User talk:Barbbiggs/Archive

Welcome

You have made an edit that could be regarded as defamatory. Please do not restore this material to the article or its talk page. If you restore this material to the article or its talk page once more, you will be blocked for disruption. See Blocking policy: Biographies of living people.

Welcome

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions seem to be advertising or for promotional purposes. Wikipedia does not allow advertising in articles. For more information on this, see

If you still have questions, there is a new contributor's help page, or you can write {{helpme}} below this message along with a question and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia.

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! Alan.ca 05:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Courage to Heal

Barb, I reviewed your edits to the article. We are always encouraged to be bold on wikipedia, and that trait you seem not to lack. :) The key fundamental point: Don't change or create anything without a source. I know this sounds crazy, but the onus is always on the editor who is adding material to prove the statement is Verifiable. This The courage to heal article, is lacking many sources. It is generally considered etiquette to flag a statement you challenge with the fact tag that you see me using near the statements. However, if you very strongly disagree with something stated, and there is no referenced source, you do have the right to delete it. This is exactly the argument that is taking place with your own biography right now. Ironically, many people are arguing in favor of your article, it is my contention that most of it was not verified in fact. I think I should teach you how to cite sources and then you will be rightfully armed to challenge anything that you can disprove on wikipedia. We need you Barb, I think we share the same opinion on much of the crap in these child abuse articles!Alan.ca 10:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's very encouraging Alan. So what now is the status of the changes made to the Courage to Heal article? As a journalist and author of now five books, I'm a wordsmith very aware of the subtleties and nuance of language. Some of the changes I made to the article, particularly in the Supporters View section, were to simply change a negative word to a more positive one. I definitely think the initial reference awaiting citation should be removed, about mental health workers discrediting the book. Despite the invitation to find a citation having been there, presumably, for at least a little while, nobody has been encouraged to, or been able to find one. On this basis, I think the argument to delete the claim should weigh on the side of deleting it. I'm in the middle of moving from Melbourne to Sydney at the moment. I fly to Sydney on Sunday, having sent my car up two weeks ago full of stuff. I do think it's important not to allow wikipedia to be used by fanatic groups to diessminate their point of view. I was heartened however, to find that one article they'd used as a reference or source, which was previously listed last, but which I moved up the list to be second, is from a Dr Hopper, who I have quoted in my changes as saying the Recovered Memory Foundation is extreme in it's views. Also, the weight in the references is far too unbalanced in that there are three or four articles which support the Recovered Memory Foundation's view. I did read the review of The Courage to Heal which was positive and, as far as I'm aware, the generally accepted view of the book. I've also been told by others more knowledgable than I, that the other article used as a source and quoted, by Elizabeth Loftus, is the only academic article still advocating the view that recovered memories don't exist. I have twice been inundated by this recovered memory material. Once by a woman who had not one, but three sisters, who all claim that their father had sexually abused them as children. This poor older sister who contaccted me had spent ten years of her life trying to prove they were all mentally ill, presumably in order to preserve her own loving image of her father. Understandable, but so sad for her abused sisters and for her, who almost lost her marriage as a result of the obsessive time she put into her quest. The other perons, was a man who inundated me with the exact same material, of which the Loftus article was the only one that had any semblance of an academic paper, the rest being vitriolic and unprofessional in their language. He kept sending me more and more stuff. When I asked if he or a loved one had been accused of child sexual abuse, he stopped contacting me. A lot of my own knowledge on this subject is from conferences I attend, academics I meet etc. I personally can't cite the research. However I am in touch with experts and Australian acadmeics in the field who have these papers at their fingertips and in some cases have written their own. I will alert them to the current posting of A Courage to Heal and the other references to child abuse entries and ask them if they have the time to change them. Trouble is of course, that to make changes, they have, as you've pointed out, to spend considerable time learning how to do this. I can only handle technology is small bites - like, for example - having just learnt the simple step of how to highlight a reference in blue, which I feel quite good about having mastered! However I realize this is a baby step in what looms before me as a considerable task if I am to take it on. Still I'm glad to hear that you have an interest in presenting a more balanced view of this important subject and the role wikipedia has in presenting a view which can promote healing or, if the wrong information is presented, to help impede it. If you can suggest a small, simple,not too overwhelming task, let's see how I go with that! Barbbiggs 04:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first task is to find a citable source that contains information that supports something you object to in any article. In the case of the courage to heal, can you provide a source that is presently not being used in the article, or select an excerpt from a presently included source that you would like to some how include into the article? Alan.ca 05:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did in fact use a quote from the Hopper article. Did I do this incorrectly? Barbbiggs 08:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for starters you did put some opinion in there with no sourcing. Controversial opinion at that. Remember, you can remove anything unsourced, but not replace it with something from your Point of View (POV) that is unsourced, just leave the article lacking both. In terms of the citation itself, that is a good start from a formatting perspective, but a much better job can be done. Here is how I would have cited it, you will have to read this formatting in the edit view as it will only appear as a superscript number in the text. ^[1]

Then we insert this tag that automatically puts all the footnotes printed in full in a references section:

^ "Recovered Memories of Sexual Abuse: Scientific Research & Scholarly Resources". Retrieved 2006-12-11.

Although, the fact that you made a cited reference at all is a huge improvement over many new users, congrats! One other point, don't put in the br html tags. Alan.ca 08:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alan, Not sure what br html tags are! Also, in calling for citable research amongst professionals on my contact list, this morning I recieved a bucket load from one source. In trying to use it on Wiki, I looked up Recovered Memory Therapy and Satanic Ritual Abuse and found that most of what had been written is unsourced. I put in one of the sourced articles sent to me. I have also put in for one section only in the entry for RMT, the first I think, against every sentence, [citation needed]. It isn't, however, in blue as yours is. I haven't bothered to do this with the Satanic Ritual Abuse entry, since in the very first sentence, which there seems no way of changing, the definition is not presented without an unsourced opinion. It says 'alleged' satanic ritual abuse. I believe this section should simply contain a definition, since I don't think anybody disputes that there is and has been, certainly there have been prosecutions for the crime both now and in the past, of the practice and meaning of the term. Can I suggest that that someone at Wiki look at these entries and apply the same rigous standards to them that are being applied to others - including my own! It is clear that this has been entirely provided by the falst memory association lobby group that seeks to discredit victim's stories and is therefore hardly balanced. More importantly, as just mentioned, most of the info is opinion and not cited. I'm wading through the wads of research sent to me and trying to use bits and pieces of it to support the changes I made to The Courage to Heal. This could turn into a big job! Also, perhaps you didn't see my question below under the Child Abuse heading. How long would a tutorial take? Barbbiggs 23:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pleased to read that you are contributing the benefit of your experience to wikipedia. As for a tutorial, I think we're doing one now. I can't estimate how long it will take, as I don't know how far you want to go. If you can give me one article name and specifically tell me what you want to do, I can demonstrate how to do so. Here is an example of how to tag an uncited statement you dispute:

Barbara Biggs is a supporter of the conservative party.^{[citation needed]}

As you can see the 'fact' tag translates into citation needed. Also, the article is tagged as an unsourced article and other wikipedians will see it on the respective list for maintenance.Alan.ca 09:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay Alan, thanks. A few things. 1. A friend sent me an email saying that my own entry hadn't been deleted as I'd thought. I looked at it and found all the disucssions that you'd mentioned were taking place about it )had wondered where they were taking place). As a result, I added quite a few citations that people had said were a concern. I also asked why the political candidacy was removed when the Nitika Mansinghe article had verified that I was indeed a candidate. 2. The article I'd like to work on first, is The Courage to Heal. And the first thing I'd like to change is in the first paragraph about it which doesn't have an edit button. If you're able to see the changes that I've made to the rest of the article, perhaps we could work through it and you could tell me what I'd need to do to keep those changes in there. I now have many research articles I can slot in. If this works out, I'd like to work on the other articles that appear to have been written by the falst memory folks. 3. Even if I don't get around to that, could you tell me why these entries have been allowed to sit on the Wiki site without being sourced when so much of what they say is opinion only? I look forward to hearing from you. Barbbiggs 12:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC) p.s. I notice of all the discussion folks on my article, you're the biggest stickler of all! I'd love you to apply your rigor to the entries mentioned above.[reply]

I'm the biggest stickler Barb because an invivo biography is the most dangerous article on wikipedia. In addition, it was written by the subject, which violates some very basic principals of wikipedia, namely Neutral Point of View and No Original Research. I have examined the articles we're discussing and I agree they are terrible. However, instead of quickly making the changes myself, I would like to teach you how to do so. I have requested for the deletion process to be abated and I hope I can draw your attention to focus on improving these articles that you would like to challenge. As you work to improve these articles it may help you to understand why your biography is so controversial.

There are thousands of articles on wikipedia with no sources. I think the number is near 30 thousand identified articles with unsourced comments. That doesn't include the ones that have not been tagged. The reason your article was caught so quickly and taken to scrutiny is because it was a new article. We have since created a volunteer duty of new page patrol, to catch new articles that don't meet the criteria. I, at the time, was volunteering some time for this effort. When I saw you page, I immediately asked myself, if she's so notable, why hasn't someone else started an article about her? I think the answer may be, that the people who know and respect you most, are not the demographic that is over represented on wikipedia, technical males from North America. In the sense that you don't fit this demographic, you are a jewel to have on wikipedia and I hope it doesn't lose your interest. Alan.ca 15:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that explains something, about why the child sexual abuse entries seem to have been highjacked by a particular group in an unchecked kind of way. And you're right, most people involved in this particular subject matter are overworked and underpaid if they work in the field, and if they are clients, are struggling to cope with surviving their everyday life and/ or uneducated with few technical skills. On the other hand, the family members of loved ones accused of csa, who were not abused, tend to be far more functional and educated and have the time to devote to these things - like the woman I told you about who almost lost her marriage because of the focus she put into proving her father had not abused her three sisters. In any case, today is a busy one for me. Another interview, this time Australian ABC Radio National about my new book and catching up with several friends at different time slots before I leave here, as I said, to move to Sydney on Sunday. When I get back to it, I'll try to stick to one article, maybe SRA since the research I have more relates to that rather than the specific book, The Courage to Heal. My trouble is that apart from being a technophobe, I'm the most disorganized person on the planet. This means if I find a source or reference, I don't have systems for organizing them. My system is to action something immediately and then never have to think about it again. I get a lot done this way, but if I don't act immediately, the task fades away into the ether. One user Oak-something, has said in reference to my article, that he thinks my article is innocuous and could have been written by anyone. The fact that it was written by me, if it does not sound like vanity writing and uses verifiable sources, shouldn't be held against it. He cited another bio in which the same thing occured. He did, however, say if the article was deleted he was considering rewriting it since he is convinced that I am a notable subject. As I keep saying, a simple google search will establish that - and these don't include the mountain of articles that no longer appear because they are too old, important ones that I can't find no matter how hard I look. For example, I can't find a single finance or news article written by me because I resigned from my staff job on Australia's beggest selling paper (Herald Sun) in 1999. I still do write social commentary pieces and I've sourced a few of these but only one, published this week, was in a phsyical newspaper still accessible online. The rest of the sources I've used are online articles which cite the original source as the newspaper where I am usually published first. Google news searches don't turn these up after just a month or two, they appear to be binned. Anyway, I press on. Barbbiggs 23:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pleased to read that you are continuing your interest in wikipedia. I hope you will back off your own article and allow neutral editors to review and improve it. As I stated before, the best place for you to post your suggestions would be on the talk page for the article. Just remember, if it's controversial, make sure you have a good source. I had to put a warning banner up here because you continue to add the name of the melbourne attorney. Until you can provide a good source for this man's associate with your sexual abuse, it cannot be included. You may also want to find something that confirm's he is deceased. Alan.ca 00:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Child abuse discussion

Hi Alan, I did look at the articles on child sexual abuse, satanic ritual abuse and suppressed memory. I was pretty incensed by some of what I read actually, but because I'm not on top of the exact research in this area, I forward the link to friends in the field who are more likely to be able to cite the best and up-to-date research to correct the rubbish that I recognise from other literature fantatics have bombarded me with. There's a movement of people, which I have only recently begun to realize are people who have iether been accused of child sexual abuse or whose loved one has, that disseminate mysogynistic misinformation about repressed memory. Some of the stuff at Wiki about that is simply wrong. Children who experience extreme trauma in war for example, do not always remember it. The younger they are, the less likely they are to remember, even if there are examples of some who do remember. The book cited on Wikipedia as rubbish, The Courage to Heal, is the virtual bible of mental health workers who deal with child sexual abuse on a daily basis. A mental health worker friend told me this and I subsequently read it. It was an enormous help to me and everyone I have recommended it to. It has sold millions of copies worldwide, twenty years after first publication, because people keep telling their troubled friends about it. I recognise the claims about it from Wiki's Satanic Riutual Abuse entry which discredits the book, which says almost nothing about Satanic Ritual Abuse. I do personally know people who have been victims of this crime and they did not recover memories in therapy and have never reported it to the police or perpetrator. They have used the information to begin the healing process though and this is the only relevant thing. Those looking for information on Wikipedia will be impeded in the search for accurate information that helps them acknowledge what is already so terrifying for them to admit to and go back to face. Anyway, I ramble Alan. As I say, there are others better equipped to find the best sources to cite than I and I have passed this information on. The one thing I would like to know, should I decide to edit something myself, is how you highlight a word in blue so that when people click on it, they go to the link about that on the web. Thanks again for taking an interest in my wee corner of the world. What country do you live in? Warm greeting from me expiring here in our second 40d day in Melbourne. Barbbiggs 00:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have since looked at the Wikipedia entry on The Courage to Heal however I couldn't find a way to edit the very first two paragraphs. There is a claim that mental health workers have dicredited the book, but this is not cited. I think this comment should be removed, particularly since it is the opposite to what my mental health worker friend (who was not abused herself as a child but who has used the book, and seen it used by colleagues, to good effect with clients) has told me.

I am pleased to read that you are exploring articles in your field of interest. As you are a member of a poorly represented minority on Wikipedia, I suspected you would find many articles to be in conflict with your knowledge and experience. I will review the The Courage to Heal article and if you like we can start a new section dealing with what needs to change in the article.

The best way to learn about wikipedia is to edit an article that you have read and note the special syntax used to achieve the effect in the article. For example, a web link, uses a single open and close square bracket. Within the square bracketted text you have the web address, then a space followed by the text to display. For example, when you edit this page you will see how I made this link: The developer of Windows Xp. To link to other wikipedia articles you use double sqaure brackets, the first field is the name of the wiki article followed by the text to display, for example: An unfairly represented article. When you edit the text, you will see how I created the link to The Courage to Heal, but called it, "An unfairly represented article". Please note, in the case of the wikilink you need to separate the article name from the display text using a | charcert. This character is above your enter key, you need to press shift key to access it.Alan.ca 02:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alan, I really have to apologize for the time you wasted on the article my friend posted. As I explained, he did it after I'd sent him what I had written and after I'd told him I had decided to drop it. He thought he was being helpful. I did write to him and tell him his efforts would be deleted and obviously, I expect they will be, since what he posted was almost verbatim what I had written. Thanks for trying to explain how to highlight. Could I repeat back to you what you said in my own words to make sure I understand? If I want to lead readers to an external web link to, let's say, the Herald Sun newspaper website for example, so that blue highlighted words 'Melbourne metro daily newspaper' comes up and when the reader clicks on it, it goes to the Herald Sun website, I would do the follow: Melbourne metro daily newspaper Is this correct? I guess I'll see when I post the message! Also, I have made some changes to the entry on The Courage to Heal. I wonder if you could check it to see that I haven't contrvened any Wiki codes I'm unaware of. However I couldn't delete the claim that mental health workers discredit the book, which asks for a citation. None has been added because there very well may not be any. Thanks again for your help and sorry my friends posting wasted your time. Kind regards Barbbiggs 10:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, your wikilink did work correctly as you probably noticed when you submitted the edit and reviewed the page. As for the courage to heal article, I was the person who submitted the fact/citation needed tagging. If you want to make a difference on wikipedia, the most important skill to learn is how to cite sources. If you like I can do a tutorial with you on how to do so. Alan.ca 10:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How long would a tutorial take? Barbbiggs

Introduction to wikipedia

Hi Barb, I started this section on your page to help you with your new interest in wikipedia. Please confirm that you can read and respond here by putting a statement after mine. Alan.ca 08:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alan, Yes, I've started putting in sources for the article rather than giving up. Any help you can give me about what needs to be deleted or changed would be greatly appreciated. This way I won't waste all the time I've already spent:) I deleted the last para since wasn't sure it was relevant. Also another par about 'raw honesty and black humour' in case it was too promotional. Any other deletions would also be welcome. BB

Ok, I get from reading your work that you're ambitious, but trust me, you need to back off a bit. I don't think anyone is going to permit you to write your own autobiography on here. That being said, I think if you take some time to get to know the place, we can organize your information on your talk page here. Just remember, sign your comments with four ~ instead of putting BB. Alan.ca 09:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Barb, let's do a Q and A here, so I can find out where you stand and help you out. 1) Do you understand the 3 pillars of wikipedia? 2) Have you contributed to any articles on wikipedia? If so, can you give some examples. 3) What prompted you to suddenly take interest here? Alan.ca 09:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alan, thanks for hanging in there. 1. I don't know the three pillars of Wiki. 2. I haven't contributed any articles to it before. 3. A friend suggested I write a bio when he went looking for me on Wiki and didn't find anything I'm not really sure how to write the wiggly line either. I don't think I've every used that keystroke. Sadly, I'm not the kind of person who takes to manuals like a duck to water. I still don't know how to use a vedio recorder - and they've since been superceded by DVDs! Having said all that and spent all afternoon on this, I'm quite happy to let the whole thing drop. If someone wants to do something on me, they can. But I do appreciate your kind approach Alan. Very lovely. Warm regards Wiggly line *4

p.s. Film Victoria has twice funded script development for a feature film on my life. It's in for it's third round of funding approval now. If the film gets past the post, someone will no doubt Wiki me, so all is not lost yet. (That info's also on google.)

And now, silly me, I hadn't even looked at another Wiki autobiography. I did this and had one last attempt. I've now deleted large chunks and kept it short. Will investigate the wiggly line.

Wiggly line is left to the 1 key, you must hold down shift and hit it. Are you willing to learn by contributing to other articles on wikipedia? If this is the case we can choose something together and I can tutor you. Alan.ca 10:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Alan, You sound like such a kind, patient man. (Do you work for Wiki or are you an enthusiast?) But learning new technology isn't my thing. I use computers only for writing and googling occassionally. My main game is child protection and I don't think Wiki will particularly advance that endeavour. I'll leave it with the cosmic intention. If it's meant to be, it will be. But thanks for your kind offer anyway. Warm regards Barbbiggs 10:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC) (!) :)[reply]

I don't work for wiki, very few people do... I think it's less then 5 people. It's a community here of election and promotion of volunteers. You may find there are child protection articles on the site that you could contribute to, but if you have no interest, I understand. If you want to only further the hopes of your own wiki article, the best way to do that is to make a list of facts and their relevant cited sources on your talk page below. Good luck! Alan.ca 10:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, a very kind offer Alan. My initial reaction was no, it isn't me. But then I'm always interested in contributing to the debate and misunderstood aspects of child sexual abuse. Any suggestions about something on child sexual abuse I could look at to see if I would be interested in putting further time into this? Barbbiggs 21:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent for you to take interest. You can start by checking out some of the articles linked to this one Child Abuse. As you are a newcomer, if you find an article that you believe you can contribute to, make a note back here and I will advise you on how to make the improvement you seek to make. Alan.ca 04:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just letting you know that I emailed the person who suggest I put myself on W. to let them know that I'd attempted but withdrawn the effort. I emailed them the attachment of what I'd submitted. They've just emailed me saying they've put up a posting based on an edited version of what I'd submitted. I said not to bother, but they diid it anyway, so...c'est la vie. Barbbiggs

Well on that issue I still have the same point of view as we haven't made much progress in that regard. I guess the deletion debate will be conducted again. Please see the above section for our other discussion. Alan.ca 06:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barb, I just spent the last hour cleaning up that repost your friend made of the original article. The problem here is that you have made a lot of controversial statements and on wikipedia those types of articles need to be well sourced. I have read through a lot of the information about you and I have great respect for what you have done, but pushing an article in here that is poorly sourced is asking for trouble. I would appreciate it if you would ask your friends not to be adding material to the article unless they can confirm it with sources. These hasty maneouvres are wasting a lot of time in debates over deleting an article that could be properly prepared and launched without all this process. It has been my hope that you would get a neutrally written article while learning to contribute to wikipedia at the same time. Alan.ca 08:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Biography in progress

Barbara Biggs, born December 3 1956, is an Australian journalist and author.

Books
Her first book, published by Sly Ink in 2003, was the first part of an autobiography, called In Moral Danger, about her life up to the age of 22.
It tells of her sexual abuse at 14 by a famous Melbourne criminal barrister, Robert Vernon, 42, also a paedophile (deceased), who paid Biggs grandmother for the introduction to her then homeless grand-daughter.
The abuse continued for nine months, but the book also tells of the damaging after affect, including at 16 being in a pyschiatric hospital, at 18 escaping Cambodia weeks before it fell to the Khmer Rouge and at 19 being a prostitute in Japan. By 21 she had attempted suicide four times, received death threats and caused national headlines (see below).
The book became a runaway success, selling 25,000 copies in its first three years. It was reprinted for the sixth time in 2006.
In Moral Danger has since been published in Sweden [[1]] and Greece [[2]] in 2006, in the UK in 2004 and New Zealand[[3]], where it became Number One on its best-seller list, in 2005.[4]
Biggs' second book, The Road Home, published by Sly Ink in 2004, is about her life from 22-42, culminating in a legal battle with the barrister, which she won. It also tells how she became a mother, classical pianist, journalist and property millionaire.
The book was launched in May 2004 by former disgraced Governor General, Peter Hollingworth, a year after he became the first Australian GG to resign. Two years earlier he had made inappropriate comments about child sexual abuse and mishandled certain complaints made to him during his career as an Anglican minister.[5]
Hollingworth also wrote a foreword to the book, in which he said it and the prequel had helped him understand the issue of child sexual abuse.
In Moral Danger and The Road Home were published in Japanin one volume in 2006[[6]].
Biggs has written three more books, her fourth, about a teenager girl who falls prey to a predator in a teen chat room, was at the request of Victoria Police.

Child Protection Campaigner[[7]]
Since Biggs first book was published she has become an advocate for social change and awareness about child sexual abuse. She was the keynote speaker launching Child Protection Week in Victoria in 2003.
She now speaks about the issue of child sexual abuse at child protection conferences.
Extracts are used in the empathy component of one of the world's leading treatment programs for child sex offenders, Kia Marama Prison in New Zealand.

Political Candidacy
She stood as an Upper House candidate for new political party, People Power, in the 2006 Victorian election. She also wrote the party's child protection policy. Because of the party's preference deals, she was the last candidate eliminated before the Greens candidate took the seat[[8]].

Political History
When she was 21, Biggs caused national headlines by being the second person in Australia to use new legislation which allowed her to not join the tramways union on conscientious grounds. She was a tram conductress at the time.
She refused to join because her union rep had threatened her. It was only later, when she received anonymous death threats, that she discovered the first person in Australia to use the conscientious objection certificate had been murdered in a Sydney pub three months earlier.
The strike lasted two weeks. Before it could spread to national action, Biggs accepted a secondment to the Ministry of Transport which moved her off the trams and the strike ended. The Industrial Relations Tribunal found the union in breach of the law by striking against Biggs, but the fine applicable under the act was never paid. Almost thirty years later, when Biggs stood in the Victorian state elections, socialist blogs still referred to her as a 'scab' and 'the most obnoxious' of her party's candidates. [[[9]]

Barbara Biggs

The article you created at Barbara Biggs was listed for deletion as An article about a real person that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject, criterion 7 in the criteria for speedy deletion, Articles section. Since it appears to be about you I've moved it to your user space instead, which was probably what you intended in the first place (a common mistake among newcomers!).

If you really did mean to create an article about yourself please be aware that this is often considered a bad idea, even if you do meet the guidelines for inclusion of biographies.

I know Wikipedia can be confusing for new editors, so you are welcome to ask for help at the help desk or on my talk page. Guy (Help!) 13:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Guy, Thanks. Happy to have the article deleted. A friend who suggested I should be on wiki posted it after I sent it to him and told him it had been earmarked for deletion. I told him it wasn't important, since I'd lived up to now without a presence on Wikipedia and felt I could continue to do so without any dire consequences! But my friend thought he was being helpful. I will investigate what importance or significance of subject entails. Another heavy user I have been corresponding with thought I might perhaps fit the notability criteria but that I should under no circumstances attempt writing the entry myself. I agreed with him but then didn't know about my friends renewed posting. Sadly my new helper had already spent an hour working on it. Please delete it as required. Kind regards BB

No need to delete, it's at your user page now. If your friend wants to work up an article that should be fine, as long as they establish how the article meets the biography guidelines. I didn't think that a deletion debate was necessarily the most helpful thing here, I think it's a case for working it up as a user subpage and then see if it's a good 'un. I'm pleased you're being sanguine about it and recognise that there is unquestionably nothing personal about this. Guy (Help!) 10:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Biography Discussion

On the subject of my own entry, I'm pleased fo hear that there is some positive feedback about trying to keep it in in some form. It is, I have to confess, hard for me to understand what'scontentious or unverifiable about it. I read through it and could find nothing I found contentious or could imagine anyone else finding contentious. It could be vastly shortened - which wouldn't bother me at all - and this could cut in half the task of what needs to be done to make it acceptable. As for verifiable, if you could let me know what needs verifying, I'll do my best to verify. Take, for example, the claim about the barrister, which could be a problem in Australia if he were alive. In our country, if someone is dead, you can't defame them. Additionally, there has been a Crimes Compensation Tribunal which he vigorously fought over three days before he died. I could not cite this since records of it, or at least the findings of it, would only exist in court records,which would not be online. I wouldn't have a clue where to begin going about verifying this online. However, you or anyone else, would have no trouble finding dozens and dozens of interviews on google with various media outlets online that have written stories about this and interviewed me talking about the child abuse perpetrated by him. So, where does that leave the entry as far as Wiki is concerned? If I knew specifically what the concerns were, I'd have a better chance of discerning whether or not I could address them. Kind regards Barbbiggs 04:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably best to see where the article stands after the debate has been completed. The most important thing to understand here is that we must all assume that nothing is true until a citable source is provided. We cannot even assume the man you mention is deceased without evidence. Controversial statements require special care to make certained they are verified properly as to protect wikipedia from perspective law suits. The last thing anyone wants to see is this non-profit project bankrupted as the result of one error of submission through litigation expenses. The fact that you wrote your own article presents a serious conflict of interest and casts doubt on the neutrality of such writings. There are 3 pillars on which wikipedia is based Verifiability, Neutral Point of View and No Original Research. I'm sure you can imagine how easy it would be to violate those basic principles in an autobiography. In the mean time, organize your independent sources and the statements that they verify. The sources can be published works, in fact, court references may be acceptable if they are publically available. Alan.ca 04:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the nature of the Wiki world is such that we can't assume that you are the same Barbara Biggs as in the article, or even that your real name is Barbara Biggs. Robert A West could be the name of my cat for all anyone can prove. Vandals have been known to take the persona of a person biographied or to create a similar-looking username to confuse people. The presumption is, however, that anyone self-identifying as "Barbarabiggs" is probably not neutral on the article "Barbara Biggs."

From your comments, I assume the article is not on your watchlist. I recommend that do so. Click on the "Watch" tab. You can then click on "my watchlist" any time to track recent changes. This is useful to detect vandalism, well-meaning edits that introduce inaccuracies, complaints about sourcing and, yes, deletion nominations. Robert A.West (Talk) 11:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Robert, Slowly finding my way around using this site. It's quite complex with so many parts and pages. Technology makes me nervous. Hopefully the many citations I've now added will help get the entry over the line. As I said to Alan feel free to delete anything that contravenes the Wiki criteria for neutrality. I'm not that fussed. But now everybody, including me, has put so much time into this, I'd like to see it not wasted. I also found something online about the barristers death which I really didn't expect to find. That's good. I've also found articles of my own, written by me, published in Australian newspapers (might look for an international one too come to think of it) which should verify that I am, indeed, not only a journalist but a social commentator, which I've now added. Barbbiggs 15:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would anbody be interested in putting back the political candidacy section that was deleted. The reference source for it's verifiability is the Nitika Mansinghe article. There are also references to this on www.crikey.com.au. Barbbiggs 23:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Robert, I can find a 'my watchlist' and an 'unwatch' tab, but no 'watch' tab. Can you direct me to it? Barbbiggs 00:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you see the "unwatch" tab, you are already watching the article. It's like a push-button on/off switch; If you look at an article you aren't watching, you will see the "watch" tab in the same place. You may have checked the box under "Preferences" that causes you to automatically watch any article you edit, or things may be set up now so that you automatically watch any article you create. The technicians are always tweaking things. Robert A.West (Talk) 11:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Satanic ritual abuse Article

Barb, I started this section so that we can work on the Satanic ritual abuse article. Please post your concerns in this section and we can discuss how to address them here. Alan.ca 09:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alan, I'm just finding my way around this site. Just found these added entries. Have learnt heaps today about Wiki, how to add a discussion topic, how to edit the first paragraph of an entry, how to respond to a particular person's talk page, found the whole discussion about my own entry and used lots of stuff you'd taught me to add the citations and internal links. Ah, who would've thought. But it's nearly 3am in Melbourne and I'm fagged. Onto SRA tomorrow. Barbbiggs

Answers to questions

AfD officially runs for five days, but often longer if an admin doesn't get around to closing the debate. It is not a vote, the closing admin is supposed to take into account the different points of view moreso than numbers. Nonetheless, numbers tell. Unless there is a strong argument (such as no one can find any sources at all -- we get topics like that), it generally takes 2/3 or 3/4 support for deletion to get rid of an article. Anything less and the article is kept.

Articles and statements get questioned when a Wikipedian thinks to question them. The requirement is that a source be provided for any statement, "That has been questioned or is likely to be questioned." If you, as a Wikipedian, feel that any article is inaccurate, you can and should take any or all of the following actions. Most of this is common sense, not arcane policy.

You can and should bring up concerns on the talk page. You should also give clear, concise edit summaries. The more you explain, the better.
If you think a statement might be true, but feel a source is needed, tag the statement by placing "{{fact}}" after it.
If you think a statement doubtful, but feel that someone should have a chance to defend it, you can tag it "{{dubious}}."
If you think a statement false, and it has no source, you can remove it and leave a copy on the talk page for comment. Who knows? Someone may have a source.
If you think an unsourced statement is patent nonsense, or if it defames a living person, just delete it, but explain why clearly.
If sources are given for statements you believe false, the position is held by some reasonable people, find sources that refute them and include the other side. Giving both sides of any reasonable debate (even if you believe one side horribly wrong) is considered a neutral point of view (NPOV) and is a goal of Wikipedia.
If you feel that undue weight is being given to a little-held or fringe position, you can reduce or even remove the fring position entirely, unless the article is about the fringe position itself, in which case the fringe nature of the position should be made clear. This is consistent with NPOV.
If you feel that the entire article is patent nonsense, and don't feel that a decent, NPOV article about the subject is possible, you may nominate it for deletion.

I hope this helps. Robert A.West (Talk) 13:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Robert, IN reference to the entry on The Courage to Heal, a book for survivors of child sexual abuse, since it's sold more than a million copies and is about to go into it's twentieth year in print, the views held by the reccovered memory movement could well be considered fringe. But I'm such a novice here, Alan has agreed to help me also in working on this entry. Obviously I need help, but this whole article, and many more, appear to be written by this fringe but quite fantic group. Will wait to see if my wad of citations on my own entry will get it over the line. Barbbiggs 15:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Autobiography

I advise you strongly to cease editing your own biography. While you are acting in good faith, Wikipedia has developed guidelines about conflict of interest and autobiography. I recommend that you follow the links I just gave and read them. Editing your own biography creates the impression that you are trying to insert your own point of view, which is a violation of Wikipedia's most fundamental principle: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and/or trying to insert facts that have not been previously been published, which Wikipedians term original research. (The term originated as a response to various physics cranks, but now means any unverifiable material. While sometimes inapt, it is a far politer term than many alternatives.) I discuss further on Talk:Barbara Biggs. Robert A.West (Talk) 11:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page limits

Hi I came here from the Australian Articles for Deletion project. Not trying to be rude but you have LONG discussions on your talk page. With this in mind, your talk page will become very difficult to edit...

You should check out Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page. This will help you to keep your talk page managable. There are tools around to auto-archive your talk page, but I think these will cut up current conversations looking at how much you are entering each time.

Another possibility is moving some of the stuff to a sub-page. I find the easiest way to do that is to create the link to a subpage first - say User:Barbbiggs/sandbox - the first time you try to navigate to it, it will be created.

Take the advice and avoid editing or coaching others in the editing of the article about you. Also if you are active on wikipedia in other subject areas, DON'T use your own books when you provide references to articles. See WP:VANITY. Hope this helps.Ga rr ie 01:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 10:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"a swag of objections to citations I've made"

The rules for citations are at WP:CITE. As always, the principles to remember are verifiability, reliable sources, and neutral point of view. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

Reread the Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:Civility before accusing me of being part of a conspiracy against you. You have been warned twice about this so please do not do it again. All of my edits have been for the benefit of the page that you broke. Things I have done that someone who was part of a father's rights group would not have done:

Fixed the headings for your career
Added detailed info and ISBN for all of your books
Requested cutting down on the weight of the conviction on the talk page
Added an infobox to the article
Removed clean up flags (a couple I put in and a couple I didn't)
Kept sources removed form the page on the talk page for easy access to reinclude as appropriate

You can be frustrated that another editor brought the article to the attention of oters but that doesn't mean you should throw accusations at others because they disagree with the inclusion of a handful of sources. I am following Wikipedia guidelines to make a better article because it is something I enjoy. It has nothing to do with you. Cptnono (talk) 02:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And disruptive editing

It comes across like you fishing for results that benefit what you want this article to say. The following are a list of reason I consider your edits disruptive. It preferred solution would be for you adjusted the way you are interacting with Wikipeida and other editors instead.

You link here from the bio on your website asking readers to see more information
You have inserted links to opinion pieces in this article
You disregard editors request for assistance in adding encyclopedic information
- I have asked for input on a "Personal life" subsection but you are more concerned with debating the age you were when you were convicted
- I have asked for input on information for the infobox. There are RS that talk about you so point them out if you see them.
You accuse people of bias for attempting to follow the guidelines
You attempt to keep in information related to general concerns over child welfare rather than the subject (you)
You argue with editors instead of looking for solutions.
You disregard formatting, style, sourcing, and other guidelines and refuse to accept advice offered to you. Some of these have been provided in duplicate.

This information is not meant to be an attack. I am giving you my impression of your edits in the hope that you will correct what you are doing wrong. I also think it is clear that your account is of a disruptive nature with the sole purpose of promoting yourself and ideals. It is only fair that I inform you of my concerns before seeking administrator action. That step shouldn't and won't be necessary if you take a second to relax and realize that I and most editors are not out to get you. It is a shame that you have had a group go after you in one way or the other and they should be admonished as well if they use Wikipedia as a platform for these attacks.Cptnono (talk) 04:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "Recovered Memories of Sexual Abuse: Scientific Research & Scholarly Resources". Retrieved 2006-12-11.

[1]