Guinness2702

Yes you are perfectly correct. That was a fully manual edit, and probably caused by "date blindness", or more strictly "bracket blindness". Rich Farmbrough 10:05, 18 September 2005 (UTC) Just a leading space. Rich Farmbrough 21:53, September 18, 2005Reply

Hi! I noticed your user name before, and want to assure you I chose mine way before I saw yours. Thanks for the compliment on the Leic City cleanup! Cheers! --Guinnog 13:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Why did you edit off the possible motives section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.62.87 (talk • contribs)

As I said in the edit summary, and others said in the discussion page, there is not a single cited source for this information. See WP:VERIFY for more information. Guinness 16:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, your edit got lost in my reverting an anon who hadnt heard the news. Apologies, I think it is all back now, SqueakBox 22:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Please don't make substantial edits to the Ipswich murder, or Steve Wright articles - especially the sections dealing with the legal process. In fact he's not on trial, he's had a bog standard magistrates hearing - standard because a magistrate can't hear a murder case. The possible next thing is a plea and directions hearing at CC. If he pleads guilty, he won't be on trial will he? I appreciate your enthusiasm, but please be careful when making such sweeping edits, I know it's done in good faith. Reagrds. Escaper7 11:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

  Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not remove citations or information sourced through citations simply because a link to a source is not working, as you did to Dance Dance Revolution. Dead links should not be deleted. Instead, please repair or replace the link, if possible, and ensure properly sourced information is retained. Often, a live substitute link can be found. Links not used as references, notes or citations are not as important, such as those listed in the "External links" or "Further reading" sections, but bad links in those sections should also be fixed if possible. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Lightsup55 ( T | C ) 16:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have now corrected this by replacing the link with a similar news story from The Washington Post. Lightsup55 ( T | C ) 17:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I must beg you to come with some arguments for your opinion, if you still think the information about the color of the car should not include any words about British racing green. I also want to remind you of the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. The discussion should continue on the talkpage of that article, but I post here so I am sure you get the message. John Anderson 16:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I accidentally rolled back a couple of your edits when I was looking at your contributions. I'm removing the offending script from my monobook but I'm at fault and apologise for using rollback incorrectly. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

• No problem...I assume you've restored order now :) Guinness (talk) 19:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • Absolutely. First thing I did - after closing the window to interrupt the script. :o Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

  Hello Guinness2702! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 3 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Mike Wilmot - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 06:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Just FYI, a second nomination for deletion has been placed on an article that you have weighed in on in the past. You can see the discussion at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bernie_Siegel_%282nd_nomination%29 Rosencomet (talk) 16:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Could you please point me to a source or discussion indicating that the word "actress" is not used in British English, as your edit summary here on Judi Dench indicates? I've not seen anything like that and would be interested to read it. Thank you. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:30, 24 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

I came to your talk page to ask exactly the same question. I am 100% British English and I would never call Judi Dench an actor! Periglio (talk) 10:51, 25 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Sure. Try these:-

Guardian

Wikipedia (yes, I know, cite the source, not the wiki, but the citation within the wiki is the OED with no web link. The OED, as quoted in the refs section, states "actor is increasingly preferred for performers of both sexes")

There are various other sources too, some of which say actor is used, some of which merely say "preferred" I'm sure you guys can use google.

You are correct that "actress" can be used, as most people can understand the meaning and intention which you are trying to communicate. You would also be correct to assert that "cunt" could be used to identify a vulva. It would be a fallacy to assert that it follows that it should be used. I am 100% British (75% English, 25% Northern Ireland), and I would never call any actor an actress.

Guinness2702 (talk) 11:28, 25 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

OK, but I don't think any of this is evidence of a variation between American and British English. One can find American sources that have similar discussions, noting that the issue remains contentious. [1][2]. At the SAG Awards they say "Female Actor"; the Oscars still use "Best Actress". But BAFTA still says "Actress" [3].

Nevertheless, I don't particularly object to the changes, although in at least one case the change came in a place where the sources—one of them The Guardian, yet —-- had named Dench number one on the list of "The 20 best British actresses": [4] [5]) . But I don't think MOS:TIES can substantiate the changes. Changes made to enforce gender neutrality would be more accurately labelled as such. Best, --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:15, 25 February 2014 (UTC) 15:15, 25 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

TBH, you are right, those sources don't make the point very well, but I'm reasonably sure I've seen it elsewhere that -ess variations are US english. Maybe I was thinking of "stewardess" or some other distinction. Anyway, I don't really have any more time to spend on this topic. I only made the edit, because I started reading the article, and "noticed" it was "wrong." There are too many other examples of US bias (if that's what it is) in wikipedia for me to argue this one any further. Guinness2702 (talk) 15:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

I was asking about actor/actress usage last week at Wikipedia_talk:Persondata#Occupation_gender and no one answered. I merely wanted to know if there was a generally accepted answer to avoid editors angrily reverting me. However it is the sort of thing that will never be agreed on but probably should be left alone once an article has become established. Periglio (talk) 20:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

• Firstly, you should never use the Daily Mail as a reference in a BLP. Secondly, Schwarzer is still a Chelsea player; read [6], which is one of the latest sources, and you will see that he is "on the verge of" switching, not that he actually has switched. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi,
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) 12:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm Mattythewhite. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Ben Hamer, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:33, 30 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

I have granted your account an exemption from IP blocking. This will allow you to edit the English Wikipedia through full blocks affecting your IP address when you are logged in.

Please read the page Wikipedia:IP block exemption carefully, especially the section on IP block exemption conditions. Inappropriate usage of this user right may result in revocation. I hope this will enhance your editing, and allow you to edit successfully and without disruption. SQL^{Query me!} 16:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm TJRC. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, D. B. Cooper in popular culture, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. TJRC (talk) 03:48, 20 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of fictional doomsday devices, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rainbow Six. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)Reply