User talk:Pyxis Solitary

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Hello, Pyxis Solitary! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking Button sig.png or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Kingturtle (talk) 11:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines

The community

Writing articles

matter resolved[edit]

Wikipedia:Deletion review[edit]

For a dispute concerning deletion, see WP:Deletion review. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:54, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

  • WP:Deletion review lays out it's purpose at the top of the page, it relates to deletion discussions and speedy deletion, not disputes about what should or shouldn't be within an article. You really want dispute resolution -- (talk) 08:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


I am fine with you undoing my edits, however the tone of your edit summary and comment on my talk page is completely out of line. Just because I have not edited on Lost Girl before and you have does not give you more power over the page, see WP:OWNER. Also, just because you disagree with the edits I made, you have no right at all to accuse me of being a vandal, see WP:PERSONAL. I have started a discussion about including directors and writers on the talk page. If you can refrain from violating the policies that I have listed above, then I encourage you to participate in the discussion. JDDJS (talk) 14:30, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

One man's junk is another man's treasure, and "tone" is subjective. I found your personal decision to delete information that other editors have contributed to the article -- and which has been approved BY THE ADMIN -- to be an act of page vandalism. Unlike your presumptuous behavior, I respect Wikipedia articles and what other editors have contributed to them. I communicate with Admins BEFORE I make an edit that will result in a major change to an existing article. I don't behave like I'm the new sheriff in town. The definition of "power" is the power trip you exercised on the article. I may the first to state my opinion without mincing words, but that doesn't mean others haven't thought similarly. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 02:49, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Changing numbers to text[edit]

Please take more care when you change numbers to text. Your changes today broke numerous links to the individual season articles. The damage to List of Lost Girl episodes should have been obvious.[1] --AussieLegend () 12:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to not respond sooner. I've been off the grid. I sincerely apologize. That was not my intention. As obvious as some things might be, sometimes eyes glaze over and you don't see what's in front of your nose. I wouldn't deliberately make your staying on top of Lost Girl articles any harder than it already is. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 06:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox television - cast order[edit]

Regarding your summary at Lost Girl,[2] WP:TVCAST specifies that "cast should be organized according to the series original broadcast credits, with new cast members being added to the end of the list". This is reflected in the instructions for {{Infobox television}}. The credit order in the first episode of Lost Girl was Anna Silk, Kris Holden-Ried, Ksenia Solo, K. C. Collins, Zoie Palmer, Rick Howland and Cle Bennett. Once actors are credited as main cast they stay listed that way, which is why Ksenia Solo is still in the list, despite only being credited as a "special guest star" in the season 5 premiere. --AussieLegend () 11:47, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is screwy. Such policy is arbitrary and contradicts the established opening title sequence created for the series. I pulled up the episode after reading your message and Emanuelle Vaugier (first name misspelled) follows Cle Bennett in the credits before the "Created by Michelle Lovretta" credit. Based on Wikipedia's screwy thinking, her name should appear in the infobox, too. It's a Fae, Fae, Fae, Fae World (1.01) did not include the traditional opening title sequence -- that started with the next episode Where There's a Will, There's a Fae (1.02). Pyxis Solitary (talk) 11:58, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
I just checked the second episode and didn't see Vaugier at all. The order in the aired episode is Silk, Holden-Ried, Solo followed by the "Created by Michelle Lovretta" credit. After that is Collins, Palmer, Howland, Richard McMillan and then Elias Toufexis. After that is "casting by Lisa Parasyn" etc. The credit order in the aired episodes is rather screwy. Sometimes starring cast is credited before "Created by Michelle Lovretta" while other times they're credited after. When they are credited after, it's often the case that other, clearly non-starring cast are included as well. --AussieLegend () 12:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
My typographical error. It is episode 1.01 that Wikipedia insists the credits should be based on, right? She is included in the opening credits of 1.01. Followed by Michelle Lovretta. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 12:33, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Vaugier isn't credited in a starring role in 1.01. The credit is "With Guest Star Emanuelle Vaugier". She's only a guest star so she shouldn't be in the infobox. --AussieLegend () 12:39, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
As far as the episode itself is concerned, the only difference between Vaugier and Bennett in the credits is in how their billing was negotiated in their contracts. She appears as much as he does in the episode. Wikipedia's idea on this matter is counter-intuitive and you know as well as I that editors are going to change the infobox time and again because how names appear in it clashes with the show's own promotion of who are considered the primary actors. But I give up. Wikipedia is obtuse.
P.S. The Lost Girl Wiki is leaving Lost Girl Wikipedia in the dust. It is more up-to-date and fact-checked than Lost Girl's main article here. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 13:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Because we have a clear guideline, and a template with clear instructions, it's generally easy to ward off changes by people who don't bother reading the guideline that was created with consensus formed by many editors. People need to remember that this is an encyclopaedia, not a fansite. --AussieLegend () 14:07, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it is an encyclopaedia, but articles about TV shows are edited by fans of those shows. If you don't watch a TV show, if you do not care about a TV show, you don't come to Wikipedia to add info about it. The Lost Girl article has nose-dived. I used to stay on top of it and contributed a lot of info, but there needs to be other knowledgeable, neutral editors contributing information.
The fanatics engaged in shipping wars visit the Lost Girl article, piss on it, and someone who still cares about the article and has the initiative reverses their graffiti. Have you seen what has been done to the Zoie Palmer article? From what I can tell it has no Admin cat at the gates and the mice have had a good time playing with it. But I digress. My issue is that decisions made by Wikipedia are based on a consensus of editors who are constantly involved in Wikipedia. But Wikipedia can only thrive if the occasional editor contributes to it. And decisions about articles that depend on editors being fans of the topic need to be flexible because the first season of a TV series with more than that one season is not necessarily representative of the TV show as a whole -- yet that is what will remain in perpetuity within Wikipedia. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 03:13, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I need to make something clear about the Lost Girl Wiki vs Lost Girl Wikipedia: the wiki is based on the same encyclopaedic foundation as Wikipedia. It has policies and instructions. It thrives on the contributions from fans of the TV show (same as the Wikipedia article) but with more bells and whistles (videos, images, individual pages for episodes, actors, species, mythology, folklore, etc.). The rule of thumb about adding content to pages, however, is flexible so that the changes in production, and the evolution of characters and the story arc can be accommodated. I periodically archive the wiki so that it will remain a slice of the Internet pie until kingdom come. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 03:29, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


Wikis, no matter how reliable they may be, are considered self-published sources. As such, they are not permitted in biographies of living people, per WP:BLPEL. I disagree with your assertion that those links meet the external links guideline, but even if they did, BLP takes precedence and is a stricter standard, as stated in the policy: "External links about living persons, whether in BLPs or elsewhere, are held to a higher standard than for other topics". Please do not restore those links, per WP:BLP and WP:ELBURDEN. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

"All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." Wikipedia:Verifiability via Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons.
The Lost Girl Wiki is not your typical wiki. Neutrality is mandatory. It adheres to the same principles of BLP in Tone, Balance, Reliable sources.
Every website, by publication, is a self-published website. IMDb is supported and edited by members of the public as registered users, yet IMDb is allowed as an external link on Wikipedia. When you read some IMDb information -- you are reading information I contributed. Just as I have contributed information to Wikipedia.
Tell the truth: Wikipedians are snobs regarding Wikia. Wikipedians ridicule wikis as if this, Wikipedia, wasn't a wiki itself. Wikipedia is edited by members of the public -- total strangers who are no better qualified than the same members of the public that edit many wikis with subjects of interest to them. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 02:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Biographical information should not be cited to IMDb or Wikipedia any more than to Wikia, as we don't consider any of these to be reliable sources for the purposes of WP:V and WP:BLP. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:27, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't know what Wikipedia expects from an editing pool composed of members of the public. Is the vast amount of information I have contributed to Wikipedia legitimate? Should information that does not come from "pre-approved" editors be allowed on Wikipedia at all? You do realize that Wikipedia wants to be something it will never be: a legitimate source of information. Wikipedia rises and falls on the participation of anonymous members of the public -- with or without invented user names -- for ALL of its content. Furthermore, these new do's and dont's are strangling everyone who doesn't live their lives with Wikipedia attached at the hip. If you can deliver a message to the circle that pats itself on the back about all the do's and dont's you've come up with, deliver this one: I contributed $ to Wikipedia in the past -- I will no longer be contributing even one cent. I will continue to participate in Wikipedia in subjects I am interested in, but if Wikipedia ceases to exist ... Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 11:48, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Lost Girl (season 5) (January 30)[edit]

AFC-Logo Decline.svg
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by CraigyDavi was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved. —CraigyDavi (TC@) 16:28, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

"Back half" of Lost Girl Season 5[edit]

Thanks for correcting. The article I cited was unclear that it wasn't the back half (the remaining 8 eps of the split season) and in my excitement at having (I thought) a start date for the last few eps I misread it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlairman (talkcontribs) 19:17, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Completely understandable. I think we're all eager to see Part 2 already (I know I am). As it is, the only news about the final 8 episodes is that they will begin in Fall 2015, but Showcase's programming schedule with a specific start date won't be announced until months from now. However, your citation is perfect information to include in the Lost Girl (season 5) introductory section (see Lost Girl (season 4) for what I mean), and Lost Girl main article's Development and Production > Season 5, section. Cheers! :-) Pyxis Solitary (talk) 04:06, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Manual of Style on blockquotes[edit]

I did not mess up anything. The Manual of Style clearly states that one is not to use decorative quotation marks on blockquotes. See MOS:BLOCKQUOTE: "Do not enclose block quotations in quotation marks (and especially avoid decorative quotation marks in normal use....)" Please desist from your personal attacks and incivility. Good day. Skyerise (talk) 16:50, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I also don't understand why you prefer bitching to fixing. Please stay off my talk page in the future. Skyerise (talk) 16:53, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Citing scenes in episodes[edit]

Regarding this edit summary, you can cite scenes from episodes using {{cite episode}}.[3] If you want to cite an entire scene, add a time-code using time, but if you just want to cite a phrase or a word, like "Dennis" as Bo's last name, add the time using minutes.[4] --AussieLegend () 08:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I saw your edit. I learned something new. :-) Thank you! Pyxis Solitary (talk) 05:16, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
That's always a good thing. --AussieLegend () 05:35, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Zoie Palmer[edit]

I wasn't avoiding your comment — as you can see from Correctfact's talk page, I had actually already given them a first-level warning to stop it even before you posted to my talk page, and their behaviour hasn't yet recurred even once since I did that. So the only thing I could really do at the time was to wait and see what happens — as of right now, though, they still haven't actually re-edited the article since I posted my first message to their talk page. I'm absolutely prepared to escalate it to the next step if and when they do try to edit the article again, but until that actually happens I can't really do much more than I've already done. Bearcat (talk) 22:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

A user can't be blocked for inappropriate behaviour until they've been explicitly warned that a block is in the cards (and you can't immediately jump to a block threat in a first warning, either — only on a followup warning can you start raising the possibility of blocking the editor, and only if the behaviour still continues after that can you actually follow through on blocking them.) My actual intention was only to pageprotect the article for a few hours as an immediate measure, but I appear to have accidentally selected a full week from the drop-down menu by mistake — so now that I have given them a "you can be blocked if you do it again" warning, I've dropped it back down to semi. But blocking the editor wasn't an option at the time, because they hadn't reached that level of warning yet. The editor does also have a prior history of editing on another unrelated topic prior to the Zoie Palmer thing, and have made a not-problematic edit to James Franco since — so I can't just label it as an WP:SPA that was created solely to vandalize Palmer's article.. Bearcat (talk) 17:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
This individual is obsessed with making unwarranted and unsubstantiated changes to the article. I appreciate that you're on top of his actions and that you have given him a direct warning. As the saying goes: "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me." Pyxis Solitary (talk) 22:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)