User talk:Manxwoman

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome to my talk page.

If I have left a message on your talk page: please reply there, I am watching it.

If you leave a message here: I will usually reply here, so please click the 'watch' tab at the top of your page in order to add my talk page to your watchlist.

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Manxwoman! 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 using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking if shown; 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! Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 02:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines
The community
Writing articles
Miscellaneous

Film article guidelines[edit]

Unfortunately that particular section of the style guide is a bit incomplete and old and doesn't contain the accepted policy regarding cast lists, which is to not list more than the first-billed actors. Take a look at the film articles that have reached Featured Article status: Wikipedia:FILMSPOT#Distinguished_articles.

IMDB is linked on all film articles for anyone who wants to view the entire cast. Stunt doubles, horsemen, bridesmaids, unnamed characters, etc., are far too trivial to list in an article. I've added back in Mark Burns because he's mentioned in the text of the article, but to add any more actors, especially those that don't have their own Wikipedia articles, is just clutter.

What an article the size of The Wicked Lady (1983 film) needs is an expanded Plot section, either with character and actors' names included, and/or descriptions of the characters added to the list of the first-billed actors. It also needs a Reception section, and information on how the remake differs from the original, and so on. These items would contribute to making it a useful encyclopedic article. If you still have questions, feel free to ask your question on the WikiProject:Film's discussion page. Happy editing! Softlavender (talk) 13:35, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some tips to help you out![edit]

Hi Manxwoman, I thought I'd drop a few notes on your talk page with some help on writing articles :o)

First of all, it may be best for you to do a bit of reading, starting with the Wikipedia manual of style, which will give you a lot of information about how Wikipedia prefers its articles to be written. It's not as hard to follow as it might look; quite a bit of the information there probably won't be vital for you at first.

Second, I recommend you make a user sandbox - which is just an area you can use to practise in, and to make notes in, and to get things ready in. If you click this red link: user:Manxwoman/Sandbox, that will let you create that page (it gives you an edit window to start work in). Anything, anywhere, on the help and information pages which gives you an example, try it out in your sandbox until you're familiar with it.

For your article, the next thing you want to do is start collecting as much information as you can about it. Google searches (particularly in Books and Scholar) will be your best friend for this! Once you've found the information, the next most important thing is to start writing up each fact in your own words (very important, this), and make a note at the same time of exactly where that information came from. Build in the references as you go along; I'm going to copy in, down below this, a whole heap of help on doing references, which was produced by one of our best teachers (Chzz).

Here's another place that you'll find incredibly useful - citation templates which you can copy and paste into your sandbox, between <ref></ref> tags; you just fill in the blanks from your sources into the template, and you'll end up with nicely formatted inline citations :o) It all helps. Remember to add a references section to your sandbox (make a new line, and put ==References== on it, and type {{reflist}} on the next line, so that you can see how your citations look as you do them. Remember to save your page often! You don't want to lose your work.

Hopefully this will give you a good start and make life easier for you.

One last thing to keep as a motto: "It's better to write one good, well-referenced, nicely-presented article than it is to create fifty unreferenced one-line stubs!" Pesky (talk …stalk!) 09:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How references work[edit]

Simple references[edit]

These require two parts;

a)
Chzz is 98 years old.<ref> "The book of Chzz", Aardvark Books, 2009. </ref>

He likes tea. <ref> [http://www.nicecupofteaandasitdown.com Tea website] </ref>
b) A section called "References" with the special code "{{reflist}}";
== References ==
{{reflist}}

(an existing article is likely to already have one of these sections)

To see the result of that, please look at user:chzz/demo/simpleref. Edit it, and check the code; perhaps make a test page of your own, such as user:Manxwoman/reftest and try it out.

Named references[edit]

Chzz was born in 1837. <ref name=MyBook>
"The book of Chzz", Aardvark Books, 2009. 
</ref> 

Chzz lives in Footown.<ref name=MyBook/>

Note that the second usage has a / (and no closing ref tag). This needs a reference section as above; please see user:chzz/demo/namedref to see the result.

Citation templates[edit]

You can put anything you like between <ref> and </ref>, but using citation templates makes for a neat, consistent look; 

Chzz has 37 Olympic medals. <ref> {{Citation
 | last = Smith
 | first = John
 | title = Olympic medal winners of the 20th century
 | publication-date = 2001
 | publisher = [[Cambridge University Press]]
 | page = 125
 | isbn = 0-521-37169-4
}}
</ref>

Please see user:chzz/demo/citeref to see the result.

For more help and tips on that subject, see user:chzz/help/refs.

Here's a little bit of magic which can save you an awful lot of time and effort![edit]

You might want to consider using this tool - (tools:~dispenser/cgi-bin/webreflinks.py) - it makes your life a whole heap easier, by filling in complete citation templates for your links. All you do is install the script on Special:MyPage/common.js, or or Special:MyPage/vector.js, then paste the bare url (without [...] brackets) between your <ref></ref> tabs, and you'll find a clickable link called Reflinks in your toolbox section of the page (probably in the left hand column). Then click that tool. It does all the rest of the work (provided that you remember to save the page! It doesn't work for everything (particularly often not for pdf documents), but for pretty much anything ending in "htm" or "html" (and with a title) it will do really, really well all by itself. For those it can't do by itself, it gives you a pull-down (or up) menu of templates to choose from, which you can then fill in manually. Often the problem is "No title found" - sometimes the title is obvious (especially if it's a pdf), bit, if not, just open the page yourself and choose something appropriate if there's not already a clear title there. Happy editing! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 09:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Mills[edit]

Nice stuff in the Mills article!--andreasegde (talk) 16:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Mills[edit]

I have to heartily compliment you on your reply to "the person" on Heather Mills' talk page. What a great reply! Marvellous stuff. :)) --andreasegde (talk) 18:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How kind of you. Praise indeed! Manxwoman (talk) 18:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possessive Plurals[edit]

It is the fundamental rule that a possessive is indicated by adding an apostrophe followed by the letter 's', ie "Look at John's face". The "apostrophe following" rule only applies to plural possessives, ie "Here are Anne Johnson and Tom Johnson and the Johnsons' cat". Where a name ends in an 's' it is a common error to use the following apostrophe, ie "This is James' book", but in fact it's still a singular plural, so should be written "This is James's book" (note the second 's'). Silas Maxfield (talk) 07:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is not correct, as evidenced in many published books. Both are acceptable.--andreasegde (talk) 18:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Angharad Rees[edit]

Well, with all due respect to the museum in question, the quote as it currently exists is decidedly non-neutral. However, it may be possible to reword it satisfactorily. I will get on it when I can, or you can try. Yours, Quis separabit? 18:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Madonna[edit]

I have made one small edit, and am watching the page.--andreasegde (talk) 18:13, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a section on the talk page, which is neutral in its intent. The lady should be allowed to defend herself against accusations, as much as the accusations/controversy should not be ignored.--andreasegde (talk) 18:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's a REALLY good suggestion and compromise. Very clever & diplomatic, much as I expected from you! Thank you. Just for future reference, can you remember the name of the Wiki policy ref about no one, single editor "owning" an article? I know I read it once, possibly on another editors page, but can't seem to trace it now... Manxwoman (talk) 18:57, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Found it! Its Wikipedia:Ownership of articles & Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Manxwoman (talk) 16:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just extending an olive branch: you've done good edits on Madonna (you and I will probably always disagree on tone/structure but no two people think alike). I just get defensive when people accuse me of being a blind fan when my primary interest in BLPs is preventing them from becoming examples of WP:ATTACK or endless amounts of petty tabloid drivel. I had a particularly grueling time back in '09 monitoring Rihanna and Chris Brown (American entertainer) when everyone on the planet wanted to turn their pages into news coverage of the physical assault, not taking into consideration WP:UNDUE among other policies. I even had a few editors accuse me of being an actual PR rep for Brown, which was as ludicrous as it was appalling. I may not loath Madonna in the same way I do Brown (although her publicity stuns over the last year or so have been a bit sickening), but I'm a firm advocate of preserving basic human dignity in biographies, regardless if the subject deserves it or not. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much indeed for the posting and let me say at the outset, if I have offended you in any way by my statement about "blind fans", I apologise and it was most certainly not meant in any way personally or as an insult directed at you. My concern is/was that although I fully agree that the article is exceptionally well written as prose and very well sourced, the general tone, to my way of thinking, was overly sycophantic and read, to me, as though it had been written from a fans viewpoint. My personal feelings about her aside, I am a GREAT fan of the new-Wiki. It has pulled itself up from being laughably inaccurate and a joke, to the point at which Encyclopaedia Britannica has had to stop publishing as it cannot compete and I find that exciting. But you know all that. andreasegde and I have spent a long time addressing the Heather Mills page, someone arguably much more controversial than Madonna and I feel very proud of what we have achieved with the neutrality of the article. If my language has been injudicious in my postings, that is entirely my failing and I defend myself by saying that I am passionate! I want to make it clear that I am not trying to b*****-up the article. Its a good article, but I just wanted to make it less-emphatic. I do hope that I have made myself clear and that you will not regard me as a 'rogue' editor, trying to vandalise someone's work! Your olive-branch is much appreciated. Manxwoman (talk) 00:10, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome and I understand as I am passionate as well. As I said before, I have a different take on the boundaries of what defines empathic (a number of well respected biographies/encyclopedias from neutral critics/observers have glowing representation of celebrities as well as scathing commentary, and given our society's knee-jerk reaction to point out peoples failings, I much prefer to give praise where praise is due), but neutrality involves taking in alternate points of view. You're no rogue in my opinion, just be sure to to distinguish stewardship vs ownership with regards to working with other editors on future articles. Happy editing! :) The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 01:16, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kvetch[edit]

Hello Manxwoman. I saw you have reverted my edit on the page Steven Berkoff. But did you notice where the link goes now? Do you think leaving it like that is the right thing to do? -- yabancım 21:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Yes, it goes through to a page explaining the meaning of Jewish phrases or words. I reverted it as your edit caused a red (no wikilink) word. If you want to remove any link entirely, please feel free (until someone has the time to create a Kvetch page!) Manxwoman (talk) 14:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As you say, the link now goes to a page that has nothing to do with the play, so I think reverting was not the best choice. Apart from that, I'm not aware of some of the English Wikipedia customs. In Turkish Wikipedia we see creating a red link -if the link is useful for the article- an encouraging thing to do for improving the article. If it's not appropriate in here, please let me know. Also, I'll create the page if I have the time and find the sources. -- yabancım 10:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds a very sensible idea! Good luck with creating the page. Manxwoman (talk) 14:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting page stanbridge Earls[edit]

Dear Manxwoman,

You are quite right. Most of it is allegations. Many published by newspapers based on a quite vicious slander campaign led by Ms Julia Maynard. Ms Maynard especially, being well informed with regards to special needs children, should understand that these allegations should be left for the appropriate authorities to deal with rather than trial by press. Who is going to be responsible when one of the special needs pupils on this school misinterprets these allegations and commits suicide.............. Think and put the the safety of these children first rather then intricate need to publish allegations on a Wikipedia page which was originally created by the pupils. Kind regards, Gerben

In the first place a brief, cursory look at my editing history and/or that of the Stanbridge Earls School site would show you quite clearly that I have NEVER edited the page before, so I do not appreciate your assertion that you were removing vandalism and Breach of neutral point of view policy...same person under different name at it again. That is a VERY serious allegation to make to any long-standing editor. Sock-puppetry is a serious and unforgivable sin in Wiki editing policy, let alone vandalism. Secondly, you state that the page was originally created by the pupils, that in-itself is a breach of the WP:NPOV rules. Wikipedia is not a fan-site, it is an encyclopaedia and must be well-sourced. If information is untrue, unsourced or in violation of the Defamation rules, any wrong or harmful information can and will be removed immediately. Further, your constant removals are placing you in danger of breaching the WP:3RR guidelines and I strongly suggest that you take care. You also state that what has been written on the page are "allegations". I would suggest to you that the source clearly shows that these have been taken from the 35-page JUDGEMENT of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Trust (SENDIST), a body operating under the auspices of the Ministry of Justice to consider appeals of children. Hardly allegations. Whatever Julia Maynards reasons behind her 'whistle-blowing' are of no concern to a responsible encyclopaedia like Wikipedia, which deals with sourced material. I am sorry if all this sounds harsh to a new editor, but you must be more judicious in your wording and act within the long-established Wiki rules - which work rather well. I hope you enjoy further Wiki editing. Manxwoman (talk) 20:36, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Manxwoman, I apologise for mistaken you for the previous poster which posted very similar material. Your sources in the article relate mainly to newspaper articles. I'm still amazed that you seem to prefer to post this rather then given the benefitt of doubt to safeguard these pupils. What is so important that sets the safety of these children aside? Why is this post so important to you?

I do not have the time or inclination to discuss the reasons behind inclusions into any encyclopaedia, suffice it to say that that is the reason for an encyclopaedia. Shared, sourced knowledge. 99.9% of all sources in Wiki are from print. How else could they be verified? Long-standing editors double-check the sources and remove them if they do not back-up the assertion. As for the benefitt (sic) of doubt to safeguard these pupils, I suggest that you read the full judgement for your answer. I have no personal beef with the subject matter, but I do have a serious problem with someone, anyone, trying to censor properly sourced information. There have been multiple consensus on censorship on Wiki, all with the same concluPsion. But if you wish to start another consensus, feel free. But in the meantime you may not remove properly sourced information from an article for any reason, let alone a personal one or you will find yourself blocked. Manxwoman (talk) 21:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Manxwoman, I've read the tribunal judgement very carefully and multiple times. But I still feel that whatever mistakes the school has made its a matter for the police and other authorities to investigate and untill they have finished we need to make sure we do not jeopardise the emotional well being and safeguarding of these pupils. It's sad to see you prefer the urge to publicise over the welfare of them. Kind regards, Gerben

And until such time, or the published facts change, the knowledge of the judgement must be freely available. Who are you to decide what should and should not be read? How would you have dealt with the Jimmy Saville exposure? The police cannot ever come to a definitive conclusion as he is dead, so he will never be "guilty" in the eyes of the law as he can never be tried. Under your reasoning therefore, that information would never be published. And I am not publicising it, I am publishing it. Very, very different. Manxwoman (talk) 22:04, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you partly and have published additional properly sourced material from the same published media you used to get a more balanced and neutral point of view across. Kind regards, Gerben

I think your idea of "a more balanced and neutral point of view" leaves a lot to be desired. I refer you to WP:NPOV rules. I have therefore, in an attempt at compromise, re-worded your most recent edit to make it more encyclopaedic. One womans views with a vested interest, even if sourced, are unlikely to outweigh the judgement of an official government body or the police and as interesting or passionate as they are, have no place in an encyclopaedia. Otherwise you would need to quote the opinion of every single parent in the group or not. You must understand and appreciate that Wiki (as with any encyclopaedia) has a 'house-style' and rules for neutrality and so avoids very obvious attempts by groups or individuals to promote or advertise a subject (WP:NOTPROMOTION). You have already stated that this page was originally created by the pupils, which has flagged up serious concerns. A very brief look at the page and the editing history shows that a very small group of individual editors, one in particular and also including one sock-puppet, have worked almost exclusively on this page. This flags up even more concerns. The article contains reams of unverifiable information, little of which is sourced. This is another problem (WP:INDISCRIMINATE). If you have a personal interest in this page/subject, I urge you to start getting verifiable sources, not lifted straight from the schools prospectus. Manxwoman (talk) 15:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Manxwoman, It is sad that if I post an well sourced article from exactly the same newspaper which shows the other side of the argument you remove it mostly and add the phrase " according to a local newspaper" to limit the credibility although it's the same source in three of your citations. Let me make one thing clear. I'm not part of the school, or work for them but do associate with the children and feel that the current way the school is portrayed is very biased and partisan to inflict maximum damage through different media. Your conduct clearly shows you have relation ship or invested interest. I will revert our disagreements up to a higher level so more people can get involved from Wikipedia and help to solve our clearly conflicting views. 

Kind regards,

Gerben

Is it not a local newspaper? I did not refer to the Daily Mail as a national newspaper or the BBC as a national broadcaster as most people are aware of that fact. I was trying to help any reader to know where the quote came from. It is your choice and your right, obviously, to ask for a consensus, but for the record I have no relation ship or invested interest (sic) with the subject matter at all and I look forward to the consensus with great interest. Manxwoman (talk) 17:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For your further information, I would refer you to Wikipedia:Ownership of articles and suggest that you study it carefully. Manxwoman (talk) 17:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Manxwoman,

You are falsely aquising me of disruptive editing. The contribution I made was a properly verifiable sourced article from the BBC news highlighting the reviews the CPS has made with regards to the alleged rape case and the outcome of those. Very essential and trivial information when such allegations are made. Your editing is diruptive and vandalisme.

You have previously stated (above) that you are going to "revert our disagreements up to a higher level so more people can get involved from Wikipedia and help to solve our clearly conflicting views." In the meantime do NOT make further changes to the Stanbridge Earls School site or they will be immediately reverted and you will be reported for persistent vandalism to the page. You appear to be deliberately flouting the editing rules for Wiki and therefore have also received your last warning for persistent vandalising on your Talk Page. There is nothing more to be said. Manxwoman (talk) 22:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit[edit]

Thanks for http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stanbridge_Earls_School&diff=550229468&oldid=550228605 - Wikipedia does allow deletion of warnings from talkpages (per WP:BLANKING:

Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered users, from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred. The removal of material from a user page is normally taken to mean that the user has read and is aware of its contents. )

so that's fair enough, however the last sentence (my emphasis above) is important and resumption of ranting may well lead to an escalation of that warning level. I'm not sure what axe User:Gerben v has to grind, but he/she is certainly grinding it in the wrong place. I have no idea about this school, or even where it is (darn Sarf, presumably) but as I said, if he/she has solid evidence either of sexual assault going on, or of coverups of such assault, he/she should report it appropriately, not rant on on an online encyclopædia about lack of reporting. I have no connection with the school, no interest in the school and no influence over anything, but I'm tired of Gv's attempts to ride roughshod over WP policy with a "think about the children" excuse. Tonywalton Talk 01:26, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for this. I was aware of the deletion from a TalkPage rule, but just wanted to emphasise it to Gerben v so that s/he could not discount it. I had to look the school up to find out details as I was unaware of it too, but my major concern was the blatant attempt at censorship. Without doubt the school seems to have handled the problem very, very badly, but that is, as you pointed out so eloquently, not Wikis problem. I do find it hard to believe that Gerben v is not connected with them in some way (parent, ex-parent etc) but even so... On a further point, upon reading further it seems to me that the Stanbridge Earls School site in total is extraordinarily badly written, with almost no reliable sources given. The clue was when Gerben v said that it had been written by the pupils. I was trying to find that marvellous top-banner that says something along the lines of "this reads like a fan-page" so that I could put it at the top. Do you know of the template or how I can find it? Regards & thanks again! Manxwoman (talk) 13:40, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not {{Advert}} and its friends? I'll have a dig about. Tonywalton Talk 23:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe {{fanpov}}? Tonywalton Talk 23:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have used the {{unbalanced}} one (just realised how ironic that sounds!!!) Thanks anyway. Manxwoman (talk) 14:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sinden[edit]

I have undone your reversion of my category edits to Donald Sinden.

Your edit summary said "R/mve tautology. Actor menas male. Actress means female".

One usage is actor=male, but another usage is to use "actor" as a gender-neutral term (see e.g. Merriam Webster). This is why the word "male" is used in the category title, to clarify the meaning. This is not some sort of wiki-neologism; the term "male actor" is also used by the Screen Actors Guild Award.

If you disapprove of the category title, you may propose renaming Category:Male actors and its subcategories, at WP:CFD. (Note that the current category names were upheld at CFD 2012 Nov 22.

However, unless you disagree with the article's assertion that Sinden is male, please do not remove him from male categories.

Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation, but in the first place it would appear that you yourself have created this new category at the end of August and seem to be trying to change everyone to fit it. Where is your consensus for this change? Secondly, it remains a tautology as so-called "gender-neutral" is a choice not everyone agrees with. I for one would hate to be referred to as a "female" comedian (if I was one!) as the word comedienne already exists and is self-explanatory, as is actress or actor. Finally, given Sinden and his families public opposition to "gender-neutral" naming,[1][2] and given that the Screen Actors Guild Awards are an American institution and that Sinden is English and that the English Laurence Olivier Award do NOT use gender-neutral wording, I think that it is only fair that it should remain properly worded and not to suit an individual editors political agenda! Looking through some of your own edit history, I notice that you changed a cat for Abi Titmus from English film actor to English film actress... Is that not going against what you are trying to achieve? I do not want to be rude to you at all or start an argument, so I say with respect that I will revert your edit until you can supply a consensus for YOUR changes. Manxwoman (talk) 20:24, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ http://www.thestage.co.uk/features/analysis-opinion/2013/03/letters-of-the-week-28-march-2013/
  2. ^ http://www.thestage.co.uk/features/analysis-opinion/2013/05/letters-of-the-week-may-16-2013/
First off, please WP:AGF, and don't accuse me of pursuing a "political agenda" unless you have some evidence of that.
As above, if you don't agree with the name, you can propose renaming the category. You are quite entitled to your views on how categories for male actors should be named, but as I pointed out above, there is already a consensus that they should be called "male actors": see CFD 2012 Nov 22.
Similarly, categories for women in that profession are named "actress", by consensus of several CFD discussions. See CFD 2013 January 4 and CFD 2012 Nov 30. Again, if you prefer that they should be named differently, feel free to open a CFD discussion to seek consensus; but the existing consensus stands until it is overturned. (I would be equally happy with "female actor", but the consensus so far is to use "actress").
I have indeed been populating the categories over the last few days. Category:British male actors has existed since January, as has Category:English male actors, and neither was created by me. I have created some of the sub-categories, and populated them. This is normal practice, per WP:SUBCAT ... and again, if you think that the subcats should not exist, feel free to propose their deletion at WP:CFD. But it is disruptive to remove an article from existing categories just because you dislike the name of the category.
Per WP:CAT#Overview categories are a navigational device. They don't work unless they are populated with articles, and by removing an article, you break the navigational function.
Can I presume that you agree that Sinden is male and that he is an actor? If so, then your only argument is against the name of the category. That objection is one which you can pursue at CFD ... but unless and until the existing consensus is overturned, please do not remove articles from categories whose scope they fit. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:37, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your detailed answer and I wish to apologise if you feel that I am accusing you of a political agenda. I did not necessarily mean that in the way you may have taken it. Please don't take offence and of course I assume good faith. I seem to have misunderstood something and I hope you may be able to explain it for me. If the consensus, as you have said, has already decided on 'actor' and 'actress', why do you feel the need to re-define them as 'male actor', when the word itself denotes the gender? That is what I was questioning. It may be that we are both saying the same thing, by different routes! I love to defend the proper use of English and feel that your re-definition creates the tautology I referred to. I don't think that it is necessary in this instance to re-name the category you are populating, I merely ask why it is necessary to have the cat in the first place? I would suggest that if you are for some reason sold on it, than add it, but don't remove the original and more grammatically correct cat. Sinden is obviously male and is also an actor, but the word is self-descriptive so it is redundant to include it in the new cat. It would be as silly as saying a female actress, which is perhaps why that has not been changed! Given his family's strong, public stance on it, it is perhaps insulting to deliberately use a cat that he dislikes so much. Perhaps the best and most equitable way is to include both cats if it suits your purpose (although on a personal level and as a woman, I completely agree with Sinden and his stance!) Manxwoman (talk) 23:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that reply. I'm glad that you have dropped the charge of an agenda, ... but if you are really assuming good faith, then don't accuse me of having made a "re-definition". The usage adopted by consenus reflects a cobtemporary usage in the wider world. I have already pointed you to Merriam Webster's definition, which you rejected as American ... but take a look too at The Guardian's style guide: actor Use for both male and female actors; do not use actress except when in name of award, eg Oscar for best actress. The Guardian's view is that actress comes into the same category as authoress, comedienne, manageress, "lady doctor", "male nurse" and similar obsolete terms that date from a time when professions were largely the preserve of one sex (usually men). You may still dislike the terminology, but the consensus is that we use that terminology. That consensus stands until it is changed, and neither of us has a veto over it, whether or not we like it, and whether or not you believe it is grammatically correct or tautological.
The category structure here is that we separate male and female actors, because acting is a gendered profession. This was agreed late last year, and the process of recategorisation is still under way; previously both men and women were categorised together under the neutral term "actors". So now we have the neutral category Category:Actors, under which we have a sub-category for each gender. The men go in Category:Male actors (and its subcats), and the women in Category:Actresses.
You may or may not like that structure or that terminology, but this is not the place to argue about either point. As above, if you want to rename or delete categories, please do so at WP:CFD.
In the meantime, per WP:SUBCAT, an article should not be in both a category and its parent categories, so your suggestion of including both categories is wrong. Like any other male actor, Sinden belongs in categories for male actors so long as they exist ... so I will now restore the more precise categories.
Please, Manxwoman, before you revert again or comment further ... please hold on. Please remember that I have pointed you clearly towards the centralised forum where you can have the categories renamed or merged, if that is what you want. It's your right as an editor to use those mechanisms if you want to; but trying to argue the toss about one particular category entry is misplaced. Your concern about language applies to the category as a whole, rather than to the individual entry ... so olease either use the consensus-forming process to take up your concerns wrt the category as a whole, or drop it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am grateful for your detailed response and I take your points. My only (and final) point is that if we as Wiki editors are now going to be guided by the revisionist agenda of The Guardian, notorious for its grammatical and typographical mistakes and political agenda, then god help us all who try to defend the correct and proper use of the beautiful English language. It now seems that we will all be forced to slip down the shoddy American route of never failing to use two words, when one (already existing) word will do. As Sinden said "Actresses get to play parts actors cannot, and vice versa" (sic I have not bothered to correct his mistake of using a comma before the word And!) so here goes another lovely word! For my edification, would you find the time to tell me why you are so against women being referred to in that profession by their proper, long-established and explanatory name? Manxwoman (talk) 12:58, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was not aware that I was "against women being referred to in that profession by their proper, long-established and explanatory name". Please stop trying to attribute to me ideas which I have not expressed.
Your views on the titles of the categories are interesting, but such titles are established through consensus, In choosing them, editors weigh up a range of factors, including consistency, recognisability, lack of ambiguity, and conformity with article titles. Inevitably they are a compromise, and seek to straddle several variants of English.
WP:NCCAT sets out some of the principles, and if you follow the discussions at WP:CFD you can see how they are implemented ... and it would be great if you took the time to contribute to the discussions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:40, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know I said that the above would be my last comment, but... the reason I said that you seem "against women being referred to in that profession by their proper, long-established and explanatory name" was your wish to use the cat 'male actor' and your apparent desire to use the term actor as meaning both men and women, which it clearly is not. A Judge can be male or female as their jobs are precisely the same, as is a member of the police or a Doctor, but the jobs that an actor or actress do are completely different, hence the different word. According to the Complete OED (a far better and more reliable source than Websters in my opinion, as it has not yet been been tainted by political correctness) "In the time of Shakespeare, female roles were played by boys or men as women did not appear on stage in England until after the Restoration of 1660. Female performers were then called either actors or actresses—it was only later in the 1700s that actor became restricted to men and actress to women." Following on from yours and the notice on your homepage that you seem to like "gender-neutral language", I thought that you may be interested to know that I have recently been appointed Chairman of a regional PLC group. I was also the first woman on the board, but when the appointment was made there was an interesting debate about whether I was going to be called 'Chair', 'Chairwoman', 'Chairperson' etc. When they eventually remembered to ask my opinion(!) I said that I would only answer to 'Chairman' and am now referred to as 'Madam Chairman'. In my opinion it IS a gender-neutral term and I would not dream of bastardising the English language for some strange pseudo-political point-scoring. Manxwoman (talk) 13:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zulu (1964 film)[edit]

Please read the VERIFIABILITY policy page. Any information added to Wikipedia articles which is not verified by a citation from a reliable source is subject to removal at anytime, and, once removed, should not be restored to the page without that citation. The information you added was also a synthesis of two pieces of information. Again, to add this kind of information, you need citations for both pieces of information. Please do not restore the information again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I have just stated on your talk page, I have the film running in front of me. How else can it be "sourced" unless I put the film on? How do you "source" a sequence of a film? If you would care to watch the opening sequence, you will see it. Manxwoman (talk) 02:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have you seen the film yourself? If you look at it too, you will see what I am talking about, but please explain how to source a scene in a film? Manxwoman (talk) 02:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would also refer you to Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. Manxwoman (talk) 03:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I had a nice, long, polite, explanation of why you can't do what you want to do, but I lost it in the edit conflict with you being rude and accusing me ownership, so screw you, jack - you can't do it because policy says you can't do it. Period. Only reliable sources can interpret or analyze, you cannot. The most you can do is straightforward description, without synthesis, interpretation or analysis. Your edit was an analysis, and will is subject to removal until it is sourced. Please stay off of my talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have been entirely polite with you and there is no call whatsoever for you to be rude to me. If you would care to explain your reason that you say you decided not to post, I would be most interested to read your reasoning. I have not been rude to you, in fact I think I was extremely polite, given that your first revert was without any explanation, which I am sure you are aware is against the guidance. I politely reminded you of the ownership policy (my right) as, looking at the contribution history, you seem to have consistently reverted. If you would care to look at the running times I quoted, you will see the error I high-lit. Perhaps you would be so kind as to say how this can be flagged up, as I contend that it should be. Manxwoman (talk) 03:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clash of Loyalties[edit]

Manxwoman, about this edit, I consider "notorious" and "great" words to avoid, since they involve highly subjective value judgements (was the stunt all that notorious? was Canutt really so great?). I find it better to give specifics or quote some specific source instead. Interested in your thoughts. —Neil P. Quinn (talk) 01:45, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the very polite questioning! I would say that the stunt was indeed 'notorious' as it had been banned worldwide due to the excessive cruelty to the animal and the extreme danger to the stuntman and in spite of that, this is the only occasion that I have found where the ban was flouted. As regards Yakima Canutt being 'great' I would suggest - undoubtedly! He was the first stuntman to receive an Oscar and his influence is still noted within that profession today as he invented so many safety systems that are still in use and is regarded, within that community, as 'great', in the same way that Olivier is still regarded as 'great' amongst actors. Does that help? Manxwoman (talk) 21:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cigar[edit]

Ten months ago you flagged cigar for American "bias." Do you have any intention of fixing this? If not, does the flag serve a purpose? And if so, what? Carrite (talk) 20:36, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reminder. Although I still feel that the mention of Cuba and its cigars comes far too far down the article (it really should be the start of the article as Cuba is generally regarded by aficionados as the 'home' of the best cigars), I concede that the section does indeed now give a greater balance to the whole issue of the illegal US embargo and that many US cigar manufacturers are attempting to fraudulently counterfeit Cuban cigars, or sell them as "Cuban". I personally still feel that the article does indeed contain a US bias for political reasons and is weighted that way, but I would not revert if the flag was removed. I hope that answers your question. Manxwoman (talk) 21:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your original objection was pretty well taken although I suspect there would have been some sort of "US-Centric" flag that would have fit it better. I will remove the flag and keep your comments in mind as I play with the piece a little over the coming week. Best regards, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 22:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sammy Going South[edit]

Check this out, You did some work on it, and I recently discovered the article and added to it. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent edit. Good info. Well done. Manxwoman (talk) 13:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a page number from the Sinden book? It's not usual to cite an entire source. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC) (sorry, that sounds harsh, not meant to be at all FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC))[reply]
Page number added. Forgive me, but full details are usually given. Manxwoman (talk) 16:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have converted the reference source into a Harvard citation, as there is a full bibliographical notation given in the section on "Bibliography". That's so there isn't duplication of the source and I am using the Modern Language Association referencing style guide which gives: Author. Title. Publishing data (Place, publisher date of publication) with the added ISBN that has typically become the style for Wikipedia. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Manxwoman (talk) 16:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
... and thanks again for a polite and reasoned exchange, sometimes that's not what occurs in this wickwackyworld. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:23, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 16:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, Manxwoman. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Manxwoman. 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]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:28, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September 2022[edit]

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Marc Sinden. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. FMSky (talk) 03:52, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Manxwoman&oldid=1187208557"