Talk:Stuart "Captain Calamity" Hill

Redirects

Given recent heated discussion on topics associated with this - specifically Forewick Holm and Crown Dependency of Forvik - I've reverted the recent unilateral redirect of this page until a consensus on the matter can be established - and if a consensus to merge is established, until data here that's not present in any related articles can be merged into those articles. --Gene_poole (talk) 01:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Stuart Hill, Crown Dependency of Forvik, Forewick Holm

I hope this is the right way to initiate a discussion - I've found it quite difficult to find a way to communicate with Wikipedia. If I am trangressing any protocol it is because I am simply unaware. My intention is to get into a reasoned discussion.

I do not make a habit of following what is said about me on Wikipedia and I have to say I was appalled at what I found on a recent visit.

I have tried to edit pages on the above subjects, but my edits have been generally removed. I would like to know why this is. Am I not allowed to edit material that refers to me or to what I'm doing?

The Stuart Hill page is full of press reports which are frequently inaccurate and all of which sensationalised a particular story. I have tried to put in what I thought were moderate comments intended to put a more balanced view, but they have been removed. My work on the Crown Dependency of Forvik is a serious attempt to investigate the constitutional status of Shetland that has been ongoing since 2002. My edits appear to have been removed simply because somebody does not agree with what I'm saying. This would seem to me to be biased. Basically I'm asking a simple question: 'When did Shetland become part of Scotland?' Nobody, from the Queen downwards is able to give me an answer. In the absence of an answer one is entitled to at least speculate that it never happened, in which case the whole of the authority of the UK government in Shetland may be open to question. This is no lightweight matter. Removing my edits on the unquestioned assuption that Shetland is part of Scotland, in other words blindly following the official line, indicates bias and almost censorship.

Regarding Forewick Holm, I have tried to insert a more complete explanation of the derivation of the name Forvik, supported by references, but that has been removed. May I ask why?

I'm putting four tildes at the end of this post as instructed, but have no idea whether this is in the correct format. Hilltrauts (talk) 16:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

"Regarding Forewick Holm, I have tried to insert a more complete explanation of the derivation of the name Forvik, supported by references, but that has been removed. May I ask why?" - erm, it's not accurate. First you self-referenced wikipedia (never reference wikipedia, it's notoriously unreliable ;) ) and secondly, it was to modern Faroese. If you want the origin of the name, Jakob Jakobsen or the like is a better source.

By the way, your edits were not removed because of censorship, they were removed because they're yet more self-promotion of a lone eccentric* - and I strongly suspect that you are Stuart Hill. If Shetland develops a proper homegrown movement of its own, as Cornwall has, then it might be taken more seriously. At the moment, Forvik consists of a non-Shetlander, living on an islet in a tent, trying to get himself in the papers. (He should try changing his name to "TV Listings" - that might work). There was once a Shetland Movement, which had good relations with the SNP, and I would take that far more seriously than attention seeking from a failed yachtsman.

I don't consider Shetland a proper part of Scotland. Nor do I consider Cornwall, Monmouthshire or Berwick upon Tweed to be English.--MacRusgail (talk) 16:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC) (* Not even a particularly interesting eccentric compared to some)

Of course I'm Stuart Hill - I didn't think I was trying to hide the fact. Does Wikipedia protocol prevent me from making edits to give a more balanced picture on material that refers to me? For instance, a lot of the newspaper reports on my voyage allege that I was ill-equipped and that the RNLI had made statements to that effect. In fact I found their representatives very supportive when making preparations for the journey, but that would not make compelling reading for a newspaper. Would a photograph of the RNLI gold sea-safety award be allowed as an edit by me?

A lot of this stuff was mildly irritating at the time, but I ignored it. It is of more concern that it is now the source of sensationalist information about me that I am not allowed to correct to give a more balanced picture. Are you saying that my edits were not true, or is it simply that I'm not allowed to edit the material myself?

Regarding Forvik - I'm afraid you are misinformed and your remarks reveal a personal bias. I do not live on it, still less in a tent. There is a habitable building on the island that I use when I'm there, but living on the island is not a prerequisite for what I'm doing. The object of the exercise was not self-publicity. Having thoroughly researched the subject of Shetland's constitutional position, it gave me an opportunity to take things a stage further by challenging various UK authorities to explain how they derive their authority and it concerns the whole of Shetland. The VAT, Income Tax, Council Tax, Planning, Police, DVLA and other authorities have all declined to engage with me (even after their threats of legal action), on matters for which any member of the public could expect to end up in court. The Queen, the Lord Chancellor, the First Minister and other top legal authorities have all failed to provide a satisfactory explanation as to how Shetland became part of Scotland. The correspondence is all on my website. This must surely indicate that there is some strength in my argument and carry more weight than a personal opinion.

As far as publicity is concerned, I'm sure you will agree that if I am trying to challenge the authorities in this way, it would be pointless if I did it in secret. The publicity I seek is not for myself - I would rather do without it. The publicity is to make people aware and maybe start to question the basis of the UK government's authority in Shetland. If that authority has no basis, they have a right to know.

You seem to equate strength of support with validity of argument. The two have no connection. If my edits are to be removed on the basis of popularity rather than strength of argument and detailed research (which is on my websites forvik and udallaw), then that IMO is censorship and personal bias which should not be tolerated. Hilltrauts (talk) 11:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

If you are Stuart Hill, then you're not really supposed to edit this. This may seem stupid, but them's the rules. See WP:COI (conflict of interest) for details. Wikipedia isn't a place for vanity articles. I personally think you already get more attention than you deserve - a sort of sub-Robbie the Pict character.

"The publicity I seek is not for myself" - Could have fooled me. As for the RNLI stuff, I am in complete sympathy with them. If someone undertakes a voyage, they should be at least competent. My father used to work on boats and never once had the kind of trouble you seem to have had.

"it would be pointless if I did it in secret." - then set up an organisation, a proper one, preferably consisting of Shetlanders, instead of selling dodgy products over the internet. Why didn't you join/revive the Shetland Movement for example? By the way, I'd also suggest that you'd have far more luck dealing with an independent Scottish government, than a South East England one dominated by people who are barely aware of the place.--MacRusgail (talk) 11:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

As I am Stuart Hill, I shall make this my last comment since I don't want to infringe the rules. Is there any other way I can get redress? Your comment about the RNLI above illustrates the problem. The Press reported the RNLI as saying I was ill equipped and incompetent (or some such) and yet they gave me great support and an award for the level of equipment on the boat. There is a basic inconsistency here. How can it be corrected? - Hilltrauts

Are there any third party references you can use to back this up? If so, post them on the talk page, and if they're credible/respectable, they can be put into the article. The WP:COI ("Conflict of Interest") is mainly to stop people using wikipedia for advertising, business, or certain political purposes (e.g. as a kind of election leaflet)--MacRusgail (talk) 15:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

You say: "I shall make this my last comment since I don't want to infringe the rules." I'm fairly sure that nothing in the rules prevents you from commenting on this talk page. -- ZScarpia (talk) 00:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for you helpful answer. I have a photograph of the (now rather faded after eight years in the open air) gold Sea Safe sticker awarded by the RNLI and still attached the the stern of the boat. Is that the sort of thing? Hilltrauts (talk) 17:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

A photo will probably do the trick. Can you also upload a decent one of Forewick Holm as well please? --MacRusgail (talk) 17:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Apparently I do not have permission to upload photos. However I do give permission to use any images on my website gallery at: http://www.forvik.com/index.php?option=com_phocagallery&view=category&id=1:public&Itemid=94 if that is any help. Each photo has a download button beside it. I'm not sure how to submit the RNLI sticker. Hilltrauts (talk) 21:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

"Captain Calamity"

I've said this before, and I'll say it again - "Captain Calamity" is a newspaper headline grabbing epithet that has not just been applied to Stuart;

• Elderly American 'Captain Calamity' sailors are rescued from their 'floating skip' for the NINTH time - after failing to tie up their yacht and Captain Calamity sailors rescued for SEVENTH time after getting stranded again refer to Bob Weise and Steve Shapiro (links to a different Steve Shapiro).

• Captain Calamity rescued at sea for 15th time and What shall we do with the sunken sailor? Captain Calamity capsizes for FIFTEENTH time refers to Glenn Crawley.

• Britain's Captain Calamity arrested after being rescued for a TENTH time as his yacht is grounded refer to Tim Freeman (links to a different Tim Freeman).

• 'Captain Calamity' sailor saved from drowning after ramshackle homemade raft disintegrates at sea refers to an "unnamed Dorset man, 33".

• Pictured: The bridge of the Costa Concordia where Captain Calamity tried to impress his lover as he ploughed ship into reef causing 32 deaths refer to the Costa Concordia captain, Francesco Schettino.

Note that Francesco Schettino is not suffered to wear this journalistic label.

No problem at all mentioning in any articles about these people that they get labelled in the press as "Captain Calamity" but as only two of them have articles, Stuart seemingly notable both for his Sovereign State of Forvik and sailing exploits having "Captain Calamity" seems utterly biased when Francesco seemingly notable only for the Concordia disaster, - who is the more the famous "Calamitous Captain" here? does he deserve it because he is obviously (to some at apparently) somewhat a bit silly or even a little insane, is that what justifies his article at the namespace title as given?

• • (Additionally) Note how Francesco Schettino's article has a section of how he was 'treated in the media; and it is there, and there alone, that it is noted as him having been given this title.--86.8.141.115 (talk) 22:22, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Inappropriate Character Defamation

Amateur writers questioning a man's sanity on a global web platform intended to publish factual information?

I have to say this page reflects very poorly on Wikipedia editors, the article is clearly defamatory and Stuart Hill's complaint sound. Rather than discussing Mr Hill's right to edit this article, Wikipedia editor's right to publish articles on a global encyclopedia describing a living man in this manner should be the point in question. Editors of Wikipedia are in no position to cast judgement on the sanity of the subjects of articles covering events they bear no relation to which are clearly written on the back of a series of light weight local news articles reporting on someone who is clearly an extremely unusual character. Once again, writers have no basis to cast aspersions as to the intention of Mr Hill's actions nor discredit them as being self promotional when they themselves are promoting un-grounded defamation against Mr Hill's character - Reading through this article, Stuart Hill's identity is clear and, as he states, he makes no attempt to conceal it, I however question the identity of the party editing this article due to their apparent interest in maintaining this article in its current state against Stuart Hill's wishes as no-one knows who Stuart Hill is apart from locals - I stumbled across this article and it stands out in the dismissive writing style worked through the accounts of Hill's notable activities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:DD15:7D01:D17C:14E:BF0B:675B (talk) 03:26, 21 March 2021 (UTC)