User talk:Pyxis Solitary/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Pyxis Solitary. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Pyxis Solitary. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

13 January 2019 – 4 January 2020

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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).

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

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

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

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)

@*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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

@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)

"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)

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)

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)

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

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The Clarification and Amendment page where you just posted is very formal. The messages near the top include "There must be no threaded discussion, so please comment only in your own section". I don't mind your response in my section but others will make a fuss so please remove it and add your own section. To do that, edit the "Statement by {other-editor}" section and add your statement above the text in that section. Your first line will be === Statement by Pyxis Solitary ===. When you publish the edit, you will have inserted a new section in front of "Statement by {other-editor}". Johnuniq (talk) 07:03, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Okay. Thank you. Pyxis Solitary yak 07:49, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

If you're here because you saw my name in a discussion about the MM article, I suggest you read the discussions in both  Talk:Meghan Murphy  and BLP/N discussion  Labeling or categorizing BLP subjects as TERFs or trans-exclusionary radical feminists.
Don't leave a comment about it here, or else expect a battleground editor to accuse you of whatever he or she is hell-bent on accusing others of doing. Pyxis Solitary yak 23:52, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Pyxis,

I don't know why your edit at LGBT symbols ended up on the Pending review queue. I approved it, with this comment: Pyxis: "approving": simply because you're extended confirmed, without looking at the edit. Don't know why your edit ended up on "review".. This was a pro forma approval, and doesn't mean I agree or disagree with what you wrote, since I didn't even look at it; it was merely procedural. Maybe raise this at WP:VPT, because they ought to be told; if no one does, they can't fix it. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 10:15, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for handling it. My edit was citation fixes. No additions, no deletions. But I think the paragraph added by the editor with the rude name should be reconsidered. Pyxis Solitary yak 14:24, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

This is a neutral notice to all registered editors who have contributed to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film over the past year (Sept. 15, 2018-present) that a Request for Comment has been posted here. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:00, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

The first video on Magdalen's channel is dated April 2016, which I verified before editing. I believe her *account creation date* is in 2013. Vashti (talk) 14:10, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes. The account was created in 2013. The first gender identity vlog was uploaded in 2016. We don't know if she used her channel for other vlogs and removed them to focus on gender identity politics, but if the account existed for 3 years before she did, it's possible. Either way, she didn't create the channel in 2016. Pyxis Solitary (yak) 14:16, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Technically we don't know when she created the channel. She may have, she may not have. Regardless, do you think that's a detail worth telling me to "do neutral research" over, whether we say that she started her channel (as in her media presence) in 2016 or started posting vlogs? Vashti (talk) 14:27, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

The channel was created when YouTube says it was created. YouTube is the authority on the data. We don't get to decide otherwise. How content is worded in an article makes a huge difference in how the information is understood. Pyxis Solitary (yak) 14:32, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Didn't we just agree that we don't know when the channel was created, and that the date on the "About" tab is the *account* creation date? Vashti (talk) 14:48, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Hey, did you put that FWS reference back by mistake, or is it better than the Morning Star article? Vashti (talk) 13:08, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

When I first previewed my edit, it showed that the FWS reference had been added. When I saved the edit, a "cite error" warning displayed in the references section about it. So I re-added it. I've no idea what the hell happened, but I switch between Opera and Chrome browsers. Pyxis Solitary (yak) 13:47, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I'll switch it back out again. Vashti (talk) 14:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

You're right, that's a good edit. Thanks for fixing it. Vashti (talk) 14:43, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi, you just created List of dramatic television series with LGBT characters: 2010s/Archive 1, was that supposed to be Talk:List of dramatic television series with LGBT characters: 2010s/Archive 1? (The Talk page is now redirecting to the new mainspace article so I hesitate to mess with trying to move it.) Schazjmd (talk) 14:39, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I got distracted and screwed up. The main article is List of dramatic television series with LGBT characters: 2010s. The Archive is the talk page archive so it's supposed to be Talk:List of dramatic television series with LGBT characters: 2010s/Archive 1. Pyxis Solitary (yak) 14:45, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

You are invited to this section of MOS:FILM about the issues with the format of 2019 in film. BattleshipMan (talk) 04:39, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I thought you might be interested in the discussion regarding the naming/renaming of this category. Cheers. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 22:16, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi. I was thinking about the LGBT community and the mixed bag of cooperation and rancorous conflict between the L, the G, the B, and the T over the years. This is just an idea, maybe not a good one, but I wondered if there could be articles concerning inter-/intra-community relations. Examples might be interactions between gay men and lesbians (Gay–lesbian relations), lesbians and trans people (Lesbian–transgender relations), and gays/lesbians and bisexuals (Homosexual–bisexual relations). So, for example, the gay–lesbian article could include details about early mixed-sex gay liberation orgs, lesbians leaving to form their own orgs, lesbians helping gay men during the AIDS crisis, and other historical information about interactions between Ls and Gs. This is a pretty unformed idea at the moment and I thought you'd have some useful input or advice. Thanks. Have a good day/night. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 06:51, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I, personally, think this is a great suggestion. And you're right about the conflict, which is why the foundation exists for these articles. It was, indeed, the AIDS crisis that resulted in a better alliance between gay men and lesbians. I think you should propose this in WP:LGBT. I will support you if you do, and you may be surprised by others (not counting gripers and victim players). Pyxis Solitary (yak) 07:17, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello Pyxis!

I'm hoping to add mention of artist Jacki Randall's 'Dyke Beer' cartoon/t-shirt on the Dyke(slang) page, as it was shocking in it's day. Are more references required? Was placement incorrect? Would you mind sharing some guidance please?

I enjoyed your user page. Thanks! Crazybird 11:59, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

@Crazyybird: Have you read What Wikipedia is not? If you are Jacki Randall, it would be self-promotion and Wikipedia does not allow it. For an editor to include content in an article, the why it's included has to make sense. If the T-shirt was, as you say, shocking when it was created but there aren't reliable sources to verify that it was "shocking", then it will be difficult for it to remain in the article. Everything in an article needs to be verified. The T-shirt story would fall under the "Increasing acceptance" section, but there need to be sources to support the inclusion: article and/or book that mentions the T-shirt and why it was considered shocking. Another means of including the T-shirt would be an image file of it that has been uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons; however, this would require an original photograph of the shirt by you or someone else, but not a rip-off of the image from the website because the website is copyrighted. Pyxis Solitary (yak) 05:01, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate your explanation. No I'm not JR, just a fan, or I'd have that file. I don't want to rip off anyone, just thought I could contribute. Thank you for taking the time. Crazybird 07:42, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! Alex 18:59, 4 January 2020 (UTC)