User talk:JohnPaulus

This page was nominated for deletion on July 1 2007. The result of the discussion was No Consensus.

License tagging for Image:John3.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:John3.JPG. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 03:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, JohnPaulus, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! -Will Beback · † · 21:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting sourced material

Please stop deleting sourced material from Wikipedia. If you are the subject please be read WP:AUTO and WP:BLP, both of which pertain. -Will Beback · † · 21:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow Wikipedia guidelines and policies, as they have been outlined to you here and on the "talk" page of the John Paulus entry. Thank you. -Jmh123 21:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Username

If you are the person named "John Paulus" please prove your identity in some fashion. I suggest placing a comment on your blog would be easy and verifiable. If you do not make some identification this account name will be blocked per our username policy, Wikipedia:Username policy, that forbids using names that could be misleading. -Will Beback · † · 21:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am John Paulus and please let me know how you wish for me to confirm my identity. --JohnPaulus 00:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR warning

You are in violation of the three revert rule on the entry John Paulus. You may be blocked if you continue to edit this entry. Please see this link for an explanation: Wikipedia:Three-revert_rule. -Jmh123 23:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand this rule now, but the sourcing is inaccurate and sourced through a blog.

--JohnPaulus 00:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Despite your claim to understanding, you have continued to edit the entry as you please. I have reported you for a 3RR violation. Continually editing the article to suit yourself is not the solution, and if you continue you will probably be banned for good. While you may be unhappy with the content of the article, several policies of Wikipedia have been provided to you in order that you might understand how Wikipedia handles situations of this nature. Please read them. The way to resolve this situation is via conversation with the other editors, not by dictating what will be. You simply may not dictate the content of the article, even if it is about yourself.

This contradicts Wikipedia's BLP policy; subjects are welcome to edit their article to remove unsourced or poorly sourced material. He certainly *can* dictate the content of the article in this case. Moreover, BLP removal is exempt from the 3RR rule. Ken Arromdee 05:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The words "in this case" are extremely important here. While the argument may apply to the material that Ken Arromdee has deleted, it does not apply to the other edits that Paulus made repeatedly, including deletes of the Enquirer's response to his apology as reported by the Scoop and the response section. It should also be noted that in his recent Wikipedia blog, Paulus encouraged his readers to come to Wikipedia and add more of his original allegations, as per his threat on this page at 01:36, 8 May 2007. -Jmh123 23:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not consider a blog to be a valid source, but I am curious, is this not your blog? Why have you not responded to Will's requests to confirm your identity via that blog? Why do you not consider your own blog to be a valid source? Do you not stand by what you have written there? We have been generous in allowing the final section (the de-retraction) to remain, even without any source independent of your blog. If the blog is not a valid source for the retraction, neither is it a valid source for the de-retraction.

A possible alternative for you to consider. Post a request in "John Paulus:talk" that the entire entry be removed from Wikipedia. I cannot guarantee that it will occur, but it is one solution. -Jmh123 00:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will be more than willing to place whatever information you require on my blog or you can email me for verification. You let me know. --JohnPaulus 01:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The place for you to dispute the content of the entry is in "talk" for the entry. As for verification of your identity, you can take that up with Will--that's his initiative. I will not e-mail you under any circumstances, nor will I continue this conversation with you here. -Jmh123 01:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you get the article removed very quickly. It's is biased and borders on libelous. In fact, I may have my attorney review it and see what actions need to be taken. I can assure you that it won't cost me a dime. The publicity this will garner for their firm will more than offset any cost incurred. Think I'm not serious? Obviously, you failed to have learned anything about me over the last 17 months. JohnPaulus 02:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL - you just do that. <rolleyes> —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.19.14.16 (talk) 02:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Your recent edits could give editors of Wikipedia the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that this is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a genuine dispute with the Community or its members, please use dispute resolution. Heimstern Läufer 03:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

I request that my biography be immediately removed from Wikipedia. For verification I can email you my picture ID. --JohnPaulus 01:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this article does not meet the requirements for notability and should be removed. 69.19.14.16 01:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that WillBeback asked for a statement in the JohnPaulus Blog as proof of identity. ANYONE can mail JPs picture ID. 69.19.14.16 01:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not anyone can email a copy of my drivers license, that my friend is a picture ID. Regardless I have posted a new blog verifying my identity. --JohnPaulus 01:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Paulus (2nd nomination). -Will Beback · † · 03:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Reminder

Any material you add to your own bio must be sourced. That is, you must cite a published source independent of your own testimony to that source, e.g. a published interview is not an independent source. "Editing a biography about yourself should only be done in clear-cut cases." "Avoiding such editing keeps Wikipedia neutral and helps avoid point-of-view-pushing." "It is difficult to write neutrally and objectively about oneself. You should let others do the writing." "Contributing material or making suggestions on the article's talk page is considered proper — let independent editors write it into the article itself." "Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it should be a secondary or tertiary source — it should not contain any 'new' information or theories (see Wikipedia:No original research) and all information should have checkable third-party references. Facts, retellings of events, and clarifications which you may wish to have added to an article about yourself must be verifiable by third parties." Wikipedia:Autobiography -Jmh123 23:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is sourced. It sourced in all the magazines that are mentioned. Former Army Ranger and Green Beret. Better read the sourced material again before you go deleting anything. --JohnPaulus 23:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with the current edit, but you are incorrect that it is "sourced". "Sourced" is when there's a little number by the edit that leads to a specific reference at the bottom of the page so that the reader can look up and verify this fact should he or she wish to do so. I do want to remind you that it is the job of an editor to create a citation to the source, and also that a published interview is not the best source of information about yourself, as you are not a third party. As stated above, in the case of your own Wikipedia entry, it is better to mention desired edits on the talk page, provide the citation for checking, and let another editor do the actual editing. As I said, I have no problem with the current edit and have no intention of deleting it, but it is the kind of thing that would normally be sourced as I believe that is unusual to be both a Green Beret and an Army Ranger at the same time. -Jmh123 23:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is "unusual" to be either a Green Beret or an Army Ranger, and certainly fair to ask for sources. That said, among the Special Forces it is not unheard-of to cross-train and/or transfer. I'm also reminded of the pseudo-controversy about Jesse Ventura's status as a SEAL (which he legitimately claimed, despite his Vietnam service unit having been designated "UDT" at the time; UDT and SEAL having been merged since then, both are retroactively called "SEAL"; and Ventura also did reserve service in a SEAL unit after Vietnam). -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 03:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And to clarify the issue of being "both a Green Beret and an Army Ranger at the same time" -- it appears SSGT Paulus trained and served as an Airborne Ranger first, then was accepted, trained, and served as a Green Beret. This counts as a career step upward. Paulus did not lose his Ranger qualifications by gaining Green Beret qualifications; both accomplishments remained on his record, even though he actually served in only one group at a time. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 04:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion/John Paulus

JP, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Paulus (2nd nomination)‎. The result was to delete the Wikipedia article. All decisions on this project are open to review, and should there be a change in notability an article may become justified again. The current trend is for the standards of the project to improve, making spurious articles less likely. Cheers, -Will Beback ·:· 09:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]