User talk:Captainclegg/Archive 1

Heather Mills

 * Sorry, but although your paragraph was good (with a ref as well) it was not about Mills, but about Elyzabeth and publicists, so I had to take it out. It hasn't been lost though, as it could go in a new article about Michele Elyzabeth. I think she deserves one, don't you? :)--andreasegde (talk) 11:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry to be so blunt, but this REALLY looks as though you are not being impartial over Heather Mills. You say that you have removed a legitimate, referenced rebuttal because it "is not about Mills" and yet you have left in the following: ""Elyzabeth said that she agreed with the British media's low opinion of Mills: "Since her divorce has become final, in my opinion, Heather [Mills] has become an impossible person." Elyzabeth complained that Mills called her "stupid", to which Elyzabeth replied that Mills was "not God"." So, under your rules its OK to leave in an unpleasant, rude, nasty, bitchy personal attack, but not OK to put in an independent, well-argued and measured response to the entire episode? So much for a fair, balanced and factual article. I am really beginning to question whether there is some personal animosity under all this? Lets have some balanced reportage here. You could start with the GMTV saga. if you go through the transcript line by line, I defy you to find a single inaccuracy in what she said. But the papers don't like hearing someone attack them, so they went on the offensive. Check out Philip Schofields' comments the next day when he held up 5 papers that "quoted" his interview with her and pointed out the lies that had been published with the comment "She never said any of that to us". I urge you to replace the paragraph. After all, its true, isn't it? Captainclegg (talk) 17:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I have replied on Mills's talk page.--andreasegde (talk) 19:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

As have I! Sorry, I wasn't sure if you would 'see' this and didn't know how else to contact you... Apologies for opening out the discussion publicly. Revert to here if you wish for a 'private' chat.


 * You made a very valid comment, and I thank you. To tell the truth (ouch!) I always felt a bit uneasy/queasy about that "stupid" and "God" sentence in the article, but fresh eyes alway help, as yours did. If all of Wikipedia's problems were this easy to solve, I would sleep better at night. :))) All the best, --andreasegde (talk) 17:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not really back, but I thought I'd help you out with the references. The photo had a problem that would have eventually been picked up by a free-use/fair-use editor with an axe to grind, and would have been deleted. I found the photo of them both on a web page that you referenced, and these anti-photo editors say that as she is still alive, a free-use photo is needed, rather than a web one. All the other ones in the article are free-use, which is why I put a free-use photo of Heather's latest beau. Nice to see you are looking after the article, BTW. :)--andreasegde (talk) 21:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Fox hunting

 * Hi there, thanks for your edits to Fox Hunting, but I want to explain why i've reverted some of them. For the anti-hunting support and RSPCA ban, the cites don't support the statement, and so they can't stay. For the movement through parliament, there is no citation for 'overwhelming public support', and i'm not entirely sure that the vote numbers are strictly relevant? If you could justify why you think they're relevant? Thanks OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 19:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Ref Your comment on my talk page - i happen to think that this is a very balanced article, which has been extensively worked on by supporters, antis and neutrals. One of the regular contributors and watchers is a strongly anti Labour politician, Mike Hobday, and he tends to keep anti views well represented.  It is especially important on pages like this to keep an NPOV, and this article was very close to featured article status, but we just need a few more technical citations and checks around hunt procedures.  Always happy to add new information, but we must make sure it's correct and cited. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 19:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The RSPCA ban is a matter of fact and I wish to put that back in. The overwhelming support is borne out in nearly every opinion poll done before and after (see Advertising Standard Authority ruling). I assume you believe in democracy, so the Free Vote in the House and the huge majority is symptomatic of a representative sample of the population. That is the democracy we have where the MP's are our representatives. If you don't approve of that then that should be in a different article. I am VERY concerned at the general tenure of this article and it reads like a strong support for hunting and no counter-balance, which is what I am trying to inject. Captainclegg (talk) 19:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Although this discussion should really be on the article talk page, I agree with Captainclegg about the RSPCA ban. Perhaps the wording needs to be subtly altered, however I don't agree with removing the sentence. From my reading of the BBC article cited, it appears to be essentially correct. PhilKnight (talk) 19:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It may or may not be fact, but the citation you provided doesn't prove it - it says they were considering it - in 2000. You need a more recent citation than that which actually says they did it. As it happens, i don't believe that the House of Commons is genuine democracy, but that's not really relevant to the argument - and they definately are not representative of the wider population!  The important thing is this article (and wikipedia in general) is whether you can support your claims.  I am happy to try and work in the vote pattern, as that is cited, but you are making unsupported (and probably unsupportable) claims, which violate the WP policy, which you can find at WP:CITE.  OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 19:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * PhilKnight is right, and i've copied this to the article talk page, and suggest we continue there. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 19:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I've added a reply to your comment on the fox hunting talk page. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 20:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, I have now posted a revised version of the fox hunting page, which hopefully includes the facts you were trying to get across, whilst avoiding the uncited (and possibly uncitable) areas. I found a better reference for the RSPCA action, and have included the size of the vote in the current status.  I hope this is acceptable, but of course, feel free to edit it - just please try and stay within WP:V and WP:CITE.  Regards, OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 20:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

How many actual convictions for Otis Ferry?

 * You stated in the Otis Ferry article history that Ferry has 3 convictions. I can find sources for one pro-hunt protest (convicted under Public Order Act following House of Commons protest) and one drink-drive conviction (Cirencester) but I'm having trouble tracking down the other conviction. As this is potentially libellous (although borderline - he hasn't much of a good reputation to defend), we need to either source this other conviction, or remove it from the article. Can you provide any hints as to his other conviction please? Just a vague summary and a year would help me source this. He's clearly quite a twit, but arrests, charges and being on remand are not the same as being convicted. Andrew Oakley (talk) 15:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Difference between charge & conviction & cleared! 15 Sept 04 Guilty. 12 Aug 06 Guilty. 27 Nov 07 Cleared. 2 other charges (robbery & perverting the course) due to be heard next year. In answer to your Daily Mail question, the reason that they love him is that he is a hero to their pro-hunting readership, as is his step-father who said that "Pinnochet did a lot of good for Chile"!!!! Lovely family really, aren't they? Hope that helps. Good luck. Captainclegg (talk) 17:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Suspenders

 * Dear Captain Clegg, Thanks for your work on suspenders, which has been useful. I particularly liked one of the links you added, and look forward to more contributions.  However, when you do contribute again, it would be useful to note the 'preview' button at the bottom of the edit window, and the edit summary box.  As you can see from browsing the history (tab at the top), it is much easier to see what changes have been made when you make your changes with fewer edits. Thanks. (Also, I am afraid I have had to have the Bond picture removed — sorry, but this it is allowed to put pictures like that up without any justification.) —Kan8eDie (talk) 14:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for that and I am grateful for the editing advice. You are quite right. Understood about the picture, although I lifted it from the manufacturers site... Captainclegg (talk) 14:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm sorry but after re-reading your edits, I have HAD to re-edit this again. You have made subjective edits and comments (underwear showing????) and I have sourced correctly and quoted specifically. By the way, I cannot find any reference to show that braces were EVER termed "underwear"... I give you the Wilde one though, although it is fascinating. The Wall Street omission is strange considering what an icon Gordon Gekko was. Once again I have used numerous edits, for which I apologise, but you had altered the article with so many edits I saw no other way of doing it. I am confident that when you re-read it you will agree with me that it is much better now. Shall we leave it there? Captainclegg (talk) 15:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry for my brusque edits, which were perhaps a little heavy-handed, with my sensibilities reacting strongly to the idea of revealing braces, which are underwear. I now realise after sourcing all my statements that this is indeed done in America now (horror of horrors), so I apologise for removing it offhand. I removed the Wilde because of the way you had misquoted the article to represent the FT words as being Wilde's, which was misleading. If you need to change things further, putting some references to paper sources (with page numbers) would be helpful (and I should have turned to the bookshelf sooner myself, which is my fault). I can add in more references if you feel the weighting is too heavy towards one author. —Kan8eDie (talk) 17:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm getting happy with it, but I still would like to know your definition of underwear! I have checked OED and braces are NOT mentioned as underwear. Also, I have NEVER heard that it is considered gauche to show braces in the UK. Source please. Page numbers to come. I don't understand the 'original research' insert after Brideshead. Please look at ANY serious mens fashion bible (Departures; GQ) and Hackett, all of whom are basing next years style on the Brideshead revival. Finally.... YOU HAVE PUT A, BEFORE THE WORD 'AND'. Shame on you!! Captainclegg (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It is poor form to ever show braces, and I am disappointed (but perhaps not surprised) that it is done anywhere. Underwear is simply anything which is indecent to be seen (including, to be very precise, things like shirt sleeves, though I know few people conservative enough to adhere to that particular rule rigidly). The source I gave confirmed this (the quote marks refer to the Antongiavanni ref at the end of the sentence, a jovial yet solidly reliable read suitable for Wikipedia references). Regarding Brideshead, I doubt the appearance of one film is enough to change decades of ingrained habit, so I would prefer to see it sourced (no rush, but once you start referencing an article, the tags help to keep track of which bits have not been checked). Also, I rather question magazines as solid sources, let alone the categorisation of GQ as "serious" or a "bible". Finally, and, of course, deliberately, there are places where it is indispensable to use a comma, and there are two in this sentence. For longer lists, trains of thought, and sequences, it is optional (so this sentence could have dropped the second comma). —Kan8eDie (talk) 17:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

There are times when you will just have to concede I'm afraid and you cannot assume that you have won your point because you have re-edited and undone. 1) It is highly debatable whether it is 'poor form to show braces'. I can see no evidence that this was ever so, outside of your opinion. 2) Underwear being 'indecent'? Come on! This is not England under Cromwell! That is just plainly absurd, puritan and illogical (and very, very funny). 3) The source appears to be opinion not fact. 4) A film influencing cultural taste....? How many examples would you like? I give you "It Happened One Night" which destroyed the mens vest market almost overnight. This is well documented and I am not going to waste time debating it. 5) Departures and GQ are most certainly regarded as 'fashion bibles' and taken VERY seriously by those in the fashion industry and I am astounded that you are unaware of this as you are helping me write an piece on a fashion item. Captainclegg (talk) 19:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * 1 and 3) "I can see no evidence that this was ever so, outside of your opinion." I have added two reputable sources. Where are yours? 2) This view was in force for more half than the lifetime of the garment, and still is in many parts of the world. If you want to laugh, feel free, but these facts relate to the subject of the article. 4) Of course films influence fast-moving, non-notable fashions of the year, but this is an encyclopaedia, not a year-by-year chart of the ins-and-outs of some catwalk.  If you want to chronicle that, start a new section.  It is too early to say certainly whether Brideshead will have a significant long-term impact on the history of braces, hence my dubiousness. 5) GQ is fine if you are the sort of person to care about styles which change each year, but it is not an accurate oracle nor journal of long-term, notable trends. We are not writing about a 'fashion item'; we are writing an article about a garment of clothing, an article which should address the function and development of the item over its hundred year history, and not include this year's 'fashion gossip' which will not be relevant in two year's time (please see the not news policy). In light of this, I am afraid that I have put it back to my version, which clearly gives the historical precedent, while allowing for modern American use.  The article thus acknowledges and justifies showing your braces in some contexts. Both times you have challenged, I have added another source. Unless you can get some references of your own demonstrating that this is incorrect, instead of repeating your opinion (which I value, but not as more authoritative than published authors), I would request you to leave the sense of the paragraph intact. Thank you for your patience, and you have been responsible for collaborating on a solid improvement of the article, so please let us keep it civil and end amicably. —Kan8eDie (talk) 20:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Would you please detail your area of expertise or speciality, as I have a serious question about your objectivity as regards a fashion item such as braces. You stated that it is "poor form to ever show braces". Since when? Saying that this archaic view is in force "in many parts of the world" is in my view (and I say this with great respect to you) indefensible. Please prove that statement. As someone who is involved in the world of fashion I can assure you that GQ is highly regarded, as are the highly influential film costume designers such as Edith Head, who had an extraordinary influence on the world of fashion, both sides of the Atlantic. Are you going to also say that Departures, or Vogue carry no weight? If you want to discuss the history of a garment, fine. But please do not include strange, puritanical items of idiocy (such as underwear being indecent) without back-up. You say that you have sources for it. It is from a book that I have never heard of, do not have and if it contains items of pseudo-religious rubbish such as you describe, I would most certainly not want to give the author money by buying it. I suggest that the word is removed until you can show the source is objective and not opinion. I cannot understand your constant American references and also the line about gaucheness in the UK. I am English and live in England and I have NEVER heard of this - and I lecture in Fashion! Finally, please explain succinctly why and with what permission you have "put it back to my version" as though your opinion and decision carries more weight than someone else? Is this not outright bullying? Captainclegg (talk) 21:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * My interest in clothing is no more than a hobby, so I have objective standards, unswayed any payments in relation to my tastes or ownership of clothing. I would argue that the best way to prove a point of view on Wikipedia is by quotations from published books by highly established authors in their field.  I have now supplied two, which should be enough for a simple statement like this. There is nothing religious or rubbish about these sources; indeed, if you would care to click on the link to the article Alan Flusser, the author of one of my sources (linked in the footnote), you would find that he designed the wardrobe for Gordon Gekko, the character whose appearance in the article you advocated. If you lecture in fashion, but have not had exposure to the view that showing underwear used to be and still is considered indecent, then I in turn am a little worried. Also regarding Departures or Vogue, I would happily argue that the passing whims of glossy gossip-filled 'celebrity'-touting magazines carry less weight for an encyclopaedia than a solid, bound, hardback by an established fashion designer. My distinction between American dressing, and the more conservative English styles is again backed by the sources, and can be confirmed by common sense: where did "business casual" come from? Where do universities hold white tie balls? Where do more business men wear suits — London, or San Francisco? Where do children go to school in ties and blazers? I think, references aside, it is clear that "archaic views" carry vastly different weights in the two countries. Finally, to re-iterate, my opinion and decision carry no more weight than yours, but Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not continued assertion. I am sure that you have a great knowledge of current fashion, and wish you every success in your lecturing, but am still not convinced by your edits. Any further changes by either of us would, I think, break the three revert rule, so I suggest we back off this one for a day or two and reconsider. —Kan8eDie (talk) 22:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I quite agree. I have to say that I never said that showing underwear is indecent, I said that I have never heard of braces being regarded as underwear and so indecent. Departures and Vogue are probably the finest repository's of available fashion whims known and carry huge weight and influence. Fashion changes - constantly - and its influence is enormous. Fortunately, we in England are not in a time-warp, otherwise we would all be dressed like little Harrovian boys and still wear bowler hats! Times change, influences come and go, but STYLISH dressing will always be our staple. “Le style anglais” is famous throughout the world and the resurgence of braces is to be applauded, not hidden away as something indecent! Pax Vobiscum. Captainclegg (talk) 22:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Pacem profertam accipivo et cum gaudio redo. I do perhaps live in a bit of a time-warp, for which I apologise if this biases my opinion, but I still reckon fewer people in the 'real world' are swayed as much by fashion as you think. Anyway, I was going to propose an editing moratorium in accordance with the three revert rule, which prevents us from undoing each other's work. However, I am sure we can resolve this cleanly (thanks for your kind words!). Regarding things I think still need editing, this sentence worries me most: "Further, it was considered that as 'underwear', as some people held braces to be, (though this was an unusual and minority view) braces should never be seen at all.[2]" As you did with the Wilde quotation, you are misrepresenting a bit what the source actually says. Regardless of the emphasis we place on different opinions in the present, I feel that regarding the historical material, this is a mistake, and that pre-1940s, this really was the standard view, as supported by Alan Flusser, who, after all, is more authoritative than "www.ehow.com" and "www.ezinearticles.com" (the GQ article says nothing on this particular issue). May I make the change here (while still giving more emphasis to modern fashion)? Further, the Hackett link says nothing about braces, and mentions only that 'this season's' styles will be based on Brideshead. Unless you can show the influence will last longer than that, I am a bit unsure of the place of this in an encylopaedia, which is meant to be a more long-term reference. (Incidentally, manufacturer's websites are not considered reliable to use as first-class references.) This is not serious, and the sentence can happily be left if you insist. ::—Kan8eDie (talk) 22:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I sincerely apologise if I am being pedantic, but I really think that the line, as I left it, is the most equatable form of compromise. It gets both points of views across evenly and does not make a definitive statement. I would ask you to leave it as it is. The only alternative I can see is to say that "this was a pre-1940s view, but one that is not necessarily held now". But I think that I have already said this in the article. The Hackett link was just to show you that a film can make a huge difference in the fashion world. In answer, no there is no way I can ever show that a fashion will last longer than a season as that is, by definition what fashion is: Changeable. As it should be. It is POSSIBLE that braces will again be out of fashion in 2 years time. That does not make the article unworthy. Captainclegg (talk) 22:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * "Further, it was considered that as 'underwear', as some people held braces to be, (though this was an unusual and minority view) braces should never be seen at all.[2]" I would have thought I was the one being pedantic, but something has to be done. [2] simply does not support the sentence it is claimed to support. It is fine to give more weight to the modern practice of showing braces if we decide that is merited, but on the historical stuff, Flusser trumps Vogue et al. I must admit, I am not so happy about the idea of fashion changing: clothes are a lifetime investment, and I feel should be bought to last. I hope to still be wearing the same shoes, and the more hard-wearing of my coats and jackets, in forty years' time (about the lifetime of a pair of decent shoes — jackets can last longer). Anyway, I would like to do a bit of neatening up (particularly making your links clickable, that sort of thing). Is this possible? —Kan8eDie (talk) 23:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Image permission problem with Image:Heather-mills-500x703.jpg

 * Right, feel free to remove the deletion notice, but please correct the licensing tag (to a non-free one, instead of the incorrect CC one) and place it in the article as you intend it to be used- I will then take a look at the fair use claim. The issue I have with the image currently is about the free/non-free confusion. J Milburn (talk) 13:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks. Will do now. Captainclegg (talk) 13:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Heather-mills-500x703.jpg listed for deletion

 * An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Heather-mills-500x703.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted.  J Milburn (talk) 13:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The commercial value you mention is subsumed by the fact that it was published in the paper and is widely available on the web. If you read the newspaper article you will see that this image is indeed their rationale for proof of the relationship, which was upheld by the PCC. To delete would be to deny the possibility for readers to make up their own mind. To mention the existence of a photograph, but not show it, is to deny the basis of a good and crucially accurate encyclopaedia, which we are all striving to create. I would strongly request that it is left intact Captainclegg (talk) 14:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks guys. Can you tell me how to DELETE/REMOVE unwanted accounts? Captainclegg (talk) 13:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no way to do it. Just leave them alone, and they shouldn't be a problem. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Seven Deadly Sins Four Deadly Sinners

 * It is partly a 'style' problem, as some of it seems like an advert, which is prohibited on Wikipedia. For example, after the actors names it should not really state what the actors are noted for, as this is unrelated work; a list of the actors names would suffice. I'm almost sure that there is a mention in the Manual of Style about it somewhere. Also the links inside of the references should begin with "http://", and should point to exact pages where the reference is contained, and not just the website name. Just little things really, which I could have a go at tidying if you want. --TubularWorld (talk) 23:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks I will do that about the actors, but The Stage newspaper (one of the source references) is well-known for not yet having started a web achieve and only publishing on-line in the last couple of years. Many references rely on library & Theatre Museum copies of the paper etc. No way round that one I'm afraid! Captainclegg (talk) 23:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Stanbridge Earls
I am a former purple of stanbridge earls. lord greenway will no longer have the right to the title lord of stanbridge earls and sit in the upper house due to lords reform this is fact not opinion. I also edited the wyverns section due to what were inappropriate comments and personal opinions posted by another user. I do not se how this can be vandiliserm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Murrell (talk • contribs) 15:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I assume that by former "purple" you probably mean "pupil". The issue of Lord Greenaway not being able to sit in the House of Lords may or may not be fact, but your statement Under Labours new proposals for lords reform the title will disappear if labour wins the next election is a politically slanted personal view and as such is vandalism under wiki terms. It is regarded as "personal research" and as such is not allowed. Try and keep personal attitude out of editing. Wiki is an encyclopaedia and as such must be sourced properly. I also suggest that you use spellcheck more often and please always sign your postings. Captainclegg (talk) 18:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have put a lot of effort into the stanbridge page. Having dyslexia my spelling is not good i spell check what I Wright but mistakes can still get through. Your monitoring of the pages content has being helpful.

I have only recently started editing Wikipedia and do not yet know how to use my account properly or sign my postings. I do not wish for the page to be in any way byes. Most of what i have writen has being taken from documents given to me by the school. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Murrell (talk • contribs) 19:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:7DS_poster_(large).jpg
Copy of email containing permissions sent to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org] 5 July 09 Captainclegg (talk) 11:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That was a mis-click of the mouse I reverted, but I forgot to revert your userpage, many apologies.  MBisanz  talk 17:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

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)


 * 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)

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

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)

Mills & Sinden photo

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

,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)

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)


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

Contradiction

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

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)


 * 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)

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)

Marc Sinden

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


 * 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)

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)


 * 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)

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)