User talk:Sarah

My RfA

Thankyou for your participation in my RfA. Due to an almost even spread of votes between Oppose and Support (Final (16/13/6)) I have decided to withdraw for now and re-apply in a couple of months as suggested. I thank everyone for their kind support of my editorial skills; it meant a lot to me to get such strong recommendations from my fellow editors. If you ever have any hints as to how I can improve further, I would love to hear from you. Viridae ^Talk 15:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested text below

No probs. Good luck. Tyrenius 18:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Griffin

Joe Griffin is an Irish research psychologist and Director of Studies at MindFields College. He is probably best known for his expectation fulfilment theory of dreaming, a holistic synthesis of the interdependence of the biological and psychological reasons for why we evolved to dream, and for being one of the founders of the human givens approach to psychotherapy. He is on the editorial board of the Human Givens Journal. Recently he has suggested a new explanation for why we evolved to forget dreams. He is a frequent speaker at major psychological conferences. His work featured in a major interview in New Scientist.

Publications

Griffin. J. (1997) The Origin of Dreams: How and why we evolved to dream. The Therapist, ISBN 1899398301.

Griffin, J. & Tyrrell, I. (1998) Hypnosis and Trance States: The first fully referenced explanation of hypnosis from an evolutionary perspective. Organising Idea Monograph, No.1. European Therapy Studies Institute. ISBN 1899398902.

Griffin, J. & Tyrrell, I. (1998) Psychotherapy and the Human Givens. Organising Idea Monograph, No.2. European Therapy Studies Institute. ISBN 1899398953.

Griffin, J. & Tyrrell, I. (1999) Breaking the Cycle of Depression: The connection between deepression and dreaming and what it means for psychotherapy. Organising Idea Monograph, No.3. European Therapy Studies Institute.

Griffin, J. & Tyrrell, I. (2000) The APET model: patterns in the brain. Updating cognitive behavioural therapy. Organising Idea Monograph, No.4. European Therapy Studies Institute. ISBN 1899398066.

Griffin, J. & Tyrrell, I. (2000) The Shackled Brain: How to release locked in patterns of psychological trauma. Organising Idea Monograph, No.5. European Therapy Studies Institute. ISBN 1899398112.

Griffin. J. & Tyrrell, I. (2003) The Human Givens: A new approach to emotional health and clear thinking. UK, HG Publishing, ISBN 1899398317.

Griffin. J. & Tyrrell, I. (2004) Dreaming Reality: How dreaming keeps us sane, or can drive us mad. UK, HG Publishing, ISBN 1899398368.

Griffin. J. & Tyrrell, I. (2004) How to lift depression...fast. UK, HG Publishing, ISBN 1899398414.

Griffin. J. & Tyrrell, I. (2005) Freedom from addiction: The secret behind successful addiction busting. UK, HG Publishing, ISBN 1899398465

External link

Human Givens Institute [1]

New Scientist [2]

END OF COPIED TEXT

Jim Shapiro

You asked for pointers towards a revision of the article. The consensus now seems to be that it should be written in standard biographical form. There are sources here, some of which have been used already.[3] The following is off the top of my head, what I've picked up along the way and what I can remember. It's a start, but don't rely 100% on it.

The lead should say that he is a PI/PL? lawyer became known in Rochester, NY, for his aggressive or whatever TV marketing, including national TV, in the 1970s/80s?. His reputation in this field has now spread further afield. He has had criticism. The US govt has now brought in laws to address this kind of marketing. He has now moved onto ...? He has also engaged in philanthropic charity work.NB notes need to state this is his own PR material

In the main text, a bit more colour about the TV ads. Bit more detail and some of the slogans. Longer Rochester ads also 1 sec national ads.[4]

Some stuff about change in US laws and how this affects him. I suspect that some of this can be cut and used to start a new article Advertising of legal services in the US or some such, as it's not all appropriate for a biog.

His legal issues and court cases.

Wider reputation. Cite examples, which are already in article about academics. Also add in how some young people are posting about him on blogs etc [5] This shows his reputation is still extant.

His books (I think there are more) “Sue the Bastards” – book by Shapiro [6] Chapter 1 of “Million Dollar Lungs” book by Shapiro [7]

His philanthropy - very important. This can be verified from Rochester Democrat and Chronicle – good stories, but you have to pay (should only be a couple of $) (NB search archives 1999-current. Several stories, including charity work) [8]

I hope this is of some help for ideas.

Tyrenius 00:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be good if you can access the Chronicle, as there's about 6 stories in there which are bound to yield you some useful information. Tyrenius 01:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's some interesting talk shaping up on the article talk page. Tyrenius 02:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvios

As you might know it's on SPEEDY A8 and says "commercial content provider", which is generally interpreted as a content provider which is a commercial concern, as opposed to a charity or a blogger for example, and not that you have to pay specifically to access the content. Another issue is that there's a backlog with all this stuff and the last thing the Foundation wants is copyvio material hanging round, so some admins have been keenly following the spirit of the law generally. Tyrenius 02:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'm not quite sure what you mean, but basically if it's a copyvio, we just don't want it, and it will be doing everyone a big favour to draw attention so it can be despatched with the utmost haste. That's my interpretation anyway, and I will defend it on the basis of Wiki's true interest. But come back if that doesn't clarify the question. Tyrenius 02:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I don't understand is "copyvios ... which have no non-copyvio version." What is a non-copyvio version?

But to answer your example, firstly all material is copyright whether it's from a commercial or "non-commercial" provider. In fact, I suppose one could argue that there is no such thing as a non-commercial provider, because anyone could potentially make money from whatever they're created. The thing is that anyone can sue or demand payment if you use their material, so the longer it's hanging around the more potentially dangerous it is. HRT can claim a commercial damage because their unique copyright material is no longer unique if it's on another site, and that diminishes the value of their site.

I think established practice is now getting more ruthless about deleting copyvios. Personally I would say you are doing the right thing, and I would be prepared to defend that very strongly. However, you may want to put it somewhere to a wider forum, and I'd be very interested to see the outcome. There is now a bit of a freak-out about copyvios, and I think you're more likely to get a negative response from letting them linger. As for whether I'm "legalistically" in the right, well I don't honestly see that as the priority.

Tyrenius 03:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is on the speedy notice: "A commercial content provider is an entity directly engaged in making money from the content."

Tyrenius 03:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I understand that now. I think your original comment about experienced admins says it all. In fact I saw one comment the other day that, due to the massive backlog and the need to protect wiki from copyvios, he didn't bother with WP:CP any more, but just deleted on sight. That's what I'd do. You've then got to have the confidence and understanding of why it's right and to say that to someone who's following the letter but defeating the purpose. Tyrenius 03:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say that you had explained OK but because I don't do a lot of copyvio stuff I had not interpreted it correctly. I thought you meant another concurrently existing version (with a slightly different name or something). Tyrenius 19:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS My suggestion on changes.[9] Tyrenius 20:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ER

Hi Sarah
Thanks for the comments. I'll keep it in mind. Ironically, VP has broken and Ami is having some trouble fixing it, so it might be a sign ;)
Thanks! --Deon555|talk|e 06:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Hi Sarah,

Thanks for the comments and the advice on my talk page. It's so nice to know that someone else can see this guy for what he is! Be prepared, though, he may come after you next ;-) Congirl 11:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)Congirl[reply]

Again, a million thanks for your comments. It's felt like a losing battle with this guy. I know he's a little off (hell, he was little off 15 years ago!) and the only reason I responded was to draw him out further and make sure people could tell he was irrational. So your noticing of his pattern has really helped. I can't wait until he moves on ... I'll be taking you up on the offer of removing my name from the talk page. Thanks for the encouragement, Sarah! Congirl 17:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)Congirl[reply]

OK, I just woke from a nap on the couch and thought I was dreaming... but it is true, you fixed it! YOU ARE FANTASTIC! THANK YOU!!! Congirl 03:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)Congirl[reply]

Yeah, I guess I got guilty there at the end, too. Sorry about that. Hey - are you responsible for getting Tyrenius to add that HUGE warning at the top of the page now? Because that is beyond perfect - and if that doesn't stop him, I don't know what will! Thank you, thank you, thank you! Congirl 12:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC) Congirl[reply]

OK, you can email me now.

My RfA and your vote

Hello Sarah,
Thanks for participating in my RFA! Ultimately, no consensus was reached, but I still appreciate the fact that you showed up to add in your two cents. I plan on reaching 1500 article edits before applying again. You can feel free to talk to me about it or add some advice on my improvement page.

Sincerely, The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me)

Shapiro

Jeff, would you mind taking a look at User:Sarah Ewart/drafts and letting me know if I'm going in an okay direction? I don't want to keep working on it if I'm up the creek. Cheers, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 09:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't gone through the sources yet, either in your or WAS 4.250's articles, but it looks to me like you've got a much better handle on a proper Wikpedia article. WAS's still has too much of a "poster boy for bad lawyering" feel, and s/he seems to be intent on keeping the article as hostile to the subject as possible. (I'm certainly not defending this vicious opportunist, but I am concerned about a measured, encyclopedic tone per WP:BLP.) Keep up the good work! ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I want to encourage you to continue and finish your Sarah Ewart's draft so that it can replace my version. Your version is much better written. WAS 4.250 21:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship of Binghamton Review

I hope enjoy being a censor. I didn't know that the author of the Enemy Within was congirl until she chose to identify herself as such on her user talk page. My original edit of factual information which she has confirmed is true was to add important information to the article. I didn't even know she was alive when I added the edit. I actually had thought she was dead until the notes were added.

Remember I have given the source of the edit. It is on paper however. It is not original research. Are you arguing the only sources that can be user.

I noticed you kept her personal attacks on the page. Interesting how that wasn't considered an issue. On her talk page you clearly have adopted her POV and clearly announced your edit was based on agreeing with her rather than any neutral editor issues. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.8.3.68 (talk • contribs) 08:54, August 5, 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked 65.8.3.68 for 48 hours for stating personal information, and warned him about making personal attacks as above. Tyrenius 10:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links and linkspam

Hi Sarah,

Thank you for backing me up on the linkspam issue. I have been removing linkspam from articles about places in the world where tourism-related companies and websites have been placing their links. Such articles are also prone to "vanity publishing", with people linking to their pages of blogs, photos, and musings. Inevitably, some of these edits get reversed by those site owners. In addition, some of the edits have been reversed by people who clearly are well-intentioned, but mistaken as to the type of links that should be placed on articles. I have noticed that you have remade some of those edits removing linkspam and wanted to thank you. As the previous editor says, keep up the good work.

--Bcnviajero 13:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ambuj

Hello Sarah. I thank you for your message. I do not believe that he has left – for various reasons he may not have edited for last two or three days. I know that true wikipedians do not desert the ship, and as a true wikipedian, Ambuj should again become active very shortly. Regards. --Bhadani 14:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to butt in, but it says on his user page he will be back on the 7th. --Guinnog 15:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Frank Lloyd

Thanks for pointing that out. I have amended my comment. JPD (talk) 16:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AUS

Hey Sarah, Thanks for the link, I joined. I see you're there, and also at Wikimedia Australia ;) One day i'm sure we'll have a local :P --Deon555|talk|e 23:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hammer!

How's Shapiro going? :) Tyrenius 03:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"First Article"

Hey Sarah, How fantastic you are: saving it from Deletion ;) Good on ya' ;). On a completly unrelated note *-): I made my first article today: DECv. Let me know what you think :) --Deon555|talk|e|Review Me! :D 07:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sarah, Thanks for the fix's and comments. I had a look at WP:MELB earlier today and did a tiny bit of work (addresses et al) on the County Court article. --Deon555|talk|e|Review Me! :D 07:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I nominate you

for an administrator? I think you'll make a great job of it. -- Funky Monkey (talk) 14:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would happily second that. --Guinnog 15:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Third--Deon555|talk|e|Review Me! :D 01:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding my Biography

EyeMD first said that the subject is not notable. After proving the notability, he has switched over saying that it is violation of WP:AUTO. I strongly feel that this is an attempt by some guys who do not like me in real world. If you could see the basis for nominating the article has changed from Notability to Vanity to AutoBio. Hence it is becoming clear that their intention is personal and not in good faith. Another User had voted three time

What do you expect me to do when some guys with malicious intention write insulting comments about me. I was pushed into editing the article only for the past 2 days after I get comments like "non-notable" "exam-cram" "limited shelf life". How am I to oppose it. If it is an article, we can remove that citing lack of sources.

I invite your attention to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:AUTO#If_Wikipedia_already_has_an_article_about_you I did not write this article in the first place. I am forced to edit here to avoid my name being slandered. Hope you look into the matter deeply. Doctor Bruno 15:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not with the article. I am pointing out to you that it is few guys who do not like me in real world who are misguiding wikipediaDoctor Bruno 00:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. Not Samir. He has been misguided by a user called EyeMD (who hates me in real world). Please see Samir's talk Page. This EyeMD is responsible for this. EyeMD seems to be hating me in the real world and is spreading worng information about me. First EyeMD said that there are no books like that. When I dared him to contact the publisher and verify, he has changed the stand. I request you to kindly go into all the details and then cast your opinion. What is the definition of Cram Books. And even ifyou say cram books are different, where is the Wikipedia guideline that says Exam Cram books are NOT books. Even if so, there are less notable biographies with less known books. WHy is User EyeMD not deleting then, but is going around all user talk discussions and asking my biography to be deleted. I have proved as to why the biography satisfies Wikipedia Criteria. THen EyeMD has changed the reason to vanity. Any one can see that I am involved in the article for the past 3 days only. How will it amount to vanity. Now few guys are going around the net and spreading wrong information about me Doctor Bruno 01:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I want discussion. I am welcome to it. I don't want baseless points aimed at tarnishing my image at the discussion page. If you can see the history, the article was there for a long time. No one discussed anything on the talk page regarding Notability / Citations etc. Suddenly the article was nominated for deletion. The initial reason given was "no proof to know the books have been written" I was pointed out this controversy. When I proved the existence of books with ISBN Number, the comments changed into Exam Cram Books. When I proved the notability issue, they have changed into validity. I then understood that it is an intentional campaign by guys who do not like me in real world and hence I deleted the article twice myself. (please see the history). If you can see one user had voted three time. That was in clear violation of rules. Another guy who boasted himself of extensive education do not give me proof for his education. Hence I feel that this is a systematic attempt to tarnish the image and they are misguiding Users like You and Samir (in medical field) to insult me.

If you can go through the entire article and see the points I have given (in the debate), you will understand that the guys are not willing to go by proof.

The very reason that they have changed the reason for debate from Verifiability to Notability to Vanity is the proof for thisDoctor Bruno 01:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Welcome

Thank You for welcoming me to wikipedia, would appreciate any help you can give me

Seektrue 19:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mandy Moore

I've asked an administrator to take a look at MMJustice. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 16:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Sarah. I'm a bit flummoxed as to what can actually be done in this situation. It's pretty clear to me now that he's editing in bad faith but it seems that he's now being careful (following his previous IP and username ban) not to revert often enough to fall foul of the 3RR, or frequently enough to be blocked for simple vandalism. --Kurt Shaped Box 21:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DECv

Hey Sarah,
Thanks for the kind words :). As i said on Req for feedback "this whole making articles thing is fun as" :). All this (plus more) should help towards my next RfA. Look after urself, --Deon555|talk|e|Review Me! :D 01:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've got a Thank you card!

Open your card!

Blanking the page

Can you request the admin to blank the page. Or can you please tell me the exact way to do so. Also if you have show the precedent that will be helpfulDoctor Bruno 01:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. You seem to have understood my intentions perfectlyDoctor Bruno 01:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zeus Bomb

I understand why you don't think that the Zeus Bomb page should remain on wikipedia, obviously because you've never tried one. Pour youself a nice rootbeer, then bomb some Zeus and I bet you will understand. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wwelles14 (talk • contribs) 16:52, August 7, 2006 (UTC)

thanks!

just wanted to say it to ya! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mumbaki (talk • contribs) 05:25, August 8, 2006 (UTC)

Interesting mix

I saw your comments on that annoying David Tench article. Anyway, I read your profile and I must admit it is interesting to see you're a member of two unions but also were a member of the Liberal Party. You'd have to be fairly unique! Dankru 23:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

my user page

Can you explain why you insist in putting up that label indicating abusive confirmed puppets on my page? What evidence do you have for this and what is the purpose it serves other than continuine a petty edit war motivated by those who have been harassming me stemming from political and ideological article content disputes? I think you may not know the full scope of the nature of this and would like to know your reasoning. Thanks.Giovanni33 05:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then you must know Ann personaly and know her motivations for this? Since you say its to get me to "edit within policy and guidelines" then pretell, how is sticking this rather insulting label on my user page accomplish this? Nevermind the fact that I already DO edit within all policy and guidlines. I'd love an answer to this question. And, no, its never been explained. If you are going to waste your time edit warring on my page on her behalf, then its no waste at all explaining your rationale, which may lead you to not doing the real waste of time which is posting this label back in that unjustified form. Notice that the confirmed 'puppets" which I have explained are not really puppets, are very dated, close to 8 months ago. Yet only NOW is there a need to harass me with a false and degrading label on my talk page? Explain the timing, of this, as well, perhaps. Could it have something to do with the fact that I was not reacting to this tactic elsewhere on WP, ignoring it, editing elsewhere--and so now it must come to my user page to stick it in my face so to speak? This is evidence of its true purpose, not to make me to "edit within policy and guidelines."Giovanni33 06:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ignatieff

Hi Sarah, You recently made an edit the Michael Ignatieff page; could you please step in again to put an end to the current edit war? I made a personal attack against a user over his edits (bad, I know), and he's taking it out on the article. 72.139.185.19 06:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]