User talk:68.179.175.185

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Howdy and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed your edits on the Earl of Stirling page. Per your comments on the talk page, please be aware that Wikipedia has a strict policy against legal threats, see WP:NLT. Thanks, --Hansnesse 09:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Howdy, I have gone ahead an moved the text you added to the article to the talk page, since it seems to be controversial. Feel free to discuss it there. Thanks, --Hansnesse 18:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • As is done for controversial edits, it is usually prefered to discuss the matter on the article talk page until the issue is resolved, and only then make the changes. I'm sure you can understand the need for material in an encyclopedia to be verified. For that reason, I'd prefer your information not be added to the article until it can be verified. By all means, however, continue discussion on the talk page until we can sort things out and reach consensus on what should be added. Thanks, --Hansnesse 01:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Please stop reverting the Earl of Stirling article. Further edits will be considered vandalism. See also three revert rule. Thanks, --Hansnesse 01:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Earl of Stirling, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Hansnesse 02:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Hansnesse 02:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Please take a look at WP:3RR, you have reverted that page way more than you're allowed to and if you do it again I'll have to give you a temp block. Rx StrangeLove 02:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked you for 24 hours as a result of your violation of WP:3RR. I also note that you made what looks to me like a legal threat and I would urge you to read WP:LEGAL which describes Wikipedias policy against making those thype of threats. After the block ends please use the talk page to work this out. Please let me know here if you have any questions. Thanks, Rx StrangeLove 03:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edits on the Earl of Stirling article

As a courtesy, I wanted to continue the discussion about the claims in the article. There are several causes for my concern about the material. First and formost is Verifiability: some of the claims, such as editorship at Burke's Peerage, or the reference to "The Current Earl of Stirling". The latter claim is especially contentious, since there now is evidence that claim is not recognized beyond its maker[1]. If such a claim is not recognized, Wikipedia should not be used to establish it, regardless of how strong you believe your legal claim to be to it. Such is a matter for the courts, and their decision is what will be recorded here.

This may seem quite abrupt. That someone, with no special knowledge of your life or affairs, would question your authority to write about them, and ask you to demonstrate their validity. It is for these reasons that, as much as possible, people are asked to refrain from writing about themselves or topics which they have significant attachments to. It is not set in stone, and certainly good edits can result from people working with an intimate connection with their topic, however it tends to be a bad idea.

I'd appreciate hearing your thoughts on the matter, here for the time being, and on the talk page when it is again available to you. Wikipedia operates on a consensus model, so discussion is highly valued. While those who have discussed the issue thus far seem to be opposed to inclusion, for the reasons I mention above, perhaps you can persuade them otherwise. Many thanks, --Hansnesse 04:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but I have spend many years defending my claims to the Earldom before the proper authorities, I have no intention of continuing discussions with people who are not experts on Scots Peerage Law and who seem more interested in playing games. I have extensive documentation and case law involved in my assumption of the dormant earldom. This is now a matter that is best left to the law courts. Stirling

Thanks for the note, and I'm sorry your experience on Wikipedia has not been more satisfactory. I agree, however, that the place to pursue your claims of title is in the courts. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if I can be of any help in the future. Thanks again, --Hansnesse 21:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Once again, sorry, the matter (referred to above) that is best left to the law courts is the matter of the false information that Wikipedia and certain individuals have placed on-line about me and my family's titles. Wikipedia's rules do NOT limit my rights in British, Canadian, and American courts and in other nations. I shall be very aggressive in defending my rights to the titles without interference by others and in defending myself from slander. Stirling

Thanks for the clarification. I am not principally concerned with laws, I am concerned with making a good encyclopedia. Perhaps the reason that people are so on edge about such things is folks using Wikipedia for nefarious purposes (for instance the Joshua Gardner incident). While of course it does not seem to be the case here, I'm sure you can understand why people are concerned with verification.
The stumbling blocks I have, and other users have expressed are several fold: first and foremost, we need to be able to independently verify what goes into an article; this means it should come from a published source. Court cases are fine, but as I noted earlier, I have had some difficulty locating the case. Any direction on the matter would be greatly appreciated.
The second concern is with regard to content of the page. It seems that the courts do not yet recognize that you are in fact the Earl of Stirling. As such, I am quite hesitant to put that you are in fact the Earl in the article. You have noted that I am not an expert in Peerage law; this is quite correct. That is precisely why I rely on the courts to determine the facts of the case. I do not make any substantive judgement on the matter, but rely on the opinion of sources like courts.
In any event, I would like to address any concerns you have, and am committed to making a better encyclopedia with your help. I am not sure preciesely where we differ in out views, but I would like to hear your views. Thanks, --Hansnesse 05:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply, I have moved your comment on my talk page to Talk:Earl_of_Stirling#Further_discussion, and posted a reply there. In the interest of involving other editors (this is a consensus process after all), I wanted to keep it in a more accessible spot. Thanks again for the note. --Hansnesse 01:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Stirling, I have not looked into the issues here and don't intend to unless someone really needs me to. However, we have a fairly strong policy against editors making legal threats, in fact we take them seriously enough to block editors that make them. So, please make every attempt to work this out with those you are having a disagreement with...you'll find that most people here are very reasonable and are more than willing to meet anyone halfway. But, we do need you to stop making legal threats here. I will not hesitate to block you again if you continue. You can read the policy over here: WP:LEGAL. Please let me know if you have any question or if I can do anything for you, thanks! Rx StrangeLove 20:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

---

Stirling, please reference this edit you made: [2] As I noted above we have a policy agianst editors making legal threats. I feel that I've made the point clear above.

I'm blocking you from editing for a couple days. Please, read over WP:LEGAL. Try to work out your issues on the talk page without making those kinds of threats....like I said, everyone is happy to discuss this. Rx StrangeLove 03:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Since you are restricted from editing elsewhere for the time being, I am happy to continue working here (we can add this to the discussion on the article talk page if necessary later). As I noted, what I am looking for is a published source which indicates that you are the Earl of Stirling. I can understand your frustration, but I hope too you can see mine and other editors' positions. What we see is someone claiming a title of nobility, with no evidence which we've been able to locate (and not without some searching) that such a title is recognized (and one source which claims it is not). I'm sure that if you were in our position, you would treat the claim with the same questioning and requests for evidence. Do you believe such information exists, and in what reference (published source) may I find it? For instance, the House of Lords, including Scottish seats, has a membership list. Is there a similar list where we might find backing for your claim? Thanks for your work, --Hansnesse 06:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, your lack of knowledge gets in the way of any meaningfull discussion. The House of Lords membership list does not include all Peers, including Scottish Peers, as most hereditary Peers are no longer members. You could have contacted the House of Lords and other official sources in the United Kingdom, as YOU HAVE AN OBLIGATION to confirm your slander/comments about me and the earldom. I shall include you in appropriate legal action. Stirling
As I noted earlier, I am not concerned with whatever legalities you have stated. I did note that you were not on the list of peers, however I did not intend to convey that the list was comprehensive. Is there a published source, giving the above list as an example, which lists you as a peer? That is the reference I am seeking. I say nothing of your claim other than I do not have information to verify it and one source which reputiates it. Are you, for instance, listed in Debrett's Peerage and Baronetage, or a similar volume? --Hansnesse 06:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

Blocked - legal or personal threat against another user
In view of your comments made to Hansnesse—namely "I shall include you in appropriate legal action"—you have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of one month, for posting what could be seen as a threat against another user on Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not tolerate such posting. Users who make threats, whether legal, personal, or work-related, that in any way are seen as an attempt to intimidate another user, are immediately blocked.

See Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:No legal threats for more information.

-- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Documentation

The point isn't documentation. The point is that wikipedia is not the place to put information that can't be verified from any public reference source. Get Burke's, or whoever, to include you and we'll add you in, but Wikipedia's job isn't to assess questionable peerage claims. john k 21:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Please see the list of Scottish Clan Chiefs at http://www.electricscotland.com/webclans/chiefs.htm which lists me as Earl of Stirling and Chief of Clan Alexander.