User talk:Rabinid

Welcome!

Hello, Rabinid, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Kukini 06:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:JPBM.jpg[edit]

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:JPBM.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. feydey 23:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I've now reuploaded the image with the sourceable info attached. I believe the image besides being used in a promotional context on Paulus Bigmuscle.com profile, is fair use as it has been used by the news media reporting on the scandal (the Enquirer, etc). --Rabinid 05:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paulus[edit]

Role accounts which are not abused as sock puppets are allowed on Wikipedia. However using one means that you leave your reputation for good (or bad) edits behind. All I see is an editor concerned with adding a single assertion to the project. Though I have an initial assumption of good faith, edit warring that doesn't seek consensus erodes that assumption. As for this specific matter, it's basically a rumor. We already mention that there are rumors so unless one of those rumors turns to fact it does not seem encyclopedic to get into details. An interview on the Howard Stern show is not a reliable source. I've already commented that I personally find the details of the story to be preposterous, but my opinion is just one of many. Let me say finally that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. We don't have to scoop anyone. It is fine for us to be the last to report the story. If there is any truth to it then time will tell. Stay cool. Cheers, -Will Beback 09:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your comments and I'm not seeking an edit-war or avoiding consensus. You'll see, I did not attempt inclusion of a link to this info on the Clay Aiken page. I didn't even want to attempt opening that can of worms. I could forsee a time when that may be appropriate though. However, I did add a reference to sex scandal as I believe it qualifies and there are enough sourcable cites that it arises above "rumour". It is factual there is a guy out there. He has made the claims. He continues to make the claims. Not just in one Howard Sten Interview, but throughout multiple sourcable media. All independent of one another. Again, I'm not seeking an edit war. Based on her actions, I believe a certain editor has made it her quest to rid Wikipedia or spin POV any information she percieves as disparaging to Aiken. That is wrong on the face of it. Again, I'm not avoiding consenus and have efforted to keep the topic NPOV and just explain the facts of the topic. I would urge you to double check my work. --Rabinid 20:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some editor, using IP 67.183.15.135, added the material repeatedly to Clay Aiken over the objections of other editors. Hearing a rumour from multiple sources does not turn it into a fact, and in this instance it all comes from one source, Paulus. I don't see how it is a scandal either. -Will Beback 21:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have specifically avoided adding anything to Clay Aiken and always sign my contributions. However the published prevelance and continued existence of the allegations are fact and so I am not surprised that others may attempt an edit, though I highly doubt they have any idea what they are in for. I note, in the other cited examples on the sex scandal page that there are other instances of where the originating info in those scandals also only came from one source. Clarence Thomas for example. All the info related to those allegations came from one source Anita Hill. Similar with John E. Brownlee or Uno Sosuke. You may not think this qualifies as a scandal, but read the intro paragraph for sex scandal: "A sex scandal is a scandal in which a public figure becomes embroiled in a situation where embarrassing sexual activities (or allegations of them) are publicized. These often involve adultery or some other form of affair." If that doesn't define this situation, what does? --Rabinid 22:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded on my own user talk page. -Will Beback 23:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have never hidden the fact that I am Aiken's fan. I have no objection to legitimate material from reliable sources appearing in the Aiken article. I have, however, twice become involved when there was an attempt to use Wikipedia to attain a goal, once by the members of a message board called Openly Clay, and now, by Billy Masters/Perez Hilton/Richard Johnson/John Paulus/Michael Lucas. Paulus' allegations are quite recent, and, for many reasons, not believeable. Your interest in getting these allegations into this encyclopedia does not come off as neutral. -Jmh123 15:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to get the material into Wikipedia as much as I'm taking a stand against fan editors trying to control content (and I might add I have no love for conspiracy theorists either). There are far too many of those on Wikipedia and it does a disservice to all. --Rabinid 19:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for backing me up with the Paulus stuff, though I guess to be fair it was your domain first and I'm just supporting. :P I passed it on for informal mediation now because I don't see any of the "Claymates" doing anything but hiding the story and calling it compromise. Until the mediator picks it up I'm staying out cos I've given this more time than it's worth already. For what it's worth I won't accept a compromise of anything that doesn't include John Paulus' name. Good luck! - mixvio 06:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Arbitration[edit]

I've filed a request for arbitration regarding the Paulus issue here. If it is accepted by the admins you can present your side of the dispute there. - mixvio 01:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Paulus[edit]

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article John Paulus, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Will Beback · † · 06:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]