for getting around the viewing limits is to go directly to the page you're interested in, which in this case is p. 434. Search for 434, and at the bottom of the preview screen you will see a results bar with blue marks, indicating how many times "434" comes up within it. Point on the first blue mark and you should see "434 Changing the Future Page 434" search result -- click on the mark and the book opens on pages 434-435. Then zoom in and read the text. "Working class" does not appear in it. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 12:40, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I had reached that source page before and did again after reading your message, but, because I am such a klutz with computers and the internet, still can't access the page. I'll take your word for it that "working class" isn't specifically mentioned. Perhaps some earlier editor just assumed the source was referring to working class minority women. FBPlunger (talk) 14:16, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Too many editors have the bad habit of misconstruing what sources actually say. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 14:29, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Circumventing the abortion ban

Sorry, I didn't mean to change your description of the Panorama news program; somehow your description got lost in the shuffle when I was editing the second half of the subsection. Speaking of subsections, as it currently stands, the one on Circumventing the abortion ban is rather weak. There's no description of what the "women centers" were, or even where they were. Germany? The Netherlands? If you have access to either of the two sources for this section, or any additional sources, or even if you don't; I'm wondering if you could help redo it. FBPlunger (talk) 18:00, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

No prob about the revert. Unless I'm mistaking it for a different article, there used to be some considerable content about a woman's center in Germany. There may be an old discussion in the talk page about it. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 11:56, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Zoie content

My plan is to develop what wording is both accurate and NPOV, research reliable sourcing, visit the RSNB to see which sources work ... then do a RfC if the BLPN doesn’t readily approve. Glee^anon 00:42, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Gleeanon409: I agree with your plan. She did thank "my incredible partner, Alex " (Lalonde) publicly in front of cameras at a highly-regarded and reputable Canadian film and television awards ceremony; she also thanked "my beautiful son, Luca" , whose birth mother is Alex Lalonde. She has not denied thanking her then-partner, her stepson ... and her being gay (which can be taken as lesbian or bisexual). There are no archives kept of wikipedia-en-help discussions to see what was specifically stated, and all we have to go by are people's recollections -- which are subjective.
I am highly sensitive to homophobic undercurrents that result in the erasure of LGBT individuals. For all those who say that sexual orientation does not determine the person someone becomes, and that "who you love" is inconsequential, I say: walk in the shoes of lesbians and gay men, and then tell us if facing discrimination, hatred, violence, and the prospect of death just because of your sexual orientation, does not determine the kind of person a lesbian and gay man becomes.
Homophobia among Wikipedia editors exists, even if the offending parties have learned how to to camouflage it. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 03:26, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Citation templates

Thank you for directing me to the appropriate citation catalog (in Meghan Murphy: Revision history). Arthur E. Stewart (talk) 13:45, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 01:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Flyer22 and WanderingWanda arbitration case opened

The Arbitration Committee has accepted and opened the Flyer22 and WanderingWanda case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 30, which is when the evidence phase is scheduled to close. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Workshop, which closes January 13, 2020. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. To opt out of future mailings please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Notification list. For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)