User talk:Captainclegg/Archive 3

Peter Sellers

I'm afraid I'm confused by your addition to this article. You said in your edit summary that it was factual and sourced, yet you removed the link to the article on your last edit and replaced it with only "Daily Mail 25th July 2006". This article is used on the Michael Sellers (actor) article and nothing you added to Michael or Peter's article is contained in that reference. I don't know where you got that quote, but it wasn't from the Daily Mail obituary. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you are quite right. It is not in the Obit from the Daily Mail, but in the Ham & High article of the same date. My mistake (shouldn't work on two things at the same time!) I only have it in its original form and they have only been putting their whole paper on line for about 2 years now. I will change it now. Captainclegg (talk) 10:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your clarification. Though I still feel that your addition is problematic. One problem is the missing details for the citation, such as author, page numbers, etc. Another more jarring problem is that the narrative of your inserted text is quite different from the remainder of the section. Your added text is quite verbose and uses a lot of direct speech without adding much additional information. Note that this section is dealing with Sellers' personality and his struggles in very general way, and magnifying a small event like this gives it undue weight. So I would urge you to consider to shorten the text and merge this detail into the section in a way that conforms to the prose and amount of detail given in the text. Thanks! Malljaja (talk) 16:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it would not be a violation of wiki standards, so long as the text accurately states what is given in the source. This doesn't mean it needs to be copied verbatim; in fact one should use quotes only very sparingly to retain a prose that conforms to an enzyclopedic entry. I believe this is the problem with the source here—it may provide another example about how Sellers was viewed by those who knew him, but it doesn't add a lot to what is already presented in this section (eg, Sellers informing his very young son of his parents' marital problems is already very poignant). So I'd suggest to condense this information into one or two sentences with this source at its end. Malljaja (talk)

Lawrence of Arabia

Lawrence of Arabia (film) doesn't mention it was from a play - and I can't see a stage big enough for it. Did you mean to tag it with the category? (John User:Jwy talk) 20:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. The film script was lifted almost verbatim from the Terrence Rattigan play Ross which was first performed in the West End about 2 years prior to the film and was originally intended as a film in its own right. Confused?! Captainclegg (talk) 20:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone back and reread - and see that it IS there. Just not as obvious as I was expecting. Sorry to bother you about it! (John User:Jwy talk) 20:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Nice to see editors being diligent! Captainclegg (talk) 20:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not go gentle

You can find my reply [[1]] Mrathel (talk) 15:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stanbridge Earls

Yup, I've been watching. Its been noted. I suggest let User talk:Brakspear finish and then the administrators will just delete the article - now that its flagged up - as un-sourced and un-corroborated. Berettagun (talk) 15:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mills & Sinden photo

No problem. Stay frosty (Quentin X (talk) 02:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

,and coma from a comma,

Sadly, but yes. I confirmed it before posting - I have a copy of the book right next to me! There's even an example on the page that shows the ",and" at work. To be honest, I'm with you on this one. I always thought it was that way until I saw it being used in a Stephen King novel. SK's not the type to make grammatical errors so I checked up on it. It turns out that if the two statements are saying two different things and a conjunction is used, a comma is required. Maybe I needed a comma right there lol... Personally, I think it's easier to break the statements up into two sentences to avoid it completely! David T Tokyo (talk) 15:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh; but: you are assuming that the book - which you have) is correct! I have entered a compromise solution which gets us both off the hook, and, line! Hope you approve. Captainclegg (talk) 17:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Much better... David T Tokyo (talk) 20:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

September 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles or other Wikipedia pages, as you did to Rolex. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" is strongly discouraged. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Please review WP:RS and WP:EL for guidelines before again readding external links to Wikipedia articles, especially when they pertain to commercial or retail shops or websites. Flowanda | Talk 04:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction

Sinden is given to self-contradictory edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.127.122 (talk) 16:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain this. You appear to be adding un-true malicious statements. Continuing may result in you being blocked for Vandalism. To my knowledge "Sinden" is not editing, "self-contradictory" or not. Captainclegg (talk) 17:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the article on Marc Sinden, the word "famous" was restored at 15:22 G.M.T., on 5/10/2009. It was removed at 16:34 G.M.T., on 5/10/2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.236.119 (talk) 08:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Following a series of mischievous edits earlier the same day from a single anonymous contributor using three public computers, I re-read the article that I had previously partly edited and removed an unnecessary word. That has got nothing to do with your implication that "Sinden is given to self-contradictory edits". I am the editor who removed that word, not him (the subject). I have checked the history and am aware of the editors working on the article. I hope that explains the situation for you. Captainclegg (talk) 10:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Sinden

Just a note, you are very close to being blocked for edit warring there. Kevin (talk) 21:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also your use of Twinkle is not appropriate - you are using the vandalism button to antagonize Little Grape, and if I see any more of this I will remove your access to the tool. Kevin (talk) 21:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But I am trying to STOP the vandalism of this site. I am not trying to antagonise Little Grape at all, merely stop him/her from constantly deleting sourced material that doesn't suit his POV. I am undoing his wrong and inaccurate edits of sourced material. He tried to claim that the 'Relative Values' articles were in the Sunday Times, when they were in the Daily Mail. I have a copy in front of me! He claims that Debretts was not called 'Distinguished', yet if you look at the ISBN and the source that I used, it was then called that. It only changed its name recently. Please help to stop this apparent personal obsession that Little Grape has with deleting so much of the Sinden article. I cannot get away from the fact that it seems personal. But we have been here before and I thought (after your suggestion) that we had 'drawn a line' but apparently not... Captainclegg (talk) 22:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me be very clear. You two are having an editorial disagreement over the article content. When you disagree with something it is not automatically vandalism, and you should not mark it as such. The only thing you should be marking as vandalism is "page blanking and adding cruel or offensive language" or similar material(from WP:3RR). At this point I am inclined to ban you both from any articles related to Sinden. I'll have to think on that a bit. Kevin (talk) 22:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that advise about the vandalism. I was unaware of that. I will take more care with that in future. May I refer you to the Talk:The Bishops Avenue page where Little Grape has made it very clear that he must know where Sinden lives personally and even describes the house (which is more than I am aware of) surely proving that he must know Sinden and have some personal beef with him to be so specific. As I stated previously when all this kicked-off originally, I would be happy to 'draw a line', but Little Grape seems hell-bent on re-writing the facts to suit his aim. He has now incorrectly removed the word "Distinguished" from the reference to an honorary position held by Sinden at the British Humanist Association. I have not however corrected it for fear of falling foul of your ruling! But again, I appeal for your intervention. Captainclegg (talk) 23:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]