Talk:Donny Pauling

Donny Pauling Arrest/Editor Conflict of Interest
Conflict of interest?

Excuse me, but every reference I cited has links or videos or screen caps of court records. all but two of the sources I provided were written b the local newspaper by a reported who was in the courtroom. Did you even bother reading them, or was that too much effort?

By the way, your edits about how Pauling is awaiting trial is erroneous. He accepted A PLEA DEAL yesterday to AVOID trial. Instead he pleaded guilty to several charges EXACTLY as I described (and cited the source). He will be sentenced in November, So congratulations, you managed to take a truthful wikipedia edit and change it into a TOTALLY inaccurate one. Bravo.

Ari Bass, JD, aka Michael Whiteacre Journalist since 1985 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.167.32.169 (talk) 20:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Calm down dude. This is a major part of Wikipedia: Identifying reliable sources. Primary sources are almost always not suitable, except special circumstances. And since you are Michael Whiteacre, someone who is anti-anti-porn activists, you have a conflict of interest editing these pages. You should consider keeping your edits restricted to the article's talk page, then, while also remaining civil and polite. DaltonCastle (talk) 21:04, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually, COI rules *don't* absolutely prohibit activists of various kinds from editing pages, and if this were the case, there are *many* edits on a variety of topics that need to be reverted. Being active or close to the subject of an article where the topic is at all controversial means one must be extra-cautious about the nature of one's edits, and lowers the bar for removal of blatantly biased content from that editor.


 * In the case of Donny Pauling, his arrest and conviction on a number of sexual abuse charges is a matter of public record, covered by the Appeal-Democrat, the local paper in the area where the crime took place, something that absolutely meets Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sourcing for biographical information. MW's error was to source the edits to The Real Porn Wikileaks, which does not meet that criteria. However, those sources are themselves sourced (and sometimes directly reprint) Appeal-Democrat stories. The edits should be restored with the citations changed to the primary news source, and with the more neutral title "Arrest" used. I will be making these edits shortly, and unless you can claim the edits are not an accurate summary of the source content, you have no basis for further reversion. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 22:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

(The above sections are copied from Dalton Castle's talk page, in the interest of taking this conversation to the article talk space where it belongs.) Iamcuriousblue (talk) 22:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I cannot fathom that Appeal-Democrat is also a reliable source, especially in this regard. As it stands, the page is fine. DaltonCastle (talk) 23:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I really don't know what you "cannot fathom" about citing a news story in a mainstream newspaper. There is no question such a source meets Wikipedia's standards of a reliable, published source. WP:VERIFY is quite clear about this, and I'll quote:
 * Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include:


 * University-level textbooks
 * Books published by respected publishing houses
 * Magazines
 * Journals
 * Mainstream newspapers


 * If you continue to remove this content, I will report this to admins for edit warring per WP:3RR. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 04:15, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You should learn to watch your tone. Because instead of making me see your point of view, your aggressive threats (which I do not care for and the nature of which make me suspicious of your commitment here) have revealed you to be uncordial. Your threats are empty and insulting. DaltonCastle (talk) 20:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If you want to "kill me with kindness" you should have pointed out that Appeal-Democrat is not a name that denotes a left bias as I have independently found. DaltonCastle (talk) 20:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The Appeal-Democrat seems like a reliable source to me. It is a mainstream newspaper with a strong circulation and editorial staff. I don't know about any political bias but it doesn't matter. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:26, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I was withdrawing my arguments about it not being a reliable source. I just didnt appreciate the threats and the hostile attitude. DaltonCastle (talk) 23:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Donny Pauling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140808102026/http://www.outreach.com/events/christian-speakers/Donny-Pauling.aspx to http://www.outreach.com/events/christian-speakers/Donny-Pauling.aspx
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20140726074846/http://guiltypleasure.tv/tag/donny-pauling/ to http://guiltypleasure.tv/tag/donny-pauling/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)