User talk:Lexein/Archive 18

Film Sack
✅ GiantSnowman 15:10, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Article looks much better, I see no harm in moving it into mainspace. Good work! GiantSnowman 20:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Firefly navbox
I just saw your edit on Gina Torres page and you might be interested to know that he went right down the list of actors deleting it from all their pages. I have reverted his edits and left a discussion on the talk pages of Nathan Fillion, Alan Tudyk, Morena Baccarin, Adam Baldwin, Jewel Staite, Sean Maher, Summer Glau, and Ron Glass. Sarty72 (talk) 20:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Where does this "no actors in navboxes" idea come from? And why did you allow removal of the actors' names from firefly? --Lexein (talk) 20:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No actors in navboxes per WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers/Consensus summaries. Therefore navbox doesn't belong on actor articles per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. --Rob Sinden (talk) 21:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Your reading of that is quite wrong. Sorry. Hence, the reverts. --Lexein (talk) 21:23, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No it isn't. Take it to one of the relevant projects (actors and film-makers, or templates) and you'll find that consensus will be against you.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 21:27, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * TV series. Not film. Sorta important difference. You take your deletion request there, and I'll respond. Sorry. --Lexein (talk) 21:29, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No difference in these circumstances. It makes no difference whether it's a TV series or a film, there is consensus against including actors and acting roles in navboxes as I have demonstrated.  Relevant projects notified.  Have requested centralisation of the discussion here.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 21:32, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * NO . This has no place on my talk page. It's an MOS/guideline discussion. Go there. --Lexein (talk) 21:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You might want to point editors to where you intend to have the conversation. Really you should have started the conversation at the navbox talk page, but for now it's at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 22:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Wrong is wrong. Sorry for your error. --Lexein (talk) 22:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, so you seem to want to get sarcastic, but I'll ignore that. Let's keep the discussion civil and centralised and you can argue your case against longstanding consensus there.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 22:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Your claimed "longstanding consensus" is more correctly stated "surprisingly overbroad misinterpretation of longstanding consensus". --Lexein (talk) 23:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
CaroleHenson (talk ) 08:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Oops
In re "Removal of categories re Robin McNair", sorry for dragging you in. I thought you were the man to see (figuratively, of course). My mistake. Quis separabit? 22:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * No problem at all. I'm happy to help get people to source things. --Lexein (talk) 22:22, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
CaroleHenson (talk ) 08:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Nathan Fillion
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Nathan Fillion. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Please arrive on one location for your discussion, refrain from any further reverting and get this matter resolved. Your slow edit warring is disrupting this article and all the other Firefly-related articles where it's taking place. --Drmargi (talk) 14:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * struckthrough as false on the face of it. I never edited Nathan Fillon (history). Good luck to you in all your future endeavors. --Lexein (talk) 15:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Heads up: Film Sack
There's an admin who's getting on right now to try to work on the alignment.--CaroleHenson (talk ) 23:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Cool, I had left a request at Template talk:Episode list --Lexein (talk) 00:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013
Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Photography is Not a Crime. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. GregJackP  Boomer!   18:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Abusive comments can be deleted at will, by anyone. See WP:Personal attack. Please feel free to rewrite without the personal attacks. I will welcome it. --Lexein (talk) 18:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey
As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 14:53, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅ --Lexein (talk) 16:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Hightail
Do you think it's better I just provide sources and hope someone takes an interest in updating the article like this or should I make a specific request? I'm trying to balance wanting to keep the article updated with being a nag every time a new source comes out every few weeks. Would be interested in your advice on where to draw the line sort of speak. CorporateM (Talk) 20:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm of the opinion that businesses are advised by PR professionals to just constantly traipse out PR releases to maintain "presence". WP:NOTNEWS. Aside from that, making specific very brief addition suggestions is best. --Lexein (talk) 12:31, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That is not far from the truth, though PR reps would have a much more upbeat way of describing it. That companies need to keep a drum-roll of news to stay top-of-mind, etc. Now that I am no longer in that field, I sort of have a different perspective - that channels get so drowned out with press releases that I generally don't see as credible or important, that it is difficult to find the independent, meaningful sources I am looking for. The company actually does itself a dis-service by filling the internet with press releases people don't want, making it more difficult for their customers, etc. to find the independent stuff. CorporateM (Talk) 16:31, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Your old post at Talk:Nylon (magazine)
You might want to look at WP:COIN where sadly no one has yet commented - Neumann is editing as an IP after being blocked. There's also Sockpuppet investigations/Squeezdot but I don't think anything will come of that. I'd block but I may be too involved. Dougweller (talk) 17:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I've informed since they initiated the original ANI (little recent activity, so no response expected). Shall we tping the folks from the original AfD and ANI? It's the holidays, I expect slow responses from everyone. --Lexein (talk) 22:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, and a new ANI as this is a blocked editor - if you have time, this am. I may not as we are having an open house and I need now to start tidying, making eggnog, etc.! Dougweller (talk) 09:01, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I've notified all who participated at the old ANI and the Mic Neumann AfD, if they've made any edits in 2013. --Lexein (talk) 10:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Blocked, edits can be reverted by anyone. Dougweller (talk) 11:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Holiday Cheer

 * Hey, thanks. Same to ya, M. --Lexein (talk) 21:50, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

inre Articles for deletion/The Truth About Lies (film)
The original version of the article from 2011 was based upon on old and inaccurate source. Further research shows the project began filming December 2013 and is now in post-production. I made corrections/expansions to the article to address the original author's errors and have added a different set of "Find sources" at the AFD. I think the now-better-sourced and improved version gives us a basis from which to build a decent article. What you think?  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 02:45, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

James Marsters
Hi, Lexein. Thanks for participating in the discussion. Sorry to bug you again, but a fourth photo has been added to the discussion since you voiced your opinion. Could you post again to indicate whether your previously-stated preference remains the same? Also, I've taken your advice about lettered candidates to heart, and will try to remember to use that system in the future. Thanks, and have a Happy New Year! Nightscream (talk) 18:38, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I still prefer the "right" image, but I've cropped it to more closely resemble a portrait, and changed my vote to that version. Sorry. --Lexein (talk) 20:35, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Stile Project NOINDEX
Hello, I received your e-mail, and though I don't understand the reasoning, I figure that there must be a good reason for it and will follow your lead. Thanks, SchreiberBike talk 15:15, 6 January 2014 (UTC)