User talk:Sarah/Archive4

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)

Requested text below

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

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.[1] 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.[2]

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 [3] This shows his reputation is still extant.

His books (I think there are more) “Sue the Bastards” – book by Shapiro [4] Chapter 1 of “Million Dollar Lungs” book by Shapiro [5]

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) [6]

I hope this is of some help for ideas.

Tyrenius 00:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Re: Frank Lloyd

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

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)

Hammer!

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

"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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

Re:Welcome

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

Seektrue 19:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Mandy Moore

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Much thanks. I'm sorry to have escalated the affair and forced you to act. 72.139.185.19

Maybe you should consider a user name change? To, say, "Sarah 'The Hammer' Ewart"? 72.139.185.19 07:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Not as much as I'd like. Mostly, I stick to WP. But "The Hammer" is truly awesome. I particularly love that he'd never even tried a case in NY. Anyway, I added a video link to the discussion page of your new draft, in case you'd like to link to the outgoing pages in the final version. His bio just isn't the same unless you've heard him firsthand! 72.139.185.19 14:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The personal attack he made was against disabled children(look at the photo)

But he's very,very good at getting what he wants, like your help. Ottawaman 13:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I have posted this on his talk page;

"Ridiculing disabled children

how could you? what kind of person would do such a thing,even one time. Did you design the template yourself?"

I'm curious as to whether he designed that terrible template. Ottawaman 14:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Please see [7] [8] and [9]. FellowWikipedian 02:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Peterenko

Hi Sarah. As discussed at WP:AN/I#Spelling war, Peterpansyndrome, Peterenko, etc. seem to be Pnatt, who was previously banned for spelling wars and things like that. JPD (talk) 14:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's anythign to add - I just hope and admin gets round to blocking him soon. I had half an idea that you were an admin, but I guess we have to wait. JPD (talk) 15:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Lordi names

You know just as well that the references are not proven correct yet and are nothing but rumors. If this means I'll get banned I guess we'll talk more after my IP gets reset tomorrowmorning. Tata for now. -- 80.200.86.25 15:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC) (posted by a logged out User:Mr0x)

Posting data supplied by Sarah Ewart (Talk) 18:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Uncalled-for language by 80.200.86.25 deleted by WAS 4.250 02:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)