Talk:David Paulides/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

David Paulides

marikotambin~~ How is it possible for a wikipedia page to be composed entirely of falsehoods, broken links, information that is untrue and out of date? People are referred to who can't be found. As soon as someone, me, tries to update the article and give credible citations that don't lead to null exceptions the corrections disappear. The information in this wikipedia entry is so bad that the subject/victim would literally have cause to bring a lawsuit claiming slander and libel due to lost income directly stemming from the falsehoods on this page. What happened to wikipedia's interest in maintaining credibility and integrity. I was told of a senior editor who quit wikipedia when he was unable to get past all the road block to make corrections to the mistakes on the page. The links that do work lead to sites like a facebook chat section. An article is cited that is over thirty years old where the author speculates instead of sticking to facts, and who cannot be found where the article claims they are staff. Years have gone by and the page is still corrupt without anyone being able to fix even the smallest thing. The article is written by people who specialize in cancellation and "debunking." Among the many other flaws, these writers have plastered words like "paranormal" and "conspiracy theory" over the article. There is absolutely nothing in the project that is remotely "paranormal." The author's theories and conclusions are constantly referred to even though the author's work never gives any theories or conclusions. This author, over the course of ten books, two feature length documentaries, podcasts, and lectures given at hundreds of conferences has never claimed to have any theory whatsoever. He never suggests that there's a conspiracy. No speculation as to cause or culprit can be found anywhere in the work of those on the project, yet here's all kinds of talk about conspiracies and theories. Those who claim to have "thoroughly analyzed" can't possibly have investigated even one page of the content of the project because they make statements clearly ignorant of the most basic purpose of the project, which has been repeated all throughout the works. You can't help but trip over the basics of the projects, yet none of the writers of this page know about them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marikotambini (talk • contribs) 22:37, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

So much to unpack here. You are using words that disparage Wikipedia and it's editors. You mention one case of some unnamed Wikipedian who quit for reasons you seem to be aware of concerning this page. Wikipedia editors can't add their opinion to the article, we have to follow the citations. You say you are trying to update the article and say you understand the rules, yet you don't know to sign your comment correctly? You seem to be an expert on Paulides, you have reviewed his ten books, two feature length documentaries, podcasts and lectures given at hundreds of conferences, so I think you might need to state your conflict of interest. I'm not sure you really do understand how a Wikipedia page is built and maintained. Veiled threats against editors "The information in this wikipedia entry is so bad that the subject/victim would literally have cause to bring a lawsuit claiming slander and libel due to lost income directly stemming from the falsehoods on this page." isn't helping. You must be SPECIFIC about what needs to be changed and giving editors something to work with would be really helpful. What link is broken is a great place to start? Sgerbic (talk) 22:49, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand why Wikipedia is so adamant in attacking David Paulides? Wikipedia you can do a whole lot better!!! MagnummSerpentinee (talk) 02:09, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Not while staying true to the rules, especially WP:RS. If reliable sources do not think much of the guy, we cannot just replace their viewpoint by yours. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:07, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

My viewpoint?

I beg your pardon.

I do not have a viewpoint except that all people no matter who or what they are should be treated fairly and equally. MagnummSerpentinee (talk) 21:37, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

It does not matter what your viewpoint is. We will not replace the viewpoint of reliable sources by it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 22:26, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Give a person a chance to cite some sources, Susan! You were so quick to remove my entries that I had to go back and redo them. Look, I can understand mistakes and out of date information on a page, but I don't understand why changes made that improve and update the article are instantly removed. I also think that this material, which deals with so much death, so many people's profound pain, should be handled with a little more compassion than I see here. That is my opinion so I have no citation for it. You're right. I don't know a lot about creating content here. There is a lot to learn, and I'm working on it. If that disqualifies my contribution, I understand. I don't know what you mean by conflict of interest. I don't know David Paulides, his relatives, friends, or aquaintances. I live five states away from where he lives. I've never met him, had any communication with him, and don't know him from any employment. I don't know him at all.

Below is what I think the opening statement should look like:

David Paulides, a former police officer involved in detective work, SWAT, and street crime, who is also a father who has dealt with grief following the death of his son brings unique skills and life experience to the project he created eleven years ago. The Missing 411 is an inquiry into the deaths of thousands of people, most of whom went missing from public parks and wilderness areas of North America 11:00 David Paulides' writing on the subject has yielded 10 books and two feature length documentaries about victims whose highly unusual cases (season 9 episode 8) fit certain highly discriminating criteria. Only factual evidence of certain missing person cases that share a specific set of characteristics are able to be included. 40:31 Marikotambini (talk) 23:39, 21 June 2022 (UTC)marikotambini

References

I didn't remove any of your citations. You can check the history of the page to learn the history of the edits. About giving you a chance to add the citation, no one here can read minds (to my knowledge) so we can't tell if you are going to spend minutes or weeks to find a citation. You lead with the citation, don't add content until you have the citation and don't hit publish until you have it all written out, there is no race. Better yet, use your sandbox. That is a work area for you to play with the changes you want to make before adding it to the page or discussing it here on talk.

Let's talk about this lede that you have written. The lede is written LAST. It just is a summation of the body. So unless the body of the article contains this content, you can't add it to the lede. "A father that has dealt with grief" What?? That isn't in the body of the article nor is the death of his son. The lead is explaining why Paulides is notable enough to have a Wikipedia page, so are you saying that his son's death is the main reason he has a Wikipedia page? No, this isn't okay for a lead.

"Brings unique skills and life experience" What the heck? Are you writing his resume? You don't get it, you have to write neutral not as a fan. That whole sentence is just one big piece of advertisement. Please reread that. What is that 11:00 doing there and the 40:31? Are you trying to use a YouTube video as evidence?

Look Marikotambini - Wikipedia is NOT a personal website. It is an encyclopedia. What you are attempting to write is a fan page, you might not know Paulides personally, but it is becoming clearer that you have a fans bias. That isn't always a problem, but when someone who does not understand how to edit Wikipedia attempts to learn how to edit by editing one page specifically, that sends up red flags to the rest of the editors. I respectfully suggest that you discontinue trying to edit the Paulides Wikipedia until you understand the nuances of being a Wikipedia editor. There are thousands of Wikipedia pages that would love to have you edit them, start with small things like grammar, spelling, adding photos and making paragraphs easier to read. THEN move up to adding hyperlinks, citations and so on. You will learn to make changes that will remain when you add them in. We all started out as beginners and had to suffer though the beginning stages of thinking we knew what we were doing only to have large chunks of our work deleted. At this moment you don't seem to know what you don't know yet. So slow down and learn to edit slowly, trust me, Wikipedia isn't going anywhere and there will be plenty to do always. Sgerbic (talk) 01:26, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Susan, I thank you for your guidance. I'm going to take your advice and wait until I'm more familiar with wikipedia editing. Again, thank you for taking time to give me some excellent information. marikotambiniMarikotambini (talk) 17:48, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Please tag me in the future if you need assistance. Do start small, grammar, spelling and so on. Learn what your sandbox is and how to use it. Explore all the links around the outside of the article esp the history tab and explore all those links. Wikipedia editing isn't intuitive for lots of people (including myself) just the coding can be nuts, then understanding the nuances of what can be added and what words to be used. There isn't really any training, people just assume it is like commenting on social media, and it is not. So start with a page that brings you joy and start small working and learning until someday you will be giving advice to newer editors. One of the first things you might do is to create your personal user page so your name Marikotambini does not come up with red font (another red flag with editors) this signals that you aren't planning on hanging around Wikipedia and are not interested in talking. Try out the Wikipedia Adventure Game, it's a bit cutsie but actually will lead you to create your user page. Enjoy the process of learning. Sgerbic (talk) 18:11, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I just wanted to thank all the editors here. All of you are an amazing force, and I learned an incredible, unimaginable amount of great positive stuff from each individual here, so thank you MikiBishop (talk) 22:33, 18 July 2022 (UTC)