Talk:Marc Sinden/Archive 1

Archive 1

Started

Have started to edit this entry. It's a huge job. Have first split into sections, tried to delink the obvious links that are unlikely to have entries. My plan is then to verify what I can, re-add links for stuff that does exist and then kick it into some semblance of order. Anything that I am struggling to verify I may get rid of; I suspect the entry is far too detailed for Wikipedia to be honest. Wish me luck. Psicorps 19:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Good luck, indeed. I threw in two links, but mostly to convince myself that the subject is notable. Tikiwont 20:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the links! I am beginning to wonder why I started on this dreary entry at all to be honest... luckily for Marc Sinden that I am a fan of his father's acting. Psicorps 22:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Right, this article is now more or less at the point where I can start to tidy it up properly. I've taken out all the wikilinks to pages that don't exist, and now I can start on cleaning up the content. My intention is to cite only 'major' (i.e., 'noteworthy' or critically acclaimed) theatre and television performances, and they could certainly be presented in a better way. All that gubbins about Saddam Hussein and being smuggled out of the country is definitely going too. I think I'll need an afternoon off after it's all done. Psicorps 13:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

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

The two marked entries are only two examples. The whole article is not adequately sourced. Please take a look at WP:V and WP:CITE and other guidelines posted on your talk page. --Tikiwont 09:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Freemason

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)

COI / cite tags

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)

Sorry to disappoint you but as one of the major editors of this page I would like to assure you that I am neither Marc Sinden or at all "close to him". In fact I am the wrong gender and wrong ethnic background to be mistaken for him! Just someone trying to increase the Wiki experience by only using sourced material. I assume that the reason that there is more on this WP entry than his brothers is that a) there is more written about him and b) his brother has been dead for 13 years. Captainclegg (talk) 12:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Why would I be disappointed? With respect, simply from the photographic permissions on images you've uploaded it is clear that your relationship to Sinden is far closer than you indicate above. You also appear to have a history of socking, using multiple accounts to support repeated POV edits around Sinden. Again, perhaps you would clarify your relationship?

Pleased do not remove the tags on the page until this matter has been clarified. Thank you. Little grape (talk) 12:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

With respect as well, a stupid past history of "socking" etc is in the past and irrelevant. I have already apologised and been unblocked for that. The sources quoted are accurate and acceptable source material and are well researched. I received photographic permissions through an intermediary and my "relationship" that you seem to obsess about is merely as a fan of some years. Please also note that you are edit-waring You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Captainclegg (talk) 12:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I would like to point out that Little grape seems to keep removing mentiones of marc sinden and heather mills citeing one source, yet there are many sources that are contradicting it. The guardian article is mentioned. Please desist from edit-waring as above. 121.215.43.189 (talk) 12:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Surely you can see that by describing yourself as a 'fan' you may find it difficult to a) accept that effusive praise of the subject of the article is perhaps not the way to go, and b) include anything negative. Your edit regarding his 'being the boyfriend of Heather Mills' being a perfect example. He wasn't, she complained to the Press Council about it, won an apology, yet you are pushing this fantasy in the lede. Why? Little grape (talk) 12:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

How interesting - both Clegg and the IP editor both make the same spelling error/typo on 'edit-waring'. Little grape (talk) 12:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

That is because i cut n pasted the line from above. 121.215.43.189 (talk) 12:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that you cut the line from Clegg saying 'Please also note that you are edit-waring', then you pasted it in your response, but then didn't like it so cut out all the words apart from 'edit-waring', then put 'Please desist from' in front of it? Little grape (talk) 12:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protect request

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)

Marc Sinden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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)

Captainclegg has in the past been suspected of being Sinden or a close associate, having been previously blocked for using multiple accounts to POV-push badly-sourced, Sinden-related aggrandising puff-pieces better suited to a Press Release than an encyclopedia. Just one example in the article that conflicts with WP:BLP is a demonstrably false claim that he was romantically involved with Heather Mills, despite the fact that her complaint to the Press Council resulted in the tabloid that claimed this apologising and withdrawing the remark. Rather than protect, can we not work on this article to turn it into something more representative of what WP:BLP outlines? I don't care if Clegg is Sinden or not, but he should come clean so that his obvious great knowledge can be used to make a better article, not yet another puff-piece. Little grape (talk) 12:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of dispute resolution. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 12:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Heather Mills

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)

You are not objective, but I agree that you don't see this. For example, you have put this line into Donald Sinden's article: 'One of their sons, Marc Sinden, is the West End theatre producer and boyfriend of Heather Mills'. You *know* this is a fabrication, yet you are unable to be objective enough to realise that this is a) a lie and b) defamatory. Little grape (talk) 13:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Unlike you, I do not *know* this is a fabrication, as you say. I am only quoting the source material. If I was adding a lie I would not be able to use a source, would I? I was replacing a sourced item. You seem to take it on yourself to remove accurately sourced and quoted items on a whim, which is against the ethos of Wiki. To whom is it "defamatory"? It is quoted all over the place, so if it was defamatory I would have assumed that either Sinden or Mills would have sued, by now. Captainclegg (talk) 13:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I have indicated the source to you, yet you are determined to ignore the fact that this 'boyfriend' story was a fabrication - a bald, out and out, clear-blue LIE! Here's what the article says "Mills's lawyers wrote to the Press Complaints Commission, highlighting half-a-dozen reports they claimed were inaccurate. Most of them were published in a two-week period immediately before the complaint was lodged. They claimed, among other things, that Mills had undergone surgery to increase the size of her breasts, spent millions of pounds awarded as part of her divorce settlement on a swimming pool, and had started to date a friend, but all of those claims, and several more, have now been retracted." How much clearer does this need to be before your self-claimed pride in your objectivity kicks in?

As for your claim that either Sinden or Mills would have sued by now, the papers' retractions mean that any potential litigation is less likely to succeed, as ALL the papers concerned retracted and apologised. Yet you, for some unknown reason, seem determined to include this false allegation in as many articles as you can fit it in. It is extraordinary how a 'Marc Sinden fan' has spent such a considerable amount of time adding this lie to as many locations as possible. Why? Do you not see that it has no place in an encyclopedia, where truth is one of the primary tenets?

Finally, you question whether it is defamatory at all. Heather Mills will (rightly, in my view) be able to take action because while she was happy to marry a sixty-ish ex-member of The Beatles, she probably would regard a supposed romantic association with a bald, obese, sixty-ish non-famous man as injurious to her reputation and damaging to her children's welfare. She might well argue, for example, that allegations that she was dating someone nearly old enough to collect a pension would cause trouble between her and her *real* boyfriend, who appears to be somewhat of a spring chicken. Little grape (talk) 14:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I refer you to the detail contained in one of the quoted articles: http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/liverpool-life-features/liverpool-special-features/2009/03/06/marc-sinden-on-john-lennon-we-were-in-the-presence-of-god-92534-23077241/4/ As I have stated in the Wiki article, Sinden does NOT claim to be in a relationship with Mills. The papers do. The full PCC ruling makes it clear that the way the photograph of them was obtained was the source of complaint, with the paper claiming that the photographer was not employed by them. From your description it would appear that you know Sinden one helluva lot better than I do! And I'm pleased that you think of her "real boyfriend" as a "spring chicken". I hope you will be very happy together! What is his name and how do you know of him? I am beginning to think that perhaps you are more closely connected with Mills than you have previously let on. Why are you so desperate to remove any mention that so many of the papers quoted...? Are you going to also delete any mention of her "sordid" past as the papers like to put it. The accusation in so many papers of her being involved as a sex worker seems to have not concerned you. Captainclegg (talk) 14:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Whether Mills was a sex worker or not has no bearing on *this* article. And your cite simply doesn't support what you're saying here and elsewhere. Your claim that 'the papers do' is false - every one of them have withdrawn the false claim and apologised. As for your false claim that you 'stated Sinden does NOT claim to be in a relationship with Mills', again I would point you to your father's article, in which you stated 'One of their sons, Marc Sinden, is the West End theatre producer and boyfriend of Heather Mills'. So, basically, the papers made a false claim, retracted it, so you're using the original stories pre-retraction to indicate that Sinden 'is the boyfriend of Heather Mills'.

May I therefore suggest that you go round all the articles you've put this false claim in, and remove them? Then we can get on with some serious tidying on the other parts of this article that need attention. Little grape (talk) 14:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

You said "your fathers's article". I have not written an article about my father and if you are attempting to infer that Donald Sinden is my father, you are wrong. Please stop silly games. For the last time, I am not Marc Sinden or Donald Sinden. Gettit now? The source quoted in the Donald Sinden article is the same quoted in this article. I have not added any inaccurate or un-sourced, or own research. Captainclegg (talk) 14:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you're Donald Sinden. His article, for someone perhaps one hundred times more famous and notable than his son, is miniscule in comparison. I repeat - you should rediscover your 'pride in your objectivity', review the following, and then you might go and undo all the edits you've plastered around WP referring to some supposed romantic relationship?:

"London Lite conceded on 8 January that it should not have implied Mills was romantically involved with Marc Sinden, after they were photographed visiting the Tate together, and apologised "for any distress caused". Mills's representatives also told the PCC she had been hounded by the photographer who took the shot and, although the paper denied he had been following her, it also "undertook to be more vigilant about the background of photographs of the complainant submitted to its picture desk", according to a PCC ruling made this week. The article has also been removed from its website." Little grape (talk) 15:01, 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)

Harassment & Personal Attacks in serious breach of Wiki rules

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)

Ah - so you're back again after your bizarre 'copy/paste' explanation for using the exact same typo/error as CaptainClegg yesterday. I suggest a more careful reading of WP:RPA is required; it applies if you or Clegg are the *subject* of the article. And you've already thrice denied this before the cock crowed, so you can't have it both ways. As for Sinden being 'bald, obese, sixty-ish and non-famous', these are wholly descriptive terms that appear to be accurate. He *is* bald, he *is* obese (unless he has vastly slimmed down from the photo in his article), he's sixty-ish (actually, fair enough, he claims 55 - so are you happier with 'approaching sixty'?), and he is most certainly non-famous. And let's not forget that the context was the suggestion by Clegg that Mills would not be able to make a defamation claim - if Mills had, like perhaps Anna-Nicole Smith, *chosen* to enter a romatic relationship with an old, obese, bald man then she's fair game - but in this case it was a *lie*. Can you see the difference? Therefore while Sinden 'fans' may try and big-up Sinden by the absurd suggestion that Mills and he were romantically involved (and indeed Clegg has plastered this suggestion all over multiple articles), it is Mills who (in my humble opinion) has the greater case. Let's not forget where this problem started: the 'fan' Clegg posted defamatory content in the Donald Sinden article by claiming his son and Mills were boyfriend and girlfriend. He didn't say 'reported', he said they *are* boyfriend and girlfriend. And *that's* why such editors need careful guidance to ensure that they a) remove all such references and b) do not repeat the errors.

Seems both you and Clegg are 'angry' about this; are you, like Clegg, describing yourself as a 'fan' of Sinden? If so, I would simply suggest that you take a more objective view of the edits required to turn this article into something a little more encyclopaedic. If you cannot do that, may I suggest you work on other articles in which you have no feelings either way for the subject, and leave this article for editors who can apply NPOV? Thanks... Little grape (talk) 10:16, 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)

What a strange coincidence - Marc Sinden is *also* currently in Australia, having just arrived there! I wonder if CaptainClegg will pop up there too in due course? Little grape (talk) 07:03, 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)

Editing Talk pages

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)

Vanity page

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)

This has already been noted in the ban on Captainclegg and sock-puppets of same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.148.92.144 (talk) 15:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Marc Sinden edit warring

(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)

You two are so clearly unable to work collaboratively that I see few options. I have made suggestions previously regarding working together that were ignored, and no changes in the attitude of either of you. Kevin (talk) 21:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

You may agree that user:Captainclegg is clearly extremely close to Sinden, which makes any collaboration extremely difficult. Even if collaboration is impossible, it should be fairly easy to trim false, misleading and unencyclopaedic content out of the article without screams of 'vandal' arising every single time? If it were just me then fine, but myriad other editors have found this and other Sinden-related articles have Clegg (and his previously exposed socks) all over them as gatekeepers. I'm not sure what the solution is apart from opening a case? Little grape (talk) 22:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem with 'East', the 1975 play by Steven Berkoff, is that the article was hijacked and written to a) feature Sinden's much later production instead of the original, b) insert Sinden's website instead of the writer's website, c) falsely insert Sinden as a writer in the 'category' section, d) falsely claim that the DVD was a 'best seller', and finally e) link to his own website - again. I corrected this at [[1]] but Clegg repeatedly reverted. Little grape (talk) 22:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Without taking into account the rightness or otherwise of your edits, to me it looks like I warned you for edit warring with Captainclegg, and you immediately went and reverted at another article. Do you see the problem with that? Kevin (talk) 22:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I understand and appreciate that view from your viewpoint; perhaps you might take also into account the view that the editor in question has been previously blocked for socking in support of Sinden-related articles (months before I took any interest) and appears to simply traipse around reverting perfectly good edits designed to remove puffery/PR guff? All I can really do is again indicate to you my original edit, and leave it to you and others to judge whether the edits should have been reverted. As I said above, I'm not sure what the solution is to this sort of thing - and the 'East' article is a great example of how it can all go horribly wrong unless editors go through the lengthy process of a) complaining about it, b) digging up hundreds of edits, c) opening a case, and d) hoping that proportionality will prevail. Little grape (talk) 23:10, 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) 23:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Relative Values is and always has been a Sunday Times feature; it's been run every week in the Sunday Times Magazine for at least twenty five years that I can recall - see [[2]]. Debrett's stopped using 'Distinguished' in 1991. Here's evidence from the ISBN list: [[3]]. And, yes, as I clearly know where Sinden lives and Clegg says he doesn't know - perhaps he can stop adding the false claim that Sinden lives on Bishop's Avenue? Perhaps a sensible solution is indeed to ban both of us from any Sinden-related articles, and allow other editors to fill the breach. I'm happy with such a solution. Little grape (talk) 23:37, 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)

1.) Angela Brooks (a Daily Mail column writer) wrote the regular series Relative Values in 1994. The particular article quoted is a full-page, two-fold interview with Donald Sinden and his son Marc, discussing his schooling, among many other things, from their respective viewpoints. It is a separate article from the Sunday Times article and in no way connected, as far as I can tell. I photocopied it from my local library. 2.) I included a sourced blog which stated that Sinden lived in The Bishops Avenue. (http://realestalker.blogspot.com/2009/09/heather-mills-is-flipping-out-on.html) Kevin said this was unreliable and I have not argued the point or reverted it once this ruling was made. I did not write it or invent it. As in point 1 please stop shooting the messenger. 3.) Unlike Little Grape, who says above "I clearly know where Sinden lives" I am unaware of where Sinden now lives, or for how long. I would be interested to know how he does and with what accuracy. Perhaps he should declare his interest or real identity. 4.) As Little Grape has done his constant damnedest to out me (a serious Wiki offence, but no one has done anything about it...) I can now tell him that Yes, he is right, as I stated, I was in the 'Hey Jude' film. I am the girl standing behind and to the left of Paul, in the white dress, black belt and brown hair. THAT is how I know that the two Sinden brothers were in the film (who are behind and next to Ringo) and that is what I told Mark Lewisohn. Satisfied now? Sorry to disappoint you and your obsessive conspiracy theory. 5.) I would also suggest that the articles that have been so furiously tampered with by Little Grape are returned to their state of 24-hours ago and that the two of us are then excluded from any Sinden-related articles, as suggested. I would not have a problem with that. Captainclegg (talk) 01:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh this just gets funnier and funnier, if it weren't for the fact that the encyclopaedia continues to be corrupted by ever-greater numbers of editors who see it as just one giant vanity page. Little grape (talk) 06:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll be back to deal with you pair tomorrow. In the meantime, you might consider that you are not helping either. Kevin (talk) 07:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Kevin, is it possible that with the almost exclusively targeted deletion of any and all articles concerning Marc Sinden (including sourced material) and the very intimate knowledge of his travel plans, not as far as I can see published in any paper etc. Marc Sinden is currently in Australia, having just arrived there, all references to Ms Mills, even including his denials of any relationship with her and his home address I clearly know where Sinden lives - ...in a little semi-detached two-up two-down off the Finchley Road and has lived there for at least the last ten years that we are perhaps being manipulated into looking the wrong way at who Little Grape really is? Double-bluff, smoke & mirrors perhaps? I merely ask the question. Captainclegg (talk) 12:43, 18 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)

Oh dear - bad day at the office? Please confine your comments here to how to improve the article; I know you're a brand new editor with no experience of WP before today, but personal attacks are somewhat discouraged - even if they are somewhat grammatically clumsy ones.

Funnily enough, both you and Clegg haven't quite learned the art of the colon indent. Clumsy indeed..... Little grape (talk) 18:44, 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)

Again; please review WP:NPA, and in future confine your contributions on here to how to improve the article. If you have direct information that justifies removal of the tags on the article page, then please outline them here before trying to remove them again Little grape (talk) 13:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

On 20 November 2009 administrator Kevin posted to Little grape on this talk page that your personal attacks and often used sarcastic or inflammatory edit summaries are totally unacceptable. Given Little grapes posting to Parnathus above, Pot-Kettle-Black spring to mind. The irony is not lost, Bullies usually whine loudest. 86.142.26.202 (talk) 14:26, 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)

Clearly you *haven't* read WP:NPA, otherwise you wouldn't have written this. It is difficult to understand why someone interested in Jeremy Sinden should instead rush across to his far less well-known brother's article and immediately feel the need to remove tags? The tags remain because the article is in severe need of a rewrite, not least because one of the main contributors has claimed to be a 'good friend' and a 'fan' of Marc Sinden from the age of 12(!), when they met on the set of the 'Hey Jude' video recording(!). Unfortunately this is the very same editor that was caught dragging along a bucket-load of socks to try and support various POV positions and outright puffery of Marc Sinden and Sinden-related articles. Amazingly enough, this editor and their socks have added Marc Sinden's name to around 130 articles on Wikipedia. 130! For someone who's less notable than my goldfish!

It's certainly true that the Jeremy Sinden article might lead one here, because of course there are no less than *three* mentions/links to Marcus' page from there - sadly there is not one single link from Marcus' back to Jeremy's, indeed his name has been expunged completely from the Marc Sinden article. It seems more than odd that you should seem so determined to enter an edit war in only your first day as an editor, instead of fixing the egregious error that would strike any true contemporary of Jeremy's immediately! May I therefore suggest you take three actions?

1. Go read WP:NPA yet again, just in case it hasn't impinged.

2. Add links and content to the Marc Sinden article that reflect and respect the memory of your school chum Jeremy Sinden, because in all the puffery of Marc, poor Jeremy seems to have been wholly ignored.

3. Expand the content of the Jeremy Sinden article such that it *at least* matches the Marc Sinden article, because it is a disgrace that the puffed-up Marc Sinden article is perhaps ten times the size of the Jeremy Sinden article, when Jeremy was perhaps ten times more notable - go and put this right.

Finally, as an observation; as a contemporary of Jeremy you would be around 60 years old - it is both surprising and disappointing that with such advanced age has not come the sense of insouciance, and the wisdom of seniors, that one might normally expect. May I suggest that you therefore refrain from further conflict and personal attacks, and put your editing efforts to work exclusively on the person you *do* know about? Thanks. Little grape (talk) 18:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

"Parnathus", your point is well made and noted. I had a similar problem with "Little Grape" on the Mermaid Theatre page when I tried to restore correctly and adequately sourced information. No one has governorship over an article and Little Grapes' method of editing is not in the spirit of the Wikipedia idea of consensus. It nearly made me consider not editing anymore too. Something should be done to stop this form of anonymous cyber-bullying. Berettagun (talk) 17:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to another low-edit editor; and someone else whose interests seem to mirror Marc Sinden's own interests. Your first edits [[16]] were on a stuntman Sinden admires, then on Where Eagles Dare where you bigged-up the very same stuntman. Then, on only your fifth edit, you warned another editor who was (entirely correctly) removing the oft-repeated false allegation that Sinden and Heather Mills were romantically involved! By an amazing co-incidence, Clegg popped up too and also warned the editor [[17]] just 22 minutes later (Clegg of course has form for adding 'boyfriend of Heather Mills' to Marc Sinden-related articles). Your next edit is on Stanbridge Earls, a school for those with 'learning difficulties', - hang on, wasn't that the school Sinden went to? Helpfully, user:Captainclegg supports you there too, and both of you exchange views on your own talk page. Your next three edits are on Heather Mills, where user:Rodhullandemu had stomped on Clegg's pushing of Sinden's 'relationship' with Mills - you tag-teamed straight in there with an unreliable ref to back up Clegg (many Sinden puff-refs seem to be sourced from print-only local newspapers). Then you tag-team again with Clegg on User talk:Brakspear warning him off Stanbridge Earls edits about Sinden.

I think the most despicable of your edits was this one [[18]], where with stunning crassness you alter an entry in a list of attacks by a terrorist from this:

'March 28, 1984: British Cultural Attache Kenneth Whitty was assassinated on an Athens street in Greece by a single gunman'

to this:

'March 28, 1984: Following an ignored warning from the Abu Nidal Group to the British Council in London to cancel their 50th anniversary tour, (The School for Scandal starring Sir Donald Sinden which was claimed to be "exporting British Imperialist culture"), British Cultural Attaché Kenneth Whitty was assassinated on an Athens street in Greece by a single gunman. Regardless of this, the 10-country tour started at the University Theatre in Athens a few days later'

Hang your head in shame, sir, for despoiling a brave man's death in favour of yet more crass Sinden-puffery. Little grape (talk) 19:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Factual correction to Little grapes claims above: a Google search on Jeremy Sinden shows 3,200 items, for Marc Sinden 4,340 so unless you have a very notable goldfish you owe an apology/retraction. On the Jeremy Sinden page I only find two, not three links as you stated and even emphasised, to the Marc Sinden page and on the Marc Sinden page it clearly states: Marc had a brother, the actor Jeremy Sinden, who died in 1996, plus link and source... So his name has not been expunged completely as you claim above. As he died 13 years ago, that might reflect in the size of the info listed, don't you think? Why have you got it in for Sinden so much? 86.142.26.202 (talk) 19:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

If you had read carefully, you'd have noted that I actually wrote '*three* mentions/links'. That's not three links, that's three mentions and two links - 'only' two of the links are hyperlinked back to Marc Sinden.

Jeremy Sinden, his dead departed brother, is mentioned only in the 'trivia' section of the page. Clearly you think a dead brother belongs in 'trivia'.

You are again mis-stating the Google info, but perhaps you have the Monaco or Switzerland version served up where you live? The Finchley one is the one you might prefer. For clarity:

See [[19]] for Jeremy Sinden, which produces 63,700 results, despite him being dead for thirteen years

See [[20]] for Marc Sinden, which produces 34,700 results, despite assiduous insertion of mentions in the most unlikely places, none of them the least bit notable....

Amazingly, my goldfish has 41,465,000 mentions in Google, so I guess that means I should write an article on him/her. Little grape (talk) 20:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not necessarily think that his dead departed brother... belongs in 'trivia', so please do not tell me what I think. But then again, I didn't write the article. Neither am I in Monaco, Switzerland or Finchley. And having seen how you behave to other well-intentioned editors, I am not going to enter into some pathetic war of words with you. Get a life and stop being so jealous of others. 86.142.26.202 (talk) 21:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

In case anyone missed your shocking edit summery to me (Rotate shotgun 180 degrees. Engage toe. "PULL!") advocating suicide due to my username, the question for you is simple. Why are you so aggressive to people when they do not agree with your edits? If you had bothered to look at the Stanbridge Earls page before you throw wild accusations around, you would have seen that a new editor (User talk:Brakspear) was attempting to insert a massive amount of Original Research about the teachers at the school (not about Sinden as you erroneously claim) , contrary to Wiki rules. I do not understand or appreciate your snide reference to it being a school for people with "learning difficulties", which it famously is. Do you have a problem with that? Finally, the Ken Whitty assassination is entirely accurate and the School for Scandal tour following it is detailed at some length in the Bill Fraser autobiography who was in the play, which I gather from your dreadful remarks, you have not read. Berettagun (talk) 19:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The point is that your interests mirror Sinden's (even down to the choice of shotgun). Why indeed would you take an interest in a tiny private school? And why would you think the reference to 'learning difficulties' is snide? It is the preferred current term for those who suffer such difficulties - why so sensitive? And finally, your bizarre justification for inserting yet another Sinden-related bit of nonsense into A LIST OF TERRORIST ATTACKS is, (and I'm grasping for a polite word here), thoughtless. Little grape (talk) 20:22, 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) So there IS justice and the System really does work! 86.142.26.202 (talk) 13:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC) Well, yes - User:Captainclegg, User:Berettagun, and of course ^^^ that IP address and others were revealed as socks, and permanently blocked. So eventually the POV-pushers, socks, get their desserts. Now it's the job of gnomes to go around the (count 'em) 466 articles mentioning Sinden edited by Clegg et al, and fix 'em. Until another 'friend' or 'fan', or 'someone close to Marc Sinden', or just another new IP editor turns up and starts all over again? Onwards and upwards..... Little grape (talk) 23:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Official site

http://www.sindenproductions.com appears to meet WP:ELOFFICIAL. --Ronz (talk) 21:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree it meets the first and second commandments of that rule, however it's a site that contains a huge amount of false and misleading information. I'm not sure how that should be handled - if the link stays in then I would have thought it needs to be heavily qualified?

Couple of examples of the problems with the site are that 'Marc Sinden Productions' actually ceased trading in 2003, the 'Monte Carlo Theatre' company ceased trading in 2009 (see [22] and key the names - select 'dissolved names'), and the company address given appear to be his home. There's also a weird disclaimer re Wikipedia - I'm guessing he's had an angry Steven Berkoff et al knocking on his door demanding to know why someone on WP has been bigging himself up on *their* BLP pages; the disclaimer serves as an "It wasn't ME" shield.

The site gets even weirder, the more you delve - here's a quote from the main page regarding supposed Directors of a company that was dissolved more than six years ago yet refers to itself in the present tense e.g. The company's non-Executive Directors are... Peter Barkworth (who of course has been dead since 2006), Norman Wisdom (who has been in a nursing home suffering from dementia since 2007). Can we really link to this site? And, indeed, has the subject ever really been in any way notable except to himself? Little grape (talk) 21:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I think there are enough concerns about the content for it to be removed for now. --Ronz (talk) 21:59, 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)

It's not possible to say whether the company has misrepresented itself to Companies House, but it's a matter of fact that Mark Sinden Productions Limited has been out of business since 2003 - go have a look at the link I provided. Furthermore, it's not possible (as far as I'm aware) to appoint a dead person as a non-exec Director. It makes it somewhat difficult to arrange meetings and that sort of thing, I imagine....Little grape (talk) 13:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The questions by 62.200.52.25 are inappropriate. Please focus on improving this article.

Simply, the official site appears to contain outdated information that makes the site confusing. --Ronz (talk) 16:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

i dont get it. if mark sinden productions ceased trading in 2003 and mills died in 2005 and barkworth in 2006, as the website clearly says, then whats the problem? thats not "appointing a dead person as a non-exec Director". they died after the company was de-registered. thats not "false and misleading information". 195.212.0.185 (talk) 18:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

It's all about 'reliable sources'. Sinden's own site is ridden with false and misleading information, and a lot of that content has been used in this article. Which in my view makes it suitable for deletion, particularly as almost all the content has been added by editors later revealed to be socks.

And, again, what an extraordinary coincidence - both IP editor contributions in this section have been from retail Apple stores (in Regent Street and Brent Cross respectively). It's almost as if a frustrated blocked editor has been cruising retail outlets looking for somewhere to anon-post! It is, however, somewhat careless to choose locations where the mid-point between those locations is around Finchley..... Little grape (talk) 20:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

that would be because i work for apple retail. today i am at the lakeside store and on wednesday i will be at the white city store. come in and buy something! ask for justin. there is a wiki advisory: "comment on the article, not the editor" which seems in context a good idea. so what is the "false and misleading information" on the official website that you keep mentioning? 195.212.0.137 (talk) 14:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Who believes this?

"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)