User talk:Beth Hart2020

February 2020[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Owen Mulligan has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Owen Mulligan was changed by Beth Hart2020 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.89783 on 2020-02-09T16:58:02+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 16:58, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You made a mistake. Beth Hart2020 (talk) 17:04, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add defamatory content, as you did at Owen Mulligan. S0091 (talk) 17:17, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is it defamatory? Beth Hart2020 (talk) 17:19, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is defamatory to publish content accusing someone of being a sociopath, cheat, liar, etc. Wikipedia has a strict biographies of living people policy. Please familiarize yourself with it. Adding this type of content simply will not be tolerated. S0091 (talk) 17:32, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Characterisation of living people is not defamatory. Beth Hart2020 (talk) 17:34, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask what your source is for this information? Information like that needs to be reliably sourced to be included on Wikipedia. LanHikari64 (talk) 17:35, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. A living person deeply affected by his behaviour. Maybe I should avoid sensationalism, but when he texts this person the same insults, it is only justifiable to gove a full account of his persona. Everything edited is the truth. Why should it not be shared? Beth Hart2020 (talk) 17:39, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but personal experience cannot be considered a reliable source. This is not saying what you are saying isn't true. It's saying that it has to be well-documented by a person with expertise in the given area. LanHikari64 (talk) 17:41, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Expertise comes from experience. And all content on his wiki page evolves from personal experience. Maybe I should just take the story to the irish world or similar. People must know about his vindictive character. There is nothing on his wiki page that states his abusive behaviour towards a doctor when he was caught drink driving. Those are viable facts. To.remove content simply because you don't like it is unacceptable. His whole page is a farce. Beth Hart2020 (talk) 17:45, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The problem isn't that people "don't like it". The problem is that if Wikipedia allowed everyone to go onto a page of someone that they either thought or knew something about and add said knowledge to said page, it would be full of anecdotes and biases. Wikipedia must be factual and neutral, otherwise what purpose does it serve? If someone didn't like you, thought or heard you had done something horrible, and you had an article, they might decide, "Gee, I really don't like that Beth person, I'm going to say she is a known cheat at poker", or something like that. You wouldn't want that to happen to you if it turned out to be false, would you? LanHikari64 (talk) 17:52, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

False representation is absolutely not the case here. Where is the information about his behaviour about his court case? That is factual information. The point I am writing is in support of this behaviour. It isn't anecdotal. Beth Hart2020 (talk) 17:56, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then why have you not added it to the article, properly sourced? Surely it was in the papers? The only things I see added in your edit are personal attacks. There was no mention of drunk driving or assaulting doctors. You called him "a sociopath who only thinks of himself." You called him "so weak that he has no mind of his own." You finish it off with "Vile human." These are not unbiased. LanHikari64 (talk) 18:00, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of articles. Beth Hart2020 (talk) 18:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where are they, then? You need to cite these things when you edit an article, and you CANNOT make unsourced claims about someone's mental health, or make childish insults about them. Wikipedia does not and will not tolerate that. LanHikari64 (talk) 18:05, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A judge in court has an opinion on the evidence presented to him. Correct? Judges are not short to formulate that opinion of a character and share it. If a judge calls a murderer a vile human, is that also considered unbiased based on the facts presented? Nothing can be completely neutral. Everything is judged in one capacity. His page is not wholly incorrect, but it is 100 per cent incomplete. Beth Hart2020 (talk) 18:06, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Beth Hart2020, LanHikari64 is being very kind in trying to explain Wikipedia policies to you but it appears you are simply not taking their guidance on board. Just because you do not agree with Wikipedia's policies and what LanHikari64 is telling you does not make them any less a fact. In a nutshell, unless you can cite sources, the content does not belong in the article. Period. S0091 (talk) 18:06, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, they were not insults nor childish. There is content on the page that describe him as charming. Superlative the facts of his career and performance on the field. Yet, when someone makes a case for his less glamorous side, it's defined as insulting. The whole thing is shrouded in hypocrisy. Beth Hart2020 (talk) 18:10, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the hair bit, right? I removed that. I don't know who added that. LanHikari64 (talk) 18:12, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi S0091, I am presenting my case kindly as well and accepting the policies of wiki. But you also must accept that you have now removed sections of his page because you do not want to damage is gleaming profile. I will 100 per cent cite sources. And articles will appear in Irish media based on this conversation. Beth Hart2020 (talk) 18:13, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly have know idea who this guy is. I just saw his page on the recent changes page. Not sure what you meant with "articles will appear in Irish media based on this conversation", though LanHikari64 (talk) 18:16, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The hair. The fact he is charming and a lovely person. I just do not understand the double-barrel policies. He has a personal life - he is now back with his on/off gf who isnthrbdaighter of a chairman at the gaa butbhad a long term affair with a woman based on lies. The poor girl was hoodwinked. He was and is abusive and vile towards her. His character is deceptive, aggressive and abusive which have been proven by testimonies from police forces and medical professionals. Beth Hart2020 (talk) 18:18, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the daughter of the gas chairman**

S00091 seems to know him. Beth Hart2020 (talk) 18:20, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had not even heard of this person and have no interest in them so please do not assume things. Both LanHikari64 and I are just trying to ensure Wikipedia's policies are followed. If you have independent reliable sources, then add them. Otherwise, it's time move on. S0091 (talk) 18:24, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LanHikari definitely sounds like he doesn't know him. But you? You definitely sound like you do to consistently remove my edits. I don't know why you would feel the need to uphold wiki policies itself if the content didn't affect you? I dont even know why or how you were alerted to it. Beth Hart2020 (talk) 18:28, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]