Talk:Fiona Mont

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Contents

[edit] Maintenance tags

Maintenance notices should not be removed from this article unless the required changes have been made. If you are uncertain whether the page requires further work, or if you disagree with the notice, please discuss these issues here on the talk page before removing the notice from the page. These notices and comments are needed to establish community consensus about the status of the page. Valrith 12:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Content

I am going to revert this article back to my last revision; the content that previously existed and that was readded after is mostly unsourced and unverifiable. If new content is added, it should be properly cite reliable sources. Valrith 17:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Explanation

Please elaborate which parts you feel are unsourced and why. I have already explained that she was not expelled and that all of the links are valid and that all content is true and factual. Please can you communicate in more detail rather than simply deleting my work and replacing it with a carbon copy of a Daily Mail article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.160.120.156 (talk • contribs) 21:12, October 29, 2006

Most of the changes seems to be from the first hand accounts of Graham Hesketh (which I assume is you) - Wikipedia is not interested in truth but verifiability. A reliable third-party source has to report something before it can be included. --Charlesknight 22:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I've placed most of my response on my user talk page, but in brief, the article text as written by Graham Hesketh is a heavily biased first-hand account of events (eg. original research). It provides information not available in reliable secondary sources and ignores or contradicts much of the information that is found in such reliable sources. Valrith 22:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fiona Mont

I was not expelled from school. Steve Skerrett was arrested for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and now runs a private detective agency called Giotto Investigations. As I am the living subject in this matter I am going to have to go to mediator on this. Fiona-Mont 16:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you able to provide evidence of these two claims? It would have to pass WP:V to be acceptable in the article. --Guinnog 16:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I am working on sourcing more reliable sites to quote. As far as school records are concerned they are not public to my knowledge, however I am going to apply for my school record and display it on my website along with other documents, do you know if that would qualify as a reliable source? By the way thank you to everyone who has tidied up the page it looks really good now. It is down to me now to find good sources which isn't easy. But thanks anyway.

I would think it would qualify. The only potential problem would be the "contentious" part of Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published and dubious sources in articles about themselves, but not necessarily. First, it's debatable that a school record would count as "self-published", since you didn't print it for the first time, you would just be scanning it in and re-printing it, and second, it's not clear how "contentious" a school record could be. It would also be strongly supported by teh equally important Wikipedia: Ignore all rules, since it would be adding an important, verifiable (in the sense that anyone could look at the scan on your site for themselves) fact to an article about a living person that we couldn't get any other way, contentious or not. I think posting it on your web site would be a good idea. AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree too. We would still likely want to include the expulsion claim referenced in the Guardian article, but if Fiona is able to provide that info, it shouldn't be too contentious for inclusion and we can provide both, with their sources, and let readers decide for themselves which to believe. --Guinnog 19:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Documents

Thank you for your posts. It's going to take some time to get these items. Some of the info I think is going to be hard to verify such as Skerrett's arrest. Only one newspaper reported on it and it is a tiny article in hard copy only, the paper have deleted it from their archive and no other papers reported on it. As far as allegations that the press made at the time I am in full support of the allegation that I was expelled etc because if I offer documentation to support what I'm saying then it shows how much they lied. Many official agencies have tried to distance themselves from my case as you can imagine. But the being expelled thing particularly sticks in my throat because it's rubbish. I went on to a state school and was removed from the school for three days in order to protect me from the national press as they wanted to do a story on my mother at the time, so I find that especially insulting as they now claim that it was because of my behaviour. Back in a few weeks when I've got something more conclusive. Again thanks for all the advice. Fiona-Mont 08:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good sources

I have just read this article Revealed caravan hideout of Fugitive - the Observer and it seems to strangely enough confirm some of my claims.

It states when I returned to Britain. That I was a law student. Graham worked as a labourer in Spain. That I did not set up the website, it was 'friends'. That we had been back in the uk for a year. That Skerrett and I had been in contact by text. That I called the police and they said they didn't want to talk to me. That Skerrett had left the police force (no elaboration on his arrest unfortunately). That most of the interest in the case went with him and that the police say there is no warrant for my arrest.

It does however say that we were living in a caravan in the UK which is not true, it's just too cold over here for that sort of thing. We were living in a boat which has been in other articles which I haven't found yet. Fiona-Mont 10:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Good research, that's very interesting. I'll try to use some of it in the article. --Guinnog 11:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Have now found it How I caught the Cat - Daily Mail I found it in the history of editing on this page. Someone had deleted it. Anyway it contains evidence of the following:

We were living in a boat, again that I was a law student, that Graham had a flying school, that we moved to Portugal after I was released from Spain and that I was working in a pub. It includes a face to face showdown between me and the Daily Mail.

It would appear that a lot of what was on the original edit is available in third party source which was provided before subsequent edits.

[edit] Personal input

By the way just from a personal point of view, not that I like the Daily Mail, the Katherine Knight - How I caught the Cat, is my favourite. She got some things wrong but she's the only journalist with the balls to come up and talk to me face to face and I liked her. Fiona-Mont 11:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation request

A request for mediation has been filed here. I am not the official mediator, but I will try to help.

First, please be sure to read WP:AUTO, which discourages editors from editing material which they are personally connected to. This is not to say User:Graham-hesketh and User:Fiona-Mont are absolutely forbidden from editing this article, but I would suggest they limit their activities to presenting reliable sources for the information they wish to put in the article. I believe that if those reliable sources are found, all editors concerned will agree to include them.

It appears that this process is already underway, in which case no further mediation may be required. I will keep an eye on this page and make further comments if necessary. --Ideogram 11:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, yes you are absolutely right and we fully agree not to edit this page in any way and only to leave comments on the talk page. I think it would be a good idea if you wouldn't mind monitoring. Fiona-Mont 17:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Does this case still need mediation or can I close it? --Ideogram 09:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Third Party sources

Can anybody tell me if this link qualifies as reliable third party sources please [1] It relates to a claim made against the Daily Mail for a photograph that they printed which was not theirs to print Fiona-Mont 14:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, sorry the link isn't a reliable source, because it's self published. Addhoc 15:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi thanks for the quick response. I know the web page is self published but the documents on it aren't. They are the kind of things not available for public consumption on the internet because of their very nature. Realise this is all highly contentious, welcome any advice and of course limiting my comments to talk only. Fiona-Mont 18:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Generally Wikipedia considers reliable sources to be those available to the public, though not necessarily on the internet, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books and scholarly journals. I'm afraid the documents you refer to here probably would not qualify. --Ideogram 03:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] School records

I now have my school records from St.Mary's Hall.http://www.freewebs.com/lifeontherun/fionasschoolrecords.htm as it was some years ago they do not have that much info on me. However the school secretary discovered from the archives that there is conclusively no record of me having been expelled. He also concludes that if I had have been there would be a record of it and there isn't. The statements made in the press that I was expelled are highly libellous. I don't have the money to sue them but I do have the right to point out to people that it is a lie. I have no objection to references that the newspapers said it in the first place all I am asking is that the readers of wikipedia be given the chance to view documents not authored by me and make up their own minds. At the very least a few words next to the claim stating that I dispute it entirely or that I claim it is untrue or that the school claim it is untrue. It's driving me mad that the same lies keep getting repeated without any chance of a defence.

I also have this link to prove that Steve Skerrett was suspended and arrested http://www.freewebs.com/lifeontherun/steveskerrettpage.htm, again this is not available on the internet but it is in hard copy and I am not the author of this article either. In fact I am not the author of any documents scanned in and displayed on my website. It is not defamatory of me to say that he was arrested as was suggested by one editor because it is true and it is a fact. Fiona-Mont

Thanks for explaining this. Hopefully, we can reword the article to avoid concerns relating to libellous comments. Addhoc 14:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. The link for school records is now School Records and the link for Steve Skerrett documents is now [2]. Thanks for taking my comments on board. Fiona-Mont

Well done both of you. It looks much better now and is more factual. --Guinnog 17:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I'll close the mediation case, if the dispute is resolved... Addhoc 23:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Can someone please have a look at this

http://www.theargus.co.uk/display.var.1765827.0.detectives_chat_with_the_cat.php it is an article published in hard copy and on the internet, wikifiable. It would be really helpful if someone could ammend the fact that Sussex Police still have an open file, the article clearly states that the case is closed among other things. Thank you, Fiona. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.60.70 (talk) 19:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)