![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 |
Many thanks. I have tried to alter what I had got wrong. As regards the citations required, i went to a sale of his photographs in Kent and bought 2 myself and Hey Jude: he is mentioned as having been part of the chorus in Mark Lewishons biographys, can be seen in the video contained in The Beatles Complete video and also is seen in the photo used in the Wikipedia entry for Hey Jude! Groupie1954 17:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Groupie1954
He CANNOT be a freemason as he is an atheist! Freemasons must believe in a creator. 92.236.246.165 ( talk) 13:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Don't shoot the messenger! I found it in his listing in Debretts! Captainclegg ( talk) 13:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Main contributor appears to be Sinden, or someone very close to him. Article appears to be a lengthy puff-piece, full of nonsense such as hints that he's the boyfriend of Heather Mills. Marc Sinden is of minor importance or notability compared to his father or brother, yet his WP entry appears to be three times as long as both those other articles. Little grape ( talk) 08:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Result, in case you missed it. Please do not remove the tags on the article page until we can make progress on consensus Little grape ( talk) 12:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Indefinite semi-protection vandalism, Certain editors keep deleting properly sourced information, which appears to be vindictive vandalism. Captainclegg ( talk) 12:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I do not understand why you keep removing the sourced paragraph that states that the PCC did rule and then quotes the ruling and also the source where Sinden does NOT claim to be having a relationship with Mills. Also, please do not keep referring to me as 'he" or "his". I am female, thank you. In answer to your earlier question, I take great pride in my objectivity. Being a fan does not preclude that. The bottom line is, Is the article properly sourced? Answer: Yes. Are the sources acceptable? Answer: Yes. Is it 'own research'? Answer: No. Is it truthful? Answer: According to the source, Yes. I (we) have no other way of knowing this apart from the source material. You want me to come clean? I am not Sinden. Is that satisfactory for you? Can we please get on with things now and leave this alone? Captainclegg ( talk) 13:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
May I please concentrate on one item that has seriously angered me? I did not say you thought I was Donald Sinden. You are being deliberately evasive. You said "your fathers article" thereby inferring that I must be Marc Sinden. I am not. I want to make that clear and I would like you to acknowledge that. Then, and only then can we deal with other matters. Captainclegg ( talk) 15:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I hope that you will agree that I have now made the article a satisfactory compromise by clearly stating that the Mills/Sinden story was denied and apologised for. Hope you too regard this matter as closed. I would however first appreciate the politeness of your acknowledgment (see above) Captainclegg ( talk) 17:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Why is the Heather Mills bit in the lead? That level of prominence in the article seems to carry undue weight. Kevin ( talk) 23:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I have just been re-reading these postings and it appears that Little grape is being very abusive and making very personal attacks about the subject of the article, without claiming justification or source: "a bald, obese, sixty-ish non-famous man" which is a breach of Wiki rule Removal of personal attacks text and also of repeated attempted outing of the editor: "again I would point you to your father's article" which is a very serious breach of Wiki rule Harassment. This will be reported. 121.215.43.189 ( talk) 04:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't know what your definition of "non-famous" is, but a Google search shows Sinden to be quite well-known and/or well-respected in his chosen field. Your repeated use of rude, derogatory and unpleasant adjectives about the subject seem to point towards either a personal knowledge of or a personal beef with the subject, or another agenda (perhaps for and on behalf of Ms. Mills?) Wiki is not the correct forum for this. It is noted that you have removed all Sinden references from the Heather Mills article, but left in the equally unproven, potentially much more damaging and denied issue of her possible profession before her marriage. Likewise your eradication of correctly sourced material about Sinden from the Mermaid Theatre article. This shows a large degree of lack of objectivity and possible personal vendetta. Your constant description of Sinden is unnecessarily personal, very unhelpful for and not borne out by, anything present in the article or sources and seems designed to either hurt or goad someone into a reaction. If you are unable to edit without resorting to personal abuse of the subject, please do not bother. It reflects badly on your objectivity and smacks of bullying. It is not a Wiki editors job to censor or erase correctly sourced material, merely to add to it and report it in an encyclopedic manner and let the reader decide. Otherwise POV's can occur, which is a breach. The story was printed, true or false and it was retracted by the English PCC. As a matter of fact, both stories can and should be published as a matter of record as long as they are clearly explained. You have however continually removed sourced material as though you have some administrators right and when questioned, resort to abusive and bully-boy tactics. This is inadvisable in an editor of under 1 years standing. To answer your question: No, I am not a "fan of Sinden". I have seen him a few times on TV, do not know him and as I live here in Australia, am unlikely to ever get to meet him. You would appear to be the opposite of a fan. Is there something we should know here? Further, your attacks on Captainclegg are extraordinary and in spite of her repeated replies and explanations, which should be taken on face value, continue. My reading of the entry you quote on the Donald Sinden site is sourced with the same entry as on the original Marc Sinden article. This is not a change in weight. However, you have still not addressed the much more serious issue of attempted Outing of an editor. This can, should and usually does lead to an editor being blocked, permanently. 121.215.43.189 ( talk) 04:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
This is just getting ridiculous. No, I am not in Australia, neither am I in the UK. I have no idea where Marc Sinden is. Why should I? How do you know? I think you should come clean as well. You seem to be throwing accusations everywhere and not answering any specifics. This is harassment pure & simple. Captainclegg ( talk) 09:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
You posted: "Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should not be added". If you had read the article (properly sourced and linked) you would see that Col Watkins is dead and not necessarily controversial and is the only person mentioned, therefore there was no need for you continuous vandalism - which is the 2nd of the 3RR rule. Why are you insisting on removing properly sourced and accurate material, specially when it has nothing to do with your POV: Heather Mills? Captainclegg ( talk) 08:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
You continually reverse a proper definition of a job title for Marc Sinden on the Donald Sinden page and perversely maintain that there is a time scale on a job description. This is nonsense. When you pass a driving test and get a license, you don't stop being called a driver after 3 years. He produced 5 shows in the West End. He is therefore a West End Producer. That fact does not expire. Please stop playing games. Captainclegg ( talk) 08:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Why don't the pair of you quit your incessant sniping at each other and see if you can agree on something? Just one thing, something small perhaps? The current back and forth seems especially unproductive. Kevin ( talk) 09:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Kevin, thank you for your wise offices. I quite agree and am more than willing to draw a metaphorical line, in a spirit of conciliation. Captainclegg ( talk) 09:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I wondered why this page was so underused; appears CaptainClegg and socks of his such as Crowley666 have been 'archiving' or deleting content. For a fuller picture allow me to restore at least one section as follows; rest can be seen via prevs. It would be useful for those IP editors to return and provide an explanation of their claims: Little grape ( talk) 14:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
This is a vanity page, written by sock-puppets of Marc Sinden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.148.92.144 ( talk) 14:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
(section copied from User_talk:Kevin for clarity Little grape ( talk) 13:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC))
Thanks for the warning - if you get a chance, could you review edit history of Clegg, particularly with reference to Marc Sinden, and perhaps advise on dragging the article back to some semblance of encyclopaedic content? Little grape ( talk) 21:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
And finally, some shock news that should surprise no-one. After some minor digging, one discovers Clegg admits that HE is Marc Sinden in this edit [ [4]], which he has later erased from his talkpage. QED. Having exposed him, may I therefore request you consider blocking him indefinitely from editing his own article and any Sinden-related ones? Thanks Little grape ( talk) 23:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
There has been poor behavior on both sides of this issue. Firstly, the attacks on each other, and the speculation on identities must stop right now. The next occurrence will be met with a block.
Next, Captainclegg, it is clear that you have such a strong interest in Sinden that you have been unable to write about him or related subjects in a neutral fashion. You continually refer to Little grape's edits (and others) as vandalism [5] [6] [7] [8] [9], have used misleading edit summaries [10], add large amounts of barely related materials [11], use poor quality sources to support your own synthesis of events [12] ("widely reported"), add weasel words to articles [13]. Overall this is extremely problematic.
Little grape, your primary interest seems to lie in following Captainclegg around and undoing her edits. While many of your edits seem OK on the surface, a good many appear vindictive, and do little to improve articles [14] [15]. While your actual article edits are not so problematic as Captainclegg's, your personal attacks and often used sarcastic or inflammatory edit summaries are totally unacceptable.
Between the two of you there is enough knowledge to make useful contributions to Sinden related articles, but if I do not see an improvement in behavior I will be forced to isse some broad topic bans to each of you. Kevin
Kevin, thank you for your wise intervention. I, for one, accept and agree to all your points. Captainclegg ( talk) 02:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Consider subject discussed. Go and edit war somewhere else. You're pathetic Little Grape.
Parnathus (
talk)
17:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
My god we must be the same person! Stupid implication. Grow up and start trying to be an adult. Parnathus ( talk) 13:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Have reviewed WP:NPA. Consider your subtle use of Wikipedia terms is there to disguise vicious attacks on innocent people. Nothing here implies Sinden is editing his own article. As a result the heading should be removed. Reading the comments of others here and on articles you attack, clearly you need to be investigated. Your removal of valid information on the Jonathan King article is typical - claiming links to "fan sites" negate facts such as the recording of one of his songs by artistes. Tricky, subtle and nasty. You seem to believe implying any disagreement is done by the subjects themselves can disguise your malice. Even your wording is nasty and vicious. Any objective commentary is greeted by your cunning but malicious sneers. Disguised as reason and responsibility. You are known for edit warring and biliousness. I'm not a regular editor and do not intend to become one. My interest is objective and I am not in any way connected to Marc Sinden except for having attended Lancing with Jeremy. I came on here to find some information on Jeremy. I was appalled by this hatred. So I investigated further. Something about Little Grape stinks and responsible Wikipedia editors should check him out. A very spiteful and tricky character. Parnathus ( talk) 16:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
It seems that, mainly as a result of the extrordinary postings above, Little grape has been temporarily blocked from Wiki and then prohibited from editing on the Marc Sinden page. This is a copy of the Administrators posting on the Little grape talk page: This [21] was way over the line, and as I've previously warned you about this kind of thing you have been blocked for 2 days. When you return I do not expect to see you at Marc Sinden, as you have now clearly shown your total inability to work collaboratively with the other editors there, notwithstanding that their behavior has also been poor. Kevin ( talk) 22:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
|
http://www.sindenproductions.com appears to meet WP:ELOFFICIAL. -- Ronz ( talk) 21:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Little grape, in your edit summary for this page (Marc Sinden), you claim that the Marc Sinden Productions official website lists "fake non-exec Directors" (your words). For the sake of clarity, are you publicly claiming that Marc Sinden Productions has misrepresented itself to Companies House by supplying an incorrect or untrue list of non-executive directors, in contravention of the Company's Act 1985? Are you further publicly claiming that Marc Sinden Productions has ceased trading? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.200.52.25 ( talk) 12:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
"is believed to be a Freemason" - who believes that he is a freemason? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.78.87.74 ( talk) 17:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 |
Many thanks. I have tried to alter what I had got wrong. As regards the citations required, i went to a sale of his photographs in Kent and bought 2 myself and Hey Jude: he is mentioned as having been part of the chorus in Mark Lewishons biographys, can be seen in the video contained in The Beatles Complete video and also is seen in the photo used in the Wikipedia entry for Hey Jude! Groupie1954 17:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Groupie1954
He CANNOT be a freemason as he is an atheist! Freemasons must believe in a creator. 92.236.246.165 ( talk) 13:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Don't shoot the messenger! I found it in his listing in Debretts! Captainclegg ( talk) 13:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Main contributor appears to be Sinden, or someone very close to him. Article appears to be a lengthy puff-piece, full of nonsense such as hints that he's the boyfriend of Heather Mills. Marc Sinden is of minor importance or notability compared to his father or brother, yet his WP entry appears to be three times as long as both those other articles. Little grape ( talk) 08:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Result, in case you missed it. Please do not remove the tags on the article page until we can make progress on consensus Little grape ( talk) 12:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Indefinite semi-protection vandalism, Certain editors keep deleting properly sourced information, which appears to be vindictive vandalism. Captainclegg ( talk) 12:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I do not understand why you keep removing the sourced paragraph that states that the PCC did rule and then quotes the ruling and also the source where Sinden does NOT claim to be having a relationship with Mills. Also, please do not keep referring to me as 'he" or "his". I am female, thank you. In answer to your earlier question, I take great pride in my objectivity. Being a fan does not preclude that. The bottom line is, Is the article properly sourced? Answer: Yes. Are the sources acceptable? Answer: Yes. Is it 'own research'? Answer: No. Is it truthful? Answer: According to the source, Yes. I (we) have no other way of knowing this apart from the source material. You want me to come clean? I am not Sinden. Is that satisfactory for you? Can we please get on with things now and leave this alone? Captainclegg ( talk) 13:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
May I please concentrate on one item that has seriously angered me? I did not say you thought I was Donald Sinden. You are being deliberately evasive. You said "your fathers article" thereby inferring that I must be Marc Sinden. I am not. I want to make that clear and I would like you to acknowledge that. Then, and only then can we deal with other matters. Captainclegg ( talk) 15:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I hope that you will agree that I have now made the article a satisfactory compromise by clearly stating that the Mills/Sinden story was denied and apologised for. Hope you too regard this matter as closed. I would however first appreciate the politeness of your acknowledgment (see above) Captainclegg ( talk) 17:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Why is the Heather Mills bit in the lead? That level of prominence in the article seems to carry undue weight. Kevin ( talk) 23:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I have just been re-reading these postings and it appears that Little grape is being very abusive and making very personal attacks about the subject of the article, without claiming justification or source: "a bald, obese, sixty-ish non-famous man" which is a breach of Wiki rule Removal of personal attacks text and also of repeated attempted outing of the editor: "again I would point you to your father's article" which is a very serious breach of Wiki rule Harassment. This will be reported. 121.215.43.189 ( talk) 04:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't know what your definition of "non-famous" is, but a Google search shows Sinden to be quite well-known and/or well-respected in his chosen field. Your repeated use of rude, derogatory and unpleasant adjectives about the subject seem to point towards either a personal knowledge of or a personal beef with the subject, or another agenda (perhaps for and on behalf of Ms. Mills?) Wiki is not the correct forum for this. It is noted that you have removed all Sinden references from the Heather Mills article, but left in the equally unproven, potentially much more damaging and denied issue of her possible profession before her marriage. Likewise your eradication of correctly sourced material about Sinden from the Mermaid Theatre article. This shows a large degree of lack of objectivity and possible personal vendetta. Your constant description of Sinden is unnecessarily personal, very unhelpful for and not borne out by, anything present in the article or sources and seems designed to either hurt or goad someone into a reaction. If you are unable to edit without resorting to personal abuse of the subject, please do not bother. It reflects badly on your objectivity and smacks of bullying. It is not a Wiki editors job to censor or erase correctly sourced material, merely to add to it and report it in an encyclopedic manner and let the reader decide. Otherwise POV's can occur, which is a breach. The story was printed, true or false and it was retracted by the English PCC. As a matter of fact, both stories can and should be published as a matter of record as long as they are clearly explained. You have however continually removed sourced material as though you have some administrators right and when questioned, resort to abusive and bully-boy tactics. This is inadvisable in an editor of under 1 years standing. To answer your question: No, I am not a "fan of Sinden". I have seen him a few times on TV, do not know him and as I live here in Australia, am unlikely to ever get to meet him. You would appear to be the opposite of a fan. Is there something we should know here? Further, your attacks on Captainclegg are extraordinary and in spite of her repeated replies and explanations, which should be taken on face value, continue. My reading of the entry you quote on the Donald Sinden site is sourced with the same entry as on the original Marc Sinden article. This is not a change in weight. However, you have still not addressed the much more serious issue of attempted Outing of an editor. This can, should and usually does lead to an editor being blocked, permanently. 121.215.43.189 ( talk) 04:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
This is just getting ridiculous. No, I am not in Australia, neither am I in the UK. I have no idea where Marc Sinden is. Why should I? How do you know? I think you should come clean as well. You seem to be throwing accusations everywhere and not answering any specifics. This is harassment pure & simple. Captainclegg ( talk) 09:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
You posted: "Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should not be added". If you had read the article (properly sourced and linked) you would see that Col Watkins is dead and not necessarily controversial and is the only person mentioned, therefore there was no need for you continuous vandalism - which is the 2nd of the 3RR rule. Why are you insisting on removing properly sourced and accurate material, specially when it has nothing to do with your POV: Heather Mills? Captainclegg ( talk) 08:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
You continually reverse a proper definition of a job title for Marc Sinden on the Donald Sinden page and perversely maintain that there is a time scale on a job description. This is nonsense. When you pass a driving test and get a license, you don't stop being called a driver after 3 years. He produced 5 shows in the West End. He is therefore a West End Producer. That fact does not expire. Please stop playing games. Captainclegg ( talk) 08:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Why don't the pair of you quit your incessant sniping at each other and see if you can agree on something? Just one thing, something small perhaps? The current back and forth seems especially unproductive. Kevin ( talk) 09:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Kevin, thank you for your wise offices. I quite agree and am more than willing to draw a metaphorical line, in a spirit of conciliation. Captainclegg ( talk) 09:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I wondered why this page was so underused; appears CaptainClegg and socks of his such as Crowley666 have been 'archiving' or deleting content. For a fuller picture allow me to restore at least one section as follows; rest can be seen via prevs. It would be useful for those IP editors to return and provide an explanation of their claims: Little grape ( talk) 14:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
This is a vanity page, written by sock-puppets of Marc Sinden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.148.92.144 ( talk) 14:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
(section copied from User_talk:Kevin for clarity Little grape ( talk) 13:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC))
Thanks for the warning - if you get a chance, could you review edit history of Clegg, particularly with reference to Marc Sinden, and perhaps advise on dragging the article back to some semblance of encyclopaedic content? Little grape ( talk) 21:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
And finally, some shock news that should surprise no-one. After some minor digging, one discovers Clegg admits that HE is Marc Sinden in this edit [ [4]], which he has later erased from his talkpage. QED. Having exposed him, may I therefore request you consider blocking him indefinitely from editing his own article and any Sinden-related ones? Thanks Little grape ( talk) 23:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
There has been poor behavior on both sides of this issue. Firstly, the attacks on each other, and the speculation on identities must stop right now. The next occurrence will be met with a block.
Next, Captainclegg, it is clear that you have such a strong interest in Sinden that you have been unable to write about him or related subjects in a neutral fashion. You continually refer to Little grape's edits (and others) as vandalism [5] [6] [7] [8] [9], have used misleading edit summaries [10], add large amounts of barely related materials [11], use poor quality sources to support your own synthesis of events [12] ("widely reported"), add weasel words to articles [13]. Overall this is extremely problematic.
Little grape, your primary interest seems to lie in following Captainclegg around and undoing her edits. While many of your edits seem OK on the surface, a good many appear vindictive, and do little to improve articles [14] [15]. While your actual article edits are not so problematic as Captainclegg's, your personal attacks and often used sarcastic or inflammatory edit summaries are totally unacceptable.
Between the two of you there is enough knowledge to make useful contributions to Sinden related articles, but if I do not see an improvement in behavior I will be forced to isse some broad topic bans to each of you. Kevin
Kevin, thank you for your wise intervention. I, for one, accept and agree to all your points. Captainclegg ( talk) 02:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Consider subject discussed. Go and edit war somewhere else. You're pathetic Little Grape.
Parnathus (
talk)
17:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
My god we must be the same person! Stupid implication. Grow up and start trying to be an adult. Parnathus ( talk) 13:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Have reviewed WP:NPA. Consider your subtle use of Wikipedia terms is there to disguise vicious attacks on innocent people. Nothing here implies Sinden is editing his own article. As a result the heading should be removed. Reading the comments of others here and on articles you attack, clearly you need to be investigated. Your removal of valid information on the Jonathan King article is typical - claiming links to "fan sites" negate facts such as the recording of one of his songs by artistes. Tricky, subtle and nasty. You seem to believe implying any disagreement is done by the subjects themselves can disguise your malice. Even your wording is nasty and vicious. Any objective commentary is greeted by your cunning but malicious sneers. Disguised as reason and responsibility. You are known for edit warring and biliousness. I'm not a regular editor and do not intend to become one. My interest is objective and I am not in any way connected to Marc Sinden except for having attended Lancing with Jeremy. I came on here to find some information on Jeremy. I was appalled by this hatred. So I investigated further. Something about Little Grape stinks and responsible Wikipedia editors should check him out. A very spiteful and tricky character. Parnathus ( talk) 16:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
It seems that, mainly as a result of the extrordinary postings above, Little grape has been temporarily blocked from Wiki and then prohibited from editing on the Marc Sinden page. This is a copy of the Administrators posting on the Little grape talk page: This [21] was way over the line, and as I've previously warned you about this kind of thing you have been blocked for 2 days. When you return I do not expect to see you at Marc Sinden, as you have now clearly shown your total inability to work collaboratively with the other editors there, notwithstanding that their behavior has also been poor. Kevin ( talk) 22:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
|
http://www.sindenproductions.com appears to meet WP:ELOFFICIAL. -- Ronz ( talk) 21:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Little grape, in your edit summary for this page (Marc Sinden), you claim that the Marc Sinden Productions official website lists "fake non-exec Directors" (your words). For the sake of clarity, are you publicly claiming that Marc Sinden Productions has misrepresented itself to Companies House by supplying an incorrect or untrue list of non-executive directors, in contravention of the Company's Act 1985? Are you further publicly claiming that Marc Sinden Productions has ceased trading? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.200.52.25 ( talk) 12:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
"is believed to be a Freemason" - who believes that he is a freemason? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.78.87.74 ( talk) 17:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)