User talk:Pyxis Solitary: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:09, 1 August 2019

If you leave a message on this talk page I will reply to it here.

If I left a message on your talk page : please reply to it there and ping me by adding {{ping|Pyxis Solitary}} at the start of your reply.

ᐅ Don't forget: sign your messages and replies with four tildes (~~~~) before you save them. ᐊ

Archives

See ↑ this?
When you edit a page ... use it before publishing the edit.

Btw, avoid grief by reading Wikipedia's policies. Before behaving like a particular type of a-hole, memorize WP:WIKIHOUNDING: "Hounding on Wikipedia (or "wikihounding") is the singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress to the other editor. Hounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia."
Now that you're aware of all about P ... don't even try pulling an I don't know nothin' 'bout birthin' policies!

λ Purge this page ∞

Interview invitation from a Wikipedia researcher in the University of Minnesota

I am Weiwen Leung, a student at the University of Minnesota. I am currently conducting a study on how people on the LGBT+ Wikipedians group use and contribute to Wikipedia.

Would you be willing to answer a short 5 minute survey? If so, please email me at leung085@umn.edu. It would be helpful if you could include your Wikipedia username when emailing.

Thank you, Weiwen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weiwensg (talk • contribs) 18:50, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carol

Tenebrae – December 2016

Tenebrae : 11 December 2016

Hi, Pyxis. I agree with you that the Hollywood Music in Media Awards should be included if it has a Wikipedia article; I must have mistyped the name when I went to see. Thank you for catching that.

It does actually say at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film#Accolades that, "Awards included in lists should have a Wikipedia article to demonstrate notability. Because of the proliferation of film festivals and 'award mills', festival awards should be added with discretion, with inclusion subject to consensus. Awards bestowed by web-only entities are not included." No worries; all good. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:15, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I noticed only after the fact that you had placed the entire list, violations and all, at Talk:List of accolades received by Carol (film). Please note that Wikipedia policies and guidelines apply to talk pages as well as to article pages. Trying to place disallowed edits on the talk page is a serious breach of Wikipedia policy, and I would hope and ask that you do not edit-war over this, since an RfC with other editors would go unanimously to uphold policy. I understand you're a fan of the movie, but we can't undermine Wikipedia policy for that. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:25, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That list in the Talk page was created January 2016 and you're the only one who has found an objection to it. Admins have kept an eye on every article associated with the film for the last 12 months and not one of them has objected to it. This is my talk page. You're in my territory. Therefore .... find someone else to bullshit. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 04:09, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment on the article's talk page. I would also ask you refrain from name-calling, a violation of WP:CIVIL that, as long as you're bringing up admins, doesn't sit well with them. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:45, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stay away from my Talk page. Go run to an admin about it. There's nothing "civil" about a bully and a liar ... and that is what you've proven yourself to be. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 09:09, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since when are rooms italicized?

Hi. I don't get this, italicizing "Oak Room" throughout the text. Never heard of buildings or parts of buildings being italicized, here or elsewhere. Herostratus (talk) 03:01, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The "Oak Room" is the official name of the room and the title of the article. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 01:48, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

True, but that doesn't mean it should be italicized. Some things we italicize -- ship names, movie titles -- but we don't italicize building names and since rooms are parts of buildings I don't think we should italicize them either. Herostratus (talk) 13:50, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. Thank you for the info. :-) Pyxis Solitary (talk) 20:18, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Tenebrae – February 2017

Tenebrae : 23 February 2017

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)[reply]

Closed ANI @ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive946#Requesting_help_re:_a_personal_attack Pyxis Solitary talk 07:53, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'm now headed straight to the article's Talk page. :-) Pyxis Solitary (talk) 08:35, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Voila! Pyxis Solitary (talk) 09:13, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I left the user a note. Now we wait. El_C 09:24, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Thank you so much! Have a great night. Vmars22 (talk) 02:49, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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., :This topic was split off from [[#FOOBAR]], above.. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Notice

Amaury – June 2017

Amaury : 30 June 2017

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior and personal attacks by Pyxis Solitary. Amaury (talk | contribs) 07:35, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closed ANI @ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive958#WP:BATTLEGROUND_behavior_and_personal_attacks_by_Pyxis_Solitary

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Closed ANI @ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive958#Advice_to_keep_a_distance_defied_by_editor_Tenebrae Pyxis Solitary talk 07:58, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Critical response section done. Miscellaneous done. Pyxis Solitary talk 13:23, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.

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

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 Shih ^Talk 04:24, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Found it. Pyxis Solitary talk 14:35, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I don't understand your message. Can you be more specific? Pyxis Solitary talk 22:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Notes

^ 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.
^ 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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Help me! with Moving a page

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

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)[reply]

Hello, you can request for moving at requested moves. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 12:07, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thank you for replying. Pyxis Solitary talk 08:49, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Citation Barnstar
	Thanks for fixing citations on the Womyn's land article. AnaSoc (talk) 00:44, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

aw shucks. [5] :-) Pyxis Solitary talk 01:04, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, are you still interested in improving the Womyn's land article? I noticed that you did some edits a while back.AnaSoc (talk) 00:38, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did, indeed, do some hammering on it last year (June then, June now ... ooweeoo). I can't make promises on editing because I have to be honest with myself and how I parcel out my time. I like your suggestions, though, and from what I can see you're far more knowledgeable about the subject that I am. But when I can and am possessed, I will contribute to it. Pyxis Solitary talk 06:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Valid HTML

Please stop using  . It's  . When you use invalid markup like  , 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)[reply]

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

Not episodeography

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

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

Pot – Kettle – Black

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

[ 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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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. -- Alex^TW 07:12, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(1) Thanks; (2) wikimedia and women

I looked at User:Pyxis Solitary, and saw you referenced several newspaper articles that talked about the wikipedia. Those interesting articles were new to me. So, thanks for making the effort to list them there!

I strongly agree with you that the wikipedia has a bias against covering notable women. I started an article on a Canadian winemaker named Amy Chang. She rose to notability a couple of years ago due to her efforts to lobby for Canada's Federal Government to make more of an effort on her parent's behalf. She had to take over their three wineries, after they were arrested, in China. She was in China, at the time of their arrests, and got a tip that she should rush to the airport, and take the next flight out, or she too would be arrested.

Lots of people have relatives sitting in foreign prisons, and their efforts don't get enough RS coverage to establish GNG notability. But Chang's efforts got her interviewed on National TV, got her meetings with the Foreign Minister and Prime Minister.

Nevertheless, after an AFD, the article on her was deleted.

I was really struck by an anti-woman bias, then. Also an anti-youth bias.

Another article I worked on was of a young Australian woman. The first thing that made her prominent was some nude photographs of her, that her mother, an art photographer, how put on display. Her mom was criticized by Australia's then PM, and, at 11 or 12, she published an op-ed, defending the artistic value of the photos her mom snapped when she was a toddler. The second thing that made her prominent was an extremely articulate and widely republished essay, on the influence of social media on teenage women's self-image and self-esteem. The essay triggered comments, around the world.

Those who weighed in, at AFD, claimed she was an example of BLP1E, even though these incidents were separated by years, and didn't have very much to do with one another.

So, if you feel outnumbered, in a discussion where there is an anti-woman bias, feel free to leave a note on my user talk page.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 20:41, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does have a built-in problem when it comes to subjects related to women because its editors are predominantly male, and we know by now that the brains of males and females are not alike. Neuroscience 101: females use more white matter, and males use more gray matter. Along with this reality comes the Pandora's Box of differences in emotion, behavior, and world view. The two sexes often don't share the same opinion about what is or isn't important -- which infects the editing of Wikipedia as a whole. Misogyny also exists in Wikipedia, but misogynists today know that they can no longer be obvious about their reasoning for why a subject associated with or involving a female should or should not exist. I learned long ago that Wikipedia is populated with people that fill their void through their status as editors, and they flex their imaginary muscle here because they're no better than Internet trolls. If you looked at my profile page then you know what my thoughts about this webopedia are. Donating time to it is only as good as what you get out of it. Either way, Wikipedia was here before you and I came along, and will still be here after you and I invest our energies elsewhere. In the meantime, those editors who are jerks can go fuck themselves (it's probably the only sex life they have). Pyxis Solitary yak 11:11, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you aren't likely to give me a heads-up about discussions that disturb you because you see them as time-sinks, and avoid them. Well, I like what I think is the direction of your efforts, so my offer stands.

WRT to individuals masking their real concerns, and citing BLP and other polices, claiming they are protecting individuals, when they are really harming them, can I share the worst example I came across?

A mom in Arkansas (?) got bad advice from her legal aid lawyer, and pled guilty, not realizing that, while this would avoid a trial, and jail time, it would get her listed on her State's list of registered sex offenders. Her crime? (1) Her teenage daughter got pregnant, even though she was below the legal age of consent; (2) her daughter got her to agree that the sire of her grandchild could move in, because that would help him save enough money for them to get married; (3) since they were planning to get married, and her daughter was already pregnant, she allowed them to continue to have sexual relations. Knowingly allowing her underage teenage daughter to have sexual relations was the sex crime.

She found the restrictions on registered sex criminals were draconian. She was not allowed any contact with her children, and had to find a place to live that was more than 1000 feet from any school bus stops -- a mobile home in the middle of a farmer's field, in her case.

So far she was non-notable, but she decided to be a spokesperson for reform of these draconian sex crimes laws. She was interviewed on PBS. The Economist devoted much of an article to a profile of her. Her spokesperson activities generated coverage that satisfied GNG for over half a decade.

At the AFD it was argued that the article had to be deleted becasue -- wait for it -- an article describing her as a registered sex criminal was damaging to her. Wow! How insulting to her conscious decision to set aside her remaining privacy, to serve as an advocate. I suspect those who argued that we had to protect her privacy really wanted to punish her, by obfuscating her, because she allowed her daughter to have sexual relations, outside of marraige.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 19:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you. And banging head on wall is one of the side-benefits of editing Wikipedia. As for avoiding discussions, I'm a Joan of Arc that has burned at the stake several times. So I've learned the hard way to slow down a little and be more picky about the battles I choose. That doesn't mean you will not find me in a boxing ring now and then, but Margaret Mitchell let pearls of wisdom fall out of the mouth of Scarlett O'Hara when she said, "After all, tomorrow is another day." Pyxis Solitary yak 12:17, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mind Your Own Business

Fuck off, you ingrateful bitch! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.75.109.92 (talk • contribs) 10:44, 3 February 2019 (UTC) – IP address blocked @ 10:57[reply]

LGBT symbols

Similar things have been going on at List of LGBT-related slurs and Discrimination against asexual people. For some reason, all three articles have been magnets for a(ce)phobia lately (of course it's not just asexuality being targeted, but it's especially that). Something needs to be done of course, but I'm not sure what. Adam9007 (talk) 13:30, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Adam9007: Page protection is the only way to go. If a registered user makes similar edits we can at least try to communicate with the user on his/her talk page, but IP-only editors rarely, if ever, give a damn about any advisory or comment left on their talk pages. In regards to LGBT symbols, I was thinking that it might decrease the agitation over "this is not LGBT" if symbols not specific to L-G-B-T (i.e. asexual, intersex, non-binary, pansexual) were located in a subsection titled ===Queer symbols===. Just a thought. Pyxis Solitary yak 07:53, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, MelanieN has PC protected all three pages, so hopefully that'll help. I think putting the other groups under a 'Queer symbols' section is controversial, because 1) Queer also covers gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender, 2) not everyone likes the term (and even those who don't mind the term don't always identify as Queer), and 3) not everyone agrees that asexual should be part of the Queer umbrella (we'd still get 'asexuals aren't queer' edit wars, which is basically 'asexuals aren't lgbt' with a slightly different lick of paint). I think a better solution would simply to use the term LGBT+ (as opposed to just LGBT. also note that Category:LGBT+ Wikipedians is LGBT+, not just LGBT) instead (it would also seem er, queer, if we were to have a Queer symbols section but don't include at least the Q in the acronym :)), but I don't think that's likely to happen as LGBT on its own is far more common (that's presumably why this edit was reverted). The problem is that I think LGBT is sometimes used to mean just those four groups, which of course encourages 'asexuals aren't lgbt' comments. Adam9007 (talk) 15:23, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Adam9007: I hear you and get it. It was just an idea for where the rest of the alphabet soup could be included. Personally, I reject the word "queer" (if you were to take a look at my profile page you'd see how strongly I feel about it). To me, the term erases sexual orientation and identification. "Queer" is as offensive for me to hear as "Lesbian" is for homophobes, but at least when a homophobe hears "Lesbian" he/she knows the precise meaning of the word that infiltrated their ears. I also don't like that my user name appears in Category:LGBT+ Wikipedians simply because I chose not to hide that I am a homosexual female. I saw that the page was protected after replying to your comment. It was the right thing to do. Pyxis Solitary yak 08:40, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I choose not to identify as Queer because, to me, the way I am is perfectly normal and not queer at all :) (and also because Queer as a sexual identify is too ambiguous, and I already have a more specific one that's less open to interpretation). That's not to say that I don't think asexuality shouldn't come under the Queer umbrella or anything like that however. Anyway, the reason you appear in Category:LGBT+ Wikipedians is because the userbox User:Crimsone/template/User homosexual is automatically putting you there. You might want to choose a different userbox that doesn't do that. Adam9007 (talk) 01:01, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Adam9007: But, but ... I iz! a homo. I love the sound of the word homo-sex-ual. It's chockfull of certainty. Dang the sneaky userbox. Pyxis Solitary yak 07:19, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Firefly (2015 film)

Thanks very much for adding and further improving the article, as well as the constructive criticism. That was the first article I had made on a film, and Colombian films and LGBT-related media are not my standard areas of knowledge. I'm always open to further critique, and I appreciate your contributions. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 20:07, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mungo Kitsch: Thank you for your kind comment. There are so many independent films in need of a Wikipedia audience and I admire your interest in making the article possible. Btw, I saw the film when it was available on Netflix and was impressed by it. Ciao! Pyxis Solitary yak 08:19, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the correction to lesbian here. I hope you don't feel I was being insensitive or condescending in the comment I left and if you do, I apologise. I described the term as pejorative because that's what GLAAD says and I was trying to be respectful. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:29, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyphoidbomb: Worry not. Your good intention was not questioned. GLAAD is not the only organization notorious for adopting concepts that many of us in the LGBT community disagree with (and no one outside of the LGBT community dares to touch the third rail that GLAAD has become, and if they do they're immediately labeled bigots). When was the last time an "anti-gay extremist" said 'homosexual this' and 'homosexual that' in their tirade? Today you're more likely to hear them spit out "queer" in their damnation. If you scroll down to "defamatory language" they also include "dyke" under the no-nos, yet GLAAD knows well that the lesbian community reclaimed the word long ago and more lesbians than not proudly identify with it. So if you're a heterosexual writer and want to write a story about the variety of dykes at a dyke event, and you take as gospel what GLAAD says, you might come down with a case of writer's block flu. (I also refer to myself as "homo" -- another 'bad' GLAAD word). Thank you for your message. :) Pyxis Solitary yak 09:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha! All very strong points. Thank you for the kind reply. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:48, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Dental dam

Hi, regarding this revert. At the top of the RfC there is a box beginning "An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists:", followed by two links: Maths, science, and technology and Society, sports, and culture. Click either one, and look for Talk:Dental dam among the RfCs that are listed there (in both cases, it's at the bottom). Like the other RfCs lsted on the page, there is a heading; but unlike the other RfCs on the page, there is no RfC statement and no timestamp.

These RfC listings are built by Legobot (talk · contribs), which copies material from the page where the actual RfC is being held. It copies between the {{rfc}} template (exclusive) and the next valid timestamp (inclusive), but under certain circumstances it cannot parse the statement correctly, and when this happens nothing is copied. The effect of my edit was to trigger Legobot to to add a (partial) statement and timestamp to the listing, the effect of your revert was to remove them again. Clearly, there is something that is causing Legobot to reject the statement; and it is somewhere before the original signature by Flyer22 Reborn but after the point where I added a second copy of the same signature. I'm trying to find out under which circumstances these problems occur, there are notes at Template talk:Rfc#This is not a real RfC, it is a test. In this instance, possible candidates are: length of statement (it's 2,230 bytes); boldface text; double hyphens; an external link. My edit was in accordance with WP:TPO#fixlayout. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:10, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Redrose64: I get it. But I'm sure Flyer would have tinkered with her comment as soon as she became aware of the problem and could do something about it. I'm not Flyer's guardian. Just an individual who engages in talk page discussions and would not appreciate someone editing one of my talk page comments without first giving me a chance to fix a problem in it. Pyxis Solitary yak 16:59, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pyxis Solitary, thanks for trying to help. I saw the edit by Redrose64, but I left it alone because of Redrose64's edit summary and because the RfC has not gained a lot of traction. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:18, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Flyer22 Reborn: I think the first two sentences need to be separated as a single paragraph. Ciao! Pyxis Solitary yak 14:17, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As you both probably know, RfCs are publicised in a number of ways. Besides the RfC listings that I used above to illustrate the problem, there is also the feedback request service (FRS), which is carried out by Legobot, as with the RfC listings. I have just checked through the FRS notifications from this morning right back to when the RfC was raised (24 April), and among the hundreds of FRS notifications from this period, the only ones that I can find concerning Talk:Dental dam are six of these nine, which were sent out at 04:24 and 04:25, 12 May 2019 (UTC). I don't think that it's a coincidence that they fall right in the middle of the period that the RfC listings showed the RfC as more than a simple heading - between 16:01, 11 May 2019 (UTC) and 14:01, 12 May 2019 (UTC).[reply]

@Flyer22 Reborn: If you want the RfC publicised, I strongly suggest that you place a brief and neutral statement right after the existing {{rfc}} template. It need not be a separate paragraph, but there shouldn't be more than about 2,000 characters before the timestamp - at present there are 2,203. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:16, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redrose64, feel free to reinstate the change to my post since you think that will help.

Pyxis Solitary, do you mean you think that the "One view" paragraph should be separated from the first sentence? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:59, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Flyer22 Reborn: I didn't write that very well, but yes, that's what I meant. I also think a new paragraph should begin at "The other view ....." But it's your baby to bathe as you wish. :-) Pyxis Solitary yak 04:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've reinstated the signature, you should see the RfC appear in its proper place in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology in about half an hour. FRS notifications should resume in about twelve hours. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:31, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There we go, [two this morning; five minutes earlier than predicted. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:22, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Redrose64: That article is going to need two Talk pages. :-) Pyxis Solitary yak 09:56, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Drop the T

You can contact an admin and ask them to have the previous renditions of the page deleted so it can't be seen. If you actually think it's that much of a a danger to Wikipedia.★Trekker (talk) 18:20, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@*Treker: It was deleted because it was untrue. As long as it stays deleted Wikipedia has performed due diligence, and I believe the individual will be satisfied. Pyxis Solitary yak 07:05, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sources

Hello. Just wanted to thank you for your work on Wikipedia. You are covering topics that few other editors do, quite a valuable contribution. I saw that you were facing some great hostility for a recent article creation, so I've compiled together some sources for your possible use that might help demonstrate notability. I would hope that a topic regarding a minority perspective would not be erased from Wikipedia due to someone's ideological bias. Take care. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 13:06, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lesbian anti-trans protestors disrupt Swansea Pride, PinkNews

Lesbian protesters in clash with police and security at Swansea Pride, Wales Online

London mayor Sadiq Khan criticises anti-trans group handing out leaflets during Pride, Indy 100

Pride in London sorry after anti-trans protest, BBC News

Why the LGBT Alliance Could Be on the Brink of Schism, The Daily Signal

Lesbian group’s anti-trans protest at London Pride backfires, ThinkProgress

Woman declares LGBT community ‘homophobic against lesbians’ and transwomen sleeping with gay women is ‘rape culture’, Metro UK

There's no room for anti-trans protesters at Pride, The Guardian

Anti-Trans Activists Slammed For Disrupting Pride Parade To Protest ‘Lesbian Erasure’, QNews

Lesbians Accused Of Hate Crimes For Objecting To Transgenderism At London Pride Festival, The Federalist

'We’re sorry’: London Pride organizers apologize after ‘disgusting’ stunt by anti-trans group, RT

As a cisgender lesbian at Pride, I was ashamed to see such blatant transphobia within my own community, Metro UK

Anti-Trans Protestors Hijack London Pride, The Oxford Student

Pride has forgotten its truly radical roots, Dazed Digital

Lesbian extremists hijack Pride in London to insult transgender people, LGBTQ Nation

Who are “Get The L Out” the Pride In London demonstrators, The Gay UK

#LwiththeT shows cis lesbian support for trans women, PinkNews

Calls for London Pride organisers to resign after 'anti-trans' group was allowed to lead march, Daily Mirror

@Bohemian Baltimore: Thank you for your kind compliment and the links. Right now there is a concerted effort underway to chip away at the Get the L Out article. I am fully aware that anything that doesn't toe-the-line becomes the target of activist editors who strive to suppress content in Wikipedia. In the end, these kinds of tactics eventually backfire. And I'm old enough to be a witness to karma being an astonishingly real bitch. Ciao! Pyxis Solitary yak 13:33, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Get the L Out deletion

I recommend you try to assume good faith. You seem very angry and aggressive for really no reason, continuing to harp on a mistake I've already admitted I've made and acussing me of saying things I have not said. You're not my enemy so I'd hope you would stop acting like I am.★Trekker (talk) 07:51, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Accuse you of saying what? Let me summarize what you've said to me or about me: "No need to make such a huge drama" 1, "I think the situation upset them and they created this article as a kind of response" 2, "Improve your reading comprehension and overreactionary behaviour" 3. Now it's You seem very angry and aggressive for really no reason. This is my talk page and I don't have to tolerate your bullshit here. Pick up your finger and go wag somewhere else. Pyxis Solitary yak 08:40, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lesbian Rainbow Flag sources

Hello Pyxis, I was wondering what your source was for the commonly-accepted lesbian rainbow flag having a black double-venus. The reason I replaced the flag with black double-venus with an image with a white double-venus is because I haven't found any sources for the "black" version, but have found a relatively reliable source for the "white" version, FOTW, and it is shown to be in use in multiple photos in the Wikimedia Commons category. This led me to conclude that the "white" lesbian rainbow flag was the more commonly accepted one. Do you have any sources that show the "black" version as being in use?
Thank you for your time. –Thespündragon 20:43, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're missing the bigger picture. The color of the double-Venus/female sex symbols on the rainbow flag can be white, pink, black (I own the pink version). The symbols can be any color that makes them stand out from the background. Either one represents the same message: lesbian pride.
You know why the Wikimedia Commons category has multiple photos of the white-on-rainbow version? Because those photos are uploads by Jane and John Doe editors who pick and choose what they want to upload, for whatever reason they chose to upload them. Anyone can upload a media file to WC. (Remember one of the comments supporting keeping the Orange and Pink Lesbian flag.svg file upload? "Since when should we have notable sources to import an image on Commons? ") Having more "white double-venus" photos on WC doesn't imply anything.
You appear to believe that an image file used in a Wikipedia article must precisely match the image file selected by a source in its webpage ... but it doesn't. WP:RELIABLE does not include "exactly the same" as a guideline. Imagine if the subject was the Venus of Willendorf: there are hundreds of images on the Web about VoW and within them are differences in coloring, material, carving, and interpretation -- but they all represent the same VoW. What a source needs to verify is the concept of the design and the description provided in the Wikipedia article about it: double-Venus/female sex symbols set against rainbow flag = Lesbian pride flag. You have focused on the minutiae. Pyxis Solitary yak 06:14, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So the one with the basic black glyph is used due to being the basic version? Makes sense. I will be re-adding the FOTW source, as it makes the line "A lesbian pride flag design often seen at pride festivals and dyke marches is ..." more verifiable. (current source is only a single festival)--Thespündragon 18:48, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"as it makes the line "A lesbian pride flag design often seen at pride festivals and dyke marches is ..." more verifiable." No it doesn't. In your mind it does, but the "flag with double Venus symbol" section doesn't include a mention of pride festivals and dyke marches. And one of its two dead-URL "here" links is a 2013 article in the right-wing The Blaze website: "Is This American Flag Offensive? Gay Rights Group's Interesting Tweaks To Old Glory" (you can find the archive). You want to leave your footprint in the article, I get it, but hairsplitting about sources is foolish.
Btw, the Flags of the World website has been based on/supported by a Yahoo group mailing list and volunteer editors since 1994: read Welcome to Flags of the World. Which makes it user-generated content. As a collaboratively created website, it really is not considered RS for Wikipedia purposes. Pyxis Solitary yak 06:37, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Thespoondragon and Pyxis Solitary: I've seen the white variation being the most-used and is also the one I've seen the most when looking up the symbols. I'm confused as to why we keep the black design? I know there might be concern of someone using their own file, but if it's the more popular variant, it should be used. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 21:03, 6 July 2019 (UTC) 02:30, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"the more popular variant" is irrelevant. The content of Wikipedia articles aren't predicated on what is or isn't considered popular. A cosmetic preference is not a legitimate reason for substituting files when both illustrate the exact same subject. The most-used version of the lesbian flag that I have seen at the Pride parades I have attended is the rainbow flag with the Venus/sex symbols against a dark blue] canton. (Personally, I think it's the best flag.) This illustration of the lesbian pride flag is as good as the ones with white symbols and pink symbols. And it should go without saying, but just because you're the new kid in town doesn't mean you can shit on the contributions of editors that built the article before you came along on 2 July 2019. Pyxis Solitary yak 08:41, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OWNERSHIP. "Cosmetics" is also especially important on an article for symbols, as we're trying to show readers what's most accurate. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 18:46, 7 July 2019 (UTC) 02:30, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CONSENSUS. When a symbol file is in perfect condition and substituted with another file that illustrates the exact same design concept it's a trivial cosmetic edit based on a personal preference. And when a talk page discussion has been created to discuss consensus regarding edits, you do not reverse an article back to the edits being disputed.
You injected yourself into a conversation on my talk page between me and another editor. The next time you feel compelled to comment about edits in an article do it in the article's talk page and refrain from lurking user talk pages. Pyxis Solitary yak 11:09, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

edit war

I may be wrong but you have blown through wp:3rr I suggest you stop.Slatersteven (talk) 15:26, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven: Did you go through my edits one-by-one?:

08:54, 7 July 2019: revert -- talk page discussion created.

(other editor reverted the above @ 18:39, 7 July 2019.)

12:26, 8 July 2019: re-added file, restored sources, added new sources, new edit of flag descriptions.
12:36, 8 July 2019: new edit of file description.
13:08, 8 July 2019: removed url link gibberish.
05:04, 9 July 2019: removed tag.
05:30, 9 July 2019: added new tag.
05:32, 9 July 2019: same edit as 05:30 for same file.
00:23, 10 July 2019: removed tag.
04:02, 10 July 2019: added new source.

Pyxis Solitary yak 12:03, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Expected to be reverted... (WP:OWNTALK)

Nice4What – July 2019

Nice4What : 12 July 2019

In regards to how to reply to someone in a discussion...

https://imgur.com/Amhlsgl

Yellow was the substance of my messages that actually mattered, pink was what you chose to reply to. I hope this visual helps you understand my messages. I brought this to your talk page because it was more "personal".

I want to ask one final time, though I know this will most likely be reverted and left unreplied to, but what "agenda" do you believe I'm pushing? Feel free to bring the matter to my talk page if you don't want to discuss it here 😇 Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 01:51, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Try to overcome your self-importance. There's more to life than Wikipedia. And stop leaving messages in my talk page because the more you do it, the creepier it gets. I'll keep this message from you for the record as an example that may be useful to other editors down the road, but any other messages will be summarily deleted. Pyxis Solitary yak 07:33, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

_____

@ 13:12, 12 July 2019

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2020s romantic drama films

A tag has been placed on Category:2020s romantic drama films requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:28, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pyxis Solitary,

I hope you do not find this Twinkle template message alarming. It is a confusing template that I hope to rewrite.

It is just to notify you that this category you created is currently empty. If it is still empty seven days from today, it will be deleted. If one or more pages are assigned to it during the coming week, the tag will be removed and it will not be deleted. If it stays empty and is deleted and you should later find that, a-ha!, you have an article that fits the category, feel free to recreate it. Questions? Let me know. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:53, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The category actually wasn't empty until some editors turned 2020 upcoming film articles into drafts, or simply removed categories, example 1. Thank you for letting me know about the tag and for your message. Pyxis Solitary yak 22:15, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lesbian pride flags

You should not really alter comments after they have been replied to, any new material should e added as a new comment.Slatersteven (talk) 09:28, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for the message; I truly apologize for my errors and will be more conscious of them in the future. Sc2353 (talk) 11:57, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Defense of hate speech

Meghan Murphy, 2019

[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.

[a]

[b]

@@ Line 582: / Line 582: @@
 |style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Thank you for the message; I truly apologize for my errors and will be more conscious of them in the future. [[User:Sc2353|Sc2353]] ([[User talk:Sc2353|talk]]) 11:57, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 |}
+== Defense of hate speech ==
+* [[Meghan Murphy]], 2019