Talk:David Paulides: Difference between revisions

Police background inaccurate

David Paulides was charged with false solicitation in 1996, which caused him to be removed from the force in 1997. His “retirement” in 2011 was really when he was granted his pension after years of suing the city of San Jose. Do the math - as written it doesn’t add up. He was also never a detective as it states in first paragraph. Able Cunningham (talk) 02:47, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

You may be correct - but that is not how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia editors are not allowed to "do the math" we can only use what is published in reliable sources. We are not allowed to do research. So if this is accurate then we will need some sources. What ya got? Sgerbic (talk) 05:20, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

San Jose Mercury News, December 21, 1996 - S.J. OFFICER ACCUSED OF FALSE SOLICITATION AUTOGRAPHS: A FORCE VETERAN ALLEGEDLY USED CITY STATIONERY TO ASK FOR MEMORABILIA.

^ This is only available through their archive but I paid the fee and have it available to email someone.

https://transparentcalifornia.com/pensions/san-jose-police-and-fire-retirement-plan/?page=33&e=&s=-retirement_year&amp= This shows his annual pension - certainly not a detective's pension.

https://portal.scscourt.org/case/NzM3ODQ0 1997-1-CV-764789 PAULIDES -VS-CITY OF SAN JOSE - a history of his court battles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Able Cunningham (talk • contribs) 12:59, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Here is the full text of the article I referenced above.

December 21, 1996 S.J. OFFICER ACCUSED OF FALSE SOLICITATION AUTOGRAPHS: A FORCE VETERAN ALLEGEDLY USED CITY STATIONERY TO ASK FOR MEMORABILIA. Author: SANDRA GONZALES, Mercury News Staff Writer Edition: Morning Final Section: Local Page: 1B Index Terms: ARREST SAN-JOSE POLICE MAN CELEBRITY COLLECTIBLE FRAUD SUSPECT Estimated printed pages: 2 Article Text: When a veteran San Jose police officer began soliciting celebrity autographs on city stationery, he wound up with more than just a friendly letter from singer Lionel Richie to hang on his wall. He also got an arrest warrant last week charging him with a misdemeanor count of falsely soliciting for charity - a crime for which he could face a year in jail. Officer David Paul Paulides, 40, aroused suspicions after he was seen using city stationery on the department's computer printers. Paulides also sent and received large quantities of unofficial mail at the department, police reports say. None of those activities fell within his duties as a court liaison officer, prompting an internal investigation that began last September. He's an autograph hound, said Assistant District Attorney Karyn Sinunu, who filed the complaint last week in Municipal Court. It was a stupid thing to do - to spend your time enhancing your personal collection when taxpayers are paying for you to work. Suspicions were heightened when the police department received a phone call from a Los Angeles publicist asking to speak with Paulides about the Police Hall of Fame, and a letter from the Lionel Richie Fan Club which enclosed an autographed compact disc by the singer. As it turned out, Paulides had solicited autographs from such people as newswoman Diane Sawyer, astronaut Mae Jemison, model Carol Alt, exercise guru Jack La Lanne and Ivana Trump - allegedly by falsely claiming he was working on a city project. In the letter to Trump, for example, Paulides wrote: You are a great role model for young women. . . . I've been given the task by my city to develop a display for our lobby of successful businesswomen. . . . We are respectfully requesting an autographed photo for our display. . . . Your success on a professional as well as personal level make you a superior businesswoman and mother. Several of the celebrities had returned autographed photographs of themselves. Paulides attorney Daniel Jensen claims it was all an unfortunate misunderstanding. He feels badly and is embarrassed, Jensen said. Jensen said that the officer was gathering the autographs to serve as teaching aids for a class he had taught and that Paulides had envisioned hanging the pictures in the department's lobby. They were to be inspirational examples of people who've done very well, Jensen said. Authorities, however, say there was no authorized Hall of Fame being developed for any lobby. They could find nothing Paulides was associated with in an official capacity that would give him the authority to seek autographs on the department's behalf. Paulides was one of several instructors who taught a city-sponsored organizational development class, but he had not taught the course since March. Police spokesman Officer Louis Quezada said Paulides is on vacation. Quezada could not say what sort of job action the department might take against Paulides. Jensen, however, said possible repercussions range from disciplinary action to termination from the department where Paulides has worked since 1980. Paulides surrendered to authorities last week and was released. He is expected to be arraigned next month in Municipal Court. Copyright (c) 1996 San Jose Mercury News Record Number: 9612250160 Able Cunningham (talk) 15:49, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Well add it in but be neutral with your tone and then cite this.Sgerbic (talk) 18:54, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2020

In first sentence, change: David Paulides is a former police detective

To: David Paulides claims to be a former police detective

source: the article below states that Paulides was a "court liaison officer", and there is no documented source of him being a detective. Furthermore his pension is public information and the amount he is paid is significantly lower than other officers, and not consistent with a detective's pay grade.

In Early Life and Career, change: In his online biography page, Paulides states that he received his undergraduate and graduate degrees from the University of San Francisco, and in 1977 he began a 20-year career in law enforcement, transferring in 1980 to the San Jose Police Department, working in the patrol division on the SWAT Team, patrol, and Street Crimes Unit, and a variety of assignments in the detective division.[3]

To add - after "in the detective division.[3]" - a new sentence: In December 1996, Paulides was charged with a misdemeanor count of falsely soliciting for a charity, which could have resulted in a year of jail time. Paulides was working as a court liaison officer at the time, and was subsequently removed from his position with the San Jose police.

^ this article is archived by the Mercury News so there isn't an active link to the full article without paying to access, however you can see the preview here.

I have also provided full text of article to Sgerbic in Talk. Able Cunningham (talk) 04:33, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

References

@Able Cunningham: Regarding your first suggestion, you're synthesizing sources to reach a conclusion that isn't stated by the source. It shows he is drawing five separate pensions totaling about $150,000, which may well be consistent with the pay grade of a police detective.

He definitely was a police officer. I'd prefer to say that instead of police detective or "claims to be" a police detective.

The source for his removal from the San Jose police is OK, although it isn't necessary to mention what "could have resulted".

With those considerations, I have made adjustments to the article.  Done. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:27, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for making the changes. The only nit I would pick is that it's not five separate pensions - if you look closely, they are just listing 5 different years individually (2012-2017). Most of the people have a similar number of listings. Regardless, the edits you've made are big improvement in terms of accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Able Cunningham (talk • contribs) 23:43, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2021

There needs to be a book added as Missing 411 Montana is out (January 1, 2020) PsammeadRoss (talk) 15:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

A Statement

Some Universities and Colleges continue to inform their students that they will loose points for using "Wikipedia" as a Primary, Secondary, or other source. I think I see the point (Of the Universities etc.) by simply reading this article (About a living person). In my opinion, you do not stick to your own guidelines on treatment of living persons bio. Your work is not neutral and follows some bizarre rules for dealing with fantastic claims. I do not expect a reply to this. However let me leave you with this thought: extraordinary claims deserve extraordinary proof goes both ways, not just one way. Thank you. TimeTravler777777 (talk) 23:05, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

No it does not go "both ways". If someone says that they can turn flowers into celery sticks then that is an extraordinary claim and the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. It is NOT on the person saying that it is impossible to turn flowers into celery sticks. I think you would do much better in your comments if you didn't use words like "they" and "you" as someone who is writing on Wikipedia you are just as able as any other editor to change a page, as long as you follow the guidelines. Have at it if you think you know better. Sgerbic (talk) 02:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

It's true that any person can edit Wikipedia which is part of the problem. Many Wikipedia editors are not qualified nor objective enough to curate information. Even worse, most Wikipedia editors are left-leaning, anti-Christian, and anti-supernatural; they gang up on the minority of editors who oppose their views and edits. The result of the aforementioned is a mediocre product riddled with leftwing, secular, and pseudo-skeptic philosophy. For instance, let's take the popcorn phrase "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Superficially, this claim seems like it'd be true, but is it really true? In fact, it isn't. It's just a misunderstanding of how probabilities work. All a person needs to do to establish that an extraordinary claim is probable is show that the effect that the claim is trying to explain is more probable if the claim were true than if the claim were false.

24.60.225.244 (talk) 08:35, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

See WP:TALK and especially WP:FORUM. We are not interested in your speculations about other users, and neither are we interested in your peculiar ideas about what is extraordinary.

If you had proposed changes for the article and given us reliable sources for them, you'd have come to the right place. You haven't done that, so you should go some other site on the internet and not do it there. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:57, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean "we"? Are you referring to the mouse in your pocket? And there's nothing peculiar about probability calculus. No one should waste their time editing Wikipedia articles because as I said before, it's essentially leftist and secular propaganda. 24.60.225.244 (talk) 00:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping by and letting us know. Sgerbic (talk) 01:42, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

You can start by not constantly accusing Wikipedia of being entirely leftist and secular propaganda without any evidence, and/or based only on your opinion. Can you even provide a source for it? Once again, we are not interested in your accusations to users that you do not even mention in your comments; this might also count as personal attacks, too, which is a no go. If you feel that you can write pages better than we can, go ahead and do so. If it's any good, I'm sure it'll stick. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 03:29, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

The evidence is found in any Wikipedia article that has any political, religious, or supernatural relevance. There's a reason why many people don't take Wikipedia as a serious source of information and there's a reason why many other people have drawn the same conclusions about Wikipedia. As I said before, articles and edits only stick if they agree with the liberal, secular, and skeptic consortium on Wikipedia. And I'm not sure why you're asking for a "source." Are you suggesting that I start editing Paul Paulides article to make room for a "Wikipedia is garbage and left-leaning" section? Or are you suggesting that a proposition must have an e-article for it to be true or plausible? That doesn't logically follow. If you're interested in reading articles and studies that agree with my view about Wikipedia being garbage, then use Google. 24.60.225.244 (talk) 04:20, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No. What I said was If you feel that you can write pages better than we can, go ahead and do so. If it's any good, I'm sure it'll stick. Note how it says nothing about your strawman argument. I am asking for a source to prove that Wikipedia is leftist and secular propaganda. In regards to The evidence is found in any Wikipedia article that has any political, religious, or supernatural relevance., that is only your opinion that you are trying to pass off as your evidence, for you have not actually proven that said leftist and secular propaganda is actually viewed by mainstream sources as so, and are suggesting that I simply take it as if it is. I ask for other sources not affiliated with Wikipedia and not from your original research that show the point you are trying to make. Simple. We will not be as shut off from opinion if you can prove it. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 04:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

As I said before, articles with regard to politics, religion, or supernaturalism written by people who do not belong to the liberal, secular, and skeptic consortium on Wikipedia will not stick. It’s a very naive view to think Wikipedia is all and only about “If it’s good, it’ll stick!” It’s not that easy. And what do you mean by a source that proves that Wikipedia is garbage and leftist? Like I wrote earlier, if you’re interested in reading studies and articles about how much Wikipedia is garbage, secular, and leftist, then I’d start with Google. And I do find it odd that you’re using the word “prove.” You can’t prove to me that you’re real and there are certainly no sources that you could point to that would prove it. Does that mean you’re not real? Therefore, it would be better for you to use the word plausible. Wikipedia is built on opinions. Liberal, secular, and skeptic opinions. Whether or not an edit or article is kept ultimately comes down to opinion. What sources are accepted ultimately comes down to opinion. Wikipedia is a collection of opinions.

24.60.225.244 (talk) 05:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Please learn to indent replies to the same thread, as I have done. You are still refusing to provide actual evidence that is not WP:OR. If you are suggesting that I'd be able to find sources by searching it, then you should also be able to show actual articles asserting your viewpoint. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 05:15, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

"TheDragonFire300" you can indent my replies for me since that's your job. Do you not know how to use Google? And I don't know what you mean by "actual evidence." My personal experience is evidence enough, but on top of that there are many others who have experienced the same thing. On top of even that, there are studies that have shown Wikipedia to be left-leaning. Are you trolling? Have you not seen or read these studies? This is all news to you? Besides your name, this is why I can't take you seriously. You're obviously part of the problem at Wikipedia. Here, this will help you with Google: https://lmgtfy.app/?q=Wikipedia+bias+study 24.60.225.244 (talk) 05:33, 2 February 2021 (UTC)