Jump to content

User talk:Captainclegg: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Kevin (talk | contribs)
Captainclegg (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Line 12: Line 12:
:Also your use of [[WP:TW|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. [[User:Kevin|Kevin]] ([[User talk:Kevin|talk]]) 21:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
:Also your use of [[WP:TW|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. [[User:Kevin|Kevin]] ([[User talk: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 'Distuinguished', 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... [[User:Captainclegg|Captainclegg]] ([[User talk:Captainclegg#top|talk]]) 22:49, 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... [[User:Captainclegg|Captainclegg]] ([[User talk:Captainclegg#top|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. [[User:Kevin|Kevin]] ([[User talk:Kevin|talk]]) 22:56, 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. [[User:Kevin|Kevin]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Captainclegg|Captainclegg]] ([[User talk:Captainclegg#top|talk]]) 23:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:07, 17 November 2009

File:H.Mills+M.Sinden.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:H.Mills+M.Sinden.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files 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. Thank you. howcheng {chat} 22:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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]