Hello,
I received your e-mail. However, the nature of your message is perfectly acceptable for communicating on a talk page, since it was nothing confidential and this may need discussion by other editors.
As I said in my post, I was entirely unfamiliar with Mr. Shortt prior to discovering his article during my research and cleaning I did in my creation of the military imposter article. It remains my contention that Mr. Shortt should probably not have an article at all, as he is not really famous or infamous (a requirement for any biographical article) and the article's creation and maintenance appear to be almost entirely intended as defamatory both directly and by implication, likely the work of his detractors, which is also prohibited by policy. So far, the talk page for this article has failed to address this to my liking.
I'm something of an impartial actor on the matter since I am neither a member of any military nor a fan/associate of his. He's is merely a stranger to me, so I have no strong emotional reaction. My concern is if I nominate the article for deletion, that the response will be entirely composed of ex-military editors with an ax to grind. I don't care whether he is a liar or not, that's an abuse of the process and of this website.
Regarding sources, I'm afraid pictures of cards or documents of any kind that any user possesses are usually worthless because they can't be authenticated. Sources must be posted online somewhere that they can be verified and must be from a reliable and sufficiently authoritative website.Legitimus (talk) 01:14, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happy for the page to be deleted too, but as you say, his detractors would just post something else. SterlingSpots (talk) 12:40, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I would not say they will post something else on Wikipedia, as there are measures in place that would prevent that. On a positive not, another user has nominated the article for deletion, which is being discussed here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_Shortt, and they seem to agree with our points. You are welcome to add your vote and commentary.Legitimus (talk) 13:57, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your assistance. I will add my vote for deletion too. SterlingSpots (talk) 01:56, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do not add personal information about other contributors to Wikipedia. Wikipedia operates on the principle that every contributor has the right to remain completely anonymous. Posting personal information about a user is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's harassment policy. Wikipedia policy on this issue is strictly enforced and your edits have been reverted and/or suppressed, not least because such information can appear on web searches. Wikipedia's privacy policy is to protect the privacy of every user, including you. Persistently adding personal information about other contributors may result in you being blocked from editing. Mike V • Talk 02:53, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- This does not seem to be a problem for the people that posted the biography about Mr. Shortt. Why are their posts still up? Everytime I try and remove the negative remarks, they are put right back up. So obviously, the rules are selectively enforced. The bio needs come down now. One administrator tried to do it and the members of ARRSE defeated it.
Isn't it against policy to use a fake IP and identity?
Your own policy:
Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page.[1] Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies:
Neutral point of view (NPOV)
Verifiability (V)
No original research (NOR)
We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[2] Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing.
Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.[3] The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material.
What a joke that is.
SterlingSpots (talk) 11:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Please do not make accusations about other editors. I note that your edit at BLP/N included material that was bad enough for it to be wiped from Wikipedia's servers - something that is fairly bad. I'm fairly tempted to block you for this, given that you have automatically assumed the worst from the other editors that voted to keep the article. Right now what you should do is try to calmly discuss things on the talk page or on BLP/N. Accusing other editors of being part of an anti-Shortt agenda is not acceptable and is seen as an WP:ADHOMINEM attack. Continuing on in this manner runs the risk of you getting blocked from editing. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:57, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tokyogirl79
I think trying to get a biography that was posted in 2009 by a group that has a grudge against Mr. Shortt should be evidence enough that there are many editors that are part of that group and that are preventing it being taken down. Mr. Shortt is not a person of note, so according to your rule for BLP does not meet the requirement for it to have been posted in the first place. Secondly, the page is not of a neutral tone, again completely against the rules for BLP. Third, no valid sources for the negative content. The Sun and the Phoenix are the English equivalent to the National Enquirer in the US. Do you take anything published in the National Enquirer as serious news? No I know does. All three are just gossip rags. Go read some of their articles for yourself. The articles are written by people that do not give their real names, that is always a tip. So, perhaps you can understand my frustration a bit better now. The bio needs to come down.
SterlingSpots (talk) 12:24, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You really need to learn more about what reliable sources are and are not. I still contend this article isn't notable enough to still be here, but you can't insert any information from your personal experience. It's not proof and it hurts your position to claim it to be so.
You also need to face some unfortunate facts: Shortt told people he was SAS (provable by books), wore an SAS uniform (photographed), and wasn't SAS (government records). It's not like claiming you shagged someone when you didn't; there's hard evidence and records about it.Legitimus (talk) 01:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- We are in the process of publishing a book currently. Perhaps that will prove reliable enough to get this page down. SterlingSpots
- How? The matter of his Irish titles isn't part of the article anymore. The only thing left is his claims of military service. Unless the book contains verified documents from the Ministry of Defence that contradict the Sun and Daily Mail articles, I don't see how it will help.Legitimus (talk) 15:58, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello SterlingSpots, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your additions to Sylvia Allen have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.
- You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
- Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
- Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
- If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
- In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
- Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.
It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Moneytrees🏝️Talk🌴Help out at CCI! 16:04, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
