User talk:Culabula22

July 2022

Hello, I'm PaulKeeperson. I noticed that you removed topically-relevant content from Éamonn Ó Catháin. However, Wikipedia is not censored. Please do not remove or censor information that directly relates to the subject of the article. If the content in question involves images, you have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide images that you may find offensive. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. PaulKeeperson (talk) 22:38, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am Éamonn Ó Catháin. I do not know who created this page which I would like deleted entirely. But I strenuously object to its original creation, the nonsense that was published about me followed by a more recent edit which has revealed details about the murder of members of my family. Whoever did this knows me or about me well but that does not give them the right to invade my privacy like this. I have removed this information whose publication is offensive to me without my permission.

i repeated, I would like this page deleted entirely Culabula22 (talk) 22:43, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Éamonn Ó Catháin. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. PaulKeeperson (talk) 22:45, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you are in fact him, you do not have the right to delete it, and you should avoid editing that article altogether, as you have a Conflict of interest with the page. 47.227.95.73 (talk) 22:48, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it NOW ! Culabula22 (talk) 22:51, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I understand your concern, but you should know that Wikipedia is built on consensus, so removing information is not always as simple as deleting the selected text. 47.227.95.73 is correct about the conflict of interest – you should not edit the article directly (except to remove serious defamation, for which I'm not sure this qualifies). However, you are allowed to discuss the article on its talk page. I think you are correct that not all of those details need to be in the article, so I have started a discussion on the talk page about it, and you are welcome to contribute there. Keep in mind, though, that editors on Wikipedia are volunteers; we are willing to help, but it will be easier to help you if you are willing to collaborate with us. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Best, Perfect4th (talk) 23:17, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to let you know that I've removed some information from the article after a discussion on the talk page. Happy editing, Perfect4th (talk) 23:53, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I’m glad to see some sense has prevailed. Just who are these faceless people who create such material ? The original contributor ‘informed’ me by Twitter that he’d created the page, but refused to engage, say why, explain him or herself or indeed to identify themselves. I see in ‘history’ that they were also looking for details of my age, spouse, children and so on - how can this be right ?

As it is the opening paragraph is factually incorrect. There is some basis to it but it is inaccurate. Culabula22 (talk) 08:57, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article was created in 2010 based on the revision history, so it's unlikely the person who contacted you was correct about that if it was recent.
However, your most recent edit doesn't really follow Wikipedia's guidelines. Because you are the subject of the article, you should not edit it. WP:COI explains the conflict of interest guidelines. Basically, it's hard to keep to Wikipedia's core policies of neutrality and verifiability if you're editing as the subject. Writing neutrally about yourself is difficult, and beggar you know things about yourself that others do not, it's a lot easier to write content without sourcing it. I know this sounds crazy, but Wikipedia cannot accept you directly as a source for the information you add. There's a reason for this – to help prevent someone else making an account at some point in time claiming to be you and making up things that they thought should be in the article, for instance – but Wikipedia writes what other reliable sources say about you, not what you say yourself. Perfect4th (talk) 12:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The person who created it contacted me by public tweet over ten years ago announcing that he had created this page. It wasn’t recent. The phrasing seemed to indicate that I should be grateful. I asked who he was and why but there was never any reply. I had my suspicions as to who it was but that person denied it.

Now you’re telling me that I can’t edit my own entry; that DOES sound crazy since it would seem to say that while I can’t be neutral, anyone else can put up nonsense about me ? The original page had exaggerated balderdash about me and mobile phones. It was I who edited that a few years ago but there was no palaver in its wake as there is now and my edits have remained in situ.

My latest edit seems to me to be neutral, modest and 100% accurate

The latest fiction looked as though I lost a French girlfriend in the troubles back in the 70s; while I did lose a brother, there was no such girlfriend. You use the words ‘reliable sources’ - whoever is editing this and adding this codswallop is anything but reliable.

I know I have a right to privacy - why is this being ignored ?

Éamonn Culabula22 (talk) 13:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has a special policy for biographies of living people specifying that all information "challenged or likely to be challenged" should be cited with a reliable source (RS). The aim is to ensure that no one can put up nonsense about anyone – the hope is to get the article right. However, there are a massive amount of articles on Wikipedia, and it's not really possible to keep track of all of them, especially lower-traffic articles, thus more questionable edits are not always noticed. The BLP (biographies of living people) policy is intended to help protect privacy; the article as it stands has only one source, so it might be possible to make a case that there isn't notability and the article might be deleted. I'm not too familiar with the process(es) for that yet, though, so I've asked another editor for input on notability/deletion. Perfect4th (talk) 22:40, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The editor I asked said (here) that deletion of the article might be possible through the Articles for Deletion process. This would be a seven-day long community discussion about whether or not the article should be in Wikipedia. I've not started a deletion discussion before, so it will probably take me a little while to read through the relevant pages and necessary sourcing before starting the discussion. Perfect4th (talk) 13:30, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Culabula22, please accept our apologies for any inconvenience this situation may have caused you. Perfect4th did his best to help guide you through the process, and sought my help in an effort to expedite the process. I have reviewed the article's history, content, and lack of multiple independent reliable sources that are needed to establish notability per WP:GNG. I thought it best to let the WP community decide to either keep or delete the article, and included the diffs containing your request for deletion in my WP:AfD nomination. Thank you for your patience and understanding. Atsme 💬 📧 21:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I appreciate what Perfect4th did and I further appreciated your comments to me. Many thanks. 80.1.35.169 (talk) 09:25, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]