A tag has been placed on Peter Shatner (actor, author, producer), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing no content to the reader. Please note that external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article don't count as content. Moreover, please add more verifiable sources, not only 3rd party sources. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.
Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the article's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Buggie111 (talk) 03:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not write or add to an article about yourself. Creating an autobiography is strongly discouraged – see our guideline on writing autobiographies. If you create such an article, it may be deleted. If what you have done in life is genuinely notable and can be verified according to our policy for articles about living people, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later (see Wikipedians with articles). If you wish to add to an existing article about yourself, please propose the changes on its talk page. Please understand that this is an encyclopedia and not a personal web space or social networking site. If your article has already been deleted, please see: Why was my page deleted?, and if you feel the deletion was an error, please discuss it with the deleting administrator. Thank you. Alexf(talk)13:25, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history at William Shatner shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. GBfan14:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent edits to William Shatner could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content, not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. This warning is talking about the edit summary left hereGBfan14:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Peter, I am an administrator on the English Wikipedia. I have protected the William Shatner article from editing for a short while to stop you edit warring in it. The alternative would be to block you from editing Wikipedia altogether. I should probably have done that, and will do if you continue. Please take this enforced break as an opportunity to read the links to our guidelines in the messages from other users above. In particular, all information in articles about living persons must be cited to a trusted source. We do not consider IMdB reliable for biographical information. SpinningSpark15:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am moving back here your post on my talk page. Other editors are watching this conversation so we need to keep the conversation together so they can follow it. I have this page watchlisted so there is no need to notify me when you reply. SpinningSpark16:25, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Spinningspark,
Your message, in particular "We do not consider IMdB reliable for biographical information," is confusing considering that I have - perhaps in a clumsy way - posted two articles: one from The Wall Street Journal and one from The Herald Tribune which confirm that I am the son of William Shatner.
I'm not referencing IMDB. And if you google me you will will find many other such articles which confirm this information.
Please let me know how I can be of further assistance to confirm these references.
Peter, I don't want to become involved in the dispute over whether this material belongs in Wikipedia or not. I am here solely to deal with your behaviour. So here a few points,
Edit warring is not permitted as an absolute here. It does not matter if you are in the right. Disagreements should be settled on the article talk page by consensus, not by who has the most stamina to keep on reverting.
Our biographies of living people policy (BLP) has become very strict due to numerous unpleasant attacks on people through the pages of Wikipedia. Inline citations within the article are required. The only citation you put in the article was the IMdB one and your last edit put in no citation at all. Asking others to google for the information or to look elsewhere is not sufficient. Your edits were quite rightly removed on BLP grounds alone.
Possibly, if you had put in the cites you have given above in the first place the material would have been accepted. Maybe, maybe not, as I say I am not going to get involved in the content dispute. However, now that you have been reverted by several different editors you have no choice at all but to discuss the issue on the talk page. It is unlikely that anyone will insert the edit you have requested until they can see consensus for it. All they can see at the moment is that you have been reverted half a dozen times.
You clearly have a conflict of interest in this article. As such, you should not be editing it even when it becomes unprotected. Please instead restrict yourself to suggestions on the talk page.
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistent edit-warring. It has been explained to you that edit warring is unacceptable, irrespective of whether your edits are "right" or not. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:22, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the issue of edit warring, it has also been clearly explained to you why the sources you have given are not adequate to support your edits. The need for reliable sources is especially important in this case, as it involves making unsubstantiated statements about another person. Furthermore, since you clearly have a personal involvement in the issue on which you have been editing, Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines indicate that you should not be making the edits yourself. You should instead explain on the article's talk page why you think the changes should be made, and what sources support them, and try to get consensus from other editors for the changes. You should make sure that the changes you propose do not go beyond what the sources you can provide actually say: for example, a reliable source which states who your father is may perhaps be considered be enough justification for inclusion of a mention of you in a Wikipedia article about him, but to include mention of who your mother is you need to provide a reliable source which states that she is your mother. These facts have substantially been explained to you before, but I am collecting them together and restating them for clarity, as you seem not to have fully taken them on board. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:23, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since writing the messages above, I have seen more information, including clear statements that the man you claim is your father categorically denies it, and as far as I can see the only evidence to support your claim is unsubstantiated statements that your mother made unsubstantiated statements that he was your father. That being so, unless you have very much better evidence than that, repeating the claim on any Wikipedia page (article, talk page, or any other page) will be a violation of Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons, and will be likely to lead to an indefinite block. In addition to that, it seems that your purpose here is not to contribute to the encyclopaedia, but rather to use the encyclopaedia to publicise your claims about your parentage. That is not the purpose of Wikipedia, and in itself could be sufficient grounds for an indefinite block. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
James B Watson is lying when he says that "William Shatner categorically denies that Peter Shatner is his son." William Shatner has NEVER denied that Peter Shatner is his son publicly or otherwise. James B. Watson is committing fraud. Since an article was published in The Tampa Tribune about Peter Shatner, William Shatner has never responded. The article states: Initially, the actor agreed he was the father, according to Sloan, but he later renounced the idea. “Mr. Shatner has 3 lovely daughters but NO son,” Shatner’s publicist Cherry Hepburn told the Tribune in an email. “This person has fraudulently portrayed himself as Mr. Shatner’s son for years.” Asked if Shatner knew Sloan’s mother, Hepburn replied, “Not that I am aware of.” The editors of the Tribune have stated in fact, since the publication, that William Shatner's silence is "DAMNING." I repeat: I challenge James B. Watson or anyone, to find a direct statement from William Shatner stating that he is not Peter Shatner's biological father. Until then, remove the block and undo the erasure of the information that has been posted about Peter Shatner since a committee posted it last August 2014.
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I have already presented the evidence. You have no more authority to deny the evidence which include several eye witness and numerous other articles that confirm that Peter Shatner is the son of William Shatner than any other speculator with no information. William Shatner has never denied this. James B. Watson tried to falsely quote William Shatner.Petershatner (talk) 18:50, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[2][3][4][5][6][7][reply]
Looking at all the sources you have provided here there is not enough there that says William Shatner is the father of Peter Sloan (stage name Peter Shatner). The first one you posted above is the one I find most interesting, it provides the whole story. There is enough there to question the validity of the claim and as such it should not be included in the article. -- GBfan 12:06 pm, Today (UTC−7)
Wikipedia does indeed have the authority to remove information that the community deems as in violation of WP:BLP policy. Please promote yourself elsewhere. OhNoitsJamieTalk19:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is clear that you have not grasped the points of Wikipedia's policies on reliable sources and on biographies of living persons, or the guideline on editing with a conflict of interest. I advise you that if you continue to edit in an area where you do not understand the relevant policies and guidelines then you run the risk of making mistakes which may lead to an indefinite block, so it might be better if you move on to editing another area of Wikipedia, if you are here to contribute to the encyclopaedia, rather than just to promote and publicise your claim to be William Shatner's son.
I certainly saw a source which said that William Shatner had denied that Peter Shatner was his son. If that source is wrong, and I was mistaken in accepting it at its face value, then I made a good faith error, and to represent what I did as "lying" and "fraud", as you have done, is absurd. Why not assume that I was acting in good faith, even if you think I was mistaken?
One of the sources that you have provided contains the following interesting statement: “I am William Shatner’s son,” said 58-year-old Peter Sloan, his legal name. “I wish my father would acknowledge me, but I cannot force him to.” That looks to me very much as though the person who calls himself "Peter Shatner" believes that William Shatner does not acknowledge the claim that "Peter Shatner" is his son. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You have no source that is a direct quote from my father, where he denies that I am his "biological" son. Up until the publishing of The Tampa Tribune article last Friday, no one from my father's camp had made any denial other that perhaps Erik Haman's parsing of the word Father. He told me in 2011, "You already have parents, you were adopted." this is just semantic gamesmanship.
My father accepted me as his son privately in 1984.
Here is the Legal Definition of Paternity on Wikipedia's own site:
In law, paternity is the legal or biological relationship between a child and his or her biological father. Paternity law deals with the rights and obligations of both the biological or natural father and the child to each other as well as to others. A child's paternity may be relevant in relation to issues of legitimacy, inheritance and rights to a putative father's title or surname, as well as the biological father's rights to custody and obligations for child support.
A child born to a married woman during a marriage is presumed under common law[1] to be the child of her husband by a "presumption of paternity" or presumption of legitimacy. In consideration of possibly misattributed paternity, these presumptions may be rebutted by evidence to the contrary, for example, in disputed child custody and child support cases during divorce, annulment or legal separation.
In the case of a father not married to a child's mother, a man may come forward and accept the paternity of the child in what is called a "voluntary acknowledgment of paternity", the mother or government can file a petition for a determination of paternity against a putative father, or paternity can be determined by the courts through estoppel over time. Today, when paternity is in dispute or doubt, paternity testing may be used to conclusively resolve the issue.
I was conceived by unwed parents. While I was being carried to term by my mother Kathy McNeil, my Father was marrying Gloria Rand in Scotland in August of 1956. I was born December 9, 1956.
I have rights to my father's surname according to Common Law and I have exercised that right. No one has sued me over this for the last 6 years that I have laid claim to the surname, "Shatner." In fact, Erik Hyman addresses me in his letter of 2011 as Peter Shatner - a presumption of acceptance.
As to rights to inheritance, Wikipedia states:
If the context of inheritance rights, it will be the heirs of the deceased person who are attempting to dispute or establish paternity. In some states, DNA testing will be dispositive to establish paternity.
I sincerely hope that you are not acting in some way as an "agent" of my father or his associates.
The question that this needs to come back to is, do you have a reliable source that says a Court or William Shatner has accepted you as his son? We will need that before your name can be added to the article. -- GBfan15:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Eagleash were:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Appears to be an autobiography (see that page for why this is discouraged) that does not meet the notability guidelines. Wikipedia requires in-depth coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources. Citations should be placed inline per WP:REFB. See this page for why an autobio is not always a good idea.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Petershatner/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to User:Petershatner/sandbox, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Hello, Petershatner!
Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Eagleash (talk) 11:45, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on User:Petershatner/sandbox, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. GPL93 (talk) 15:40, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
