Talk:Ann Olivarius

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I believe I had cited the Autism Speaks page properly. It seems that the bot may have been confused. Regardless, I am editing the relevant sentences.


I have now created a temporary page for Ann Olivarius removing the material from Autism Speaks site as it appeared to confuse the system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pukkativa (talk • contribs) 22:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Close paraphrasing[edit]

While you have shortened the text, all of the material you restored follows the language and structure of the source very closely. For example, your rewrite says:

While pursuing her undergraduate studies at Yale, Olivarius was involved in Alexander v. Yale, the first lawsuit to define sexual harassment in an educational institution as a civil rights violation.

The source says:

While pursuing her undergraduate studies at Yale, Dr. Olivarius was involved in the first lawsuit to define sexual harassment in an educational institution as a civil rights violation.

While facts are not copyrightable, creative elements of presentation - including both structure and language - are. So that it will not constitute a derivative work, this article should be rewritten in the temporary space that is now linked from the article's front. The essay Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing contains some suggestions for rewriting that may help avoid these issues. The article Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches, while about plagiarism rather than copyright concerns, also contains some suggestions for reusing material from sources that may be helpful, beginning under "Avoiding plagiarism". VernoWhitney (talk) 15:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited again as per your suggestions, thanks! pukkativa (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I think it's probably okay now, but I'd like to have an administrator double check just to be sure. One should take a look at it tomorrow. Thanks for rewriting it. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion[edit]

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --130.15.87.63 (talk) 00:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was looking for info on her, and this helped. This women is one of the most famous lawyers in the Western world, and a seminal legal figure who now runs one of the world's largest internaltional law firms. I don't know why this would be deleted!

Completely agree, I'm surprised the closing editor of the deletion debate chose 'no consensus' over 'keep', a bit of a weak decision. There are too many people on WP who think people are notable only if they appear in a quick google search. That is biased towards currently notable people. The fact Olivarius's achievements are still being mentioned 33 years after the event clearly show she was very notable at one time! Sionk (talk) 10:43, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editorial Disagreement[edit]

We appear to be having a disagreement as to recent vandalism on Ann Olivarius. As the original author of this page, I have seen previous attempts at vandalism on it too. The latest edits by SurlyStar (whose account appears to have been created solely for the purpose of making these edits) are misrepresentative of the facts and have the effect of skewing the picture. I believe Oogui was right to undo SurlyStar's edits. If you think otherwise, perhaps we can have an alternate version that is more representative and NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pukkativa (talk • contribs) 20:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to their contribs Pukkativa and Oogui act like WP:SPAs. The edit of SPA SurlyStar is backed by the given ref.-- Dewritech (talk) 16:08, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Firstly, I cannot comment on Oogui but I am certainly not WP:SPA. Ijust happen to be the original creator of this page and therefore vested in ensuring it is not vandalised.
Secondly, SurlyStar is clearly WP:SPA. The account came completely out of the blue to include one edit of an event from 8 months ago, and to present that event in a biased non NPOV light. I hate to comment on people's intentions but it is clearly someone with an axe to grind.
Thirdly, you are wrong in that the edit is backed up by the link. Yes, the decision revokes her application but it does NOT make a finding of misconduct, which is the sort of allegation that is extremely defamatory, especially when talking about lawyers.
Fourthly, even if the statement were true (which it is not) its addition in the context of the article violates NPOV. Minor disciplinary events happen all the time. She is still clearly practising and doing the work for which she is known in the UK and the US. She was recognized by the ACLU AFTER this event happened. But SurlyStar's edit gives the impression that she's been disbarred for dishonesty, which is NOT the case.
So, for all these reasons, I am respectfully undoing your edit. If you restore SurlyStar's edit as is, we will have to resolve the dispute. As I have suggested before, I'd be happy for a neutral representation of this event to be included if the community considers it necessary (I do not), but SurlyStar's edit is a) untrue; b) defamatory; c) incomplete; d) violation of NPOV; e) vandalism. Please do not restore it. --[User:Pukkativa]
1: All your activities in Wiki have been centered around this article.
2: Obviously SurlyStar is a SPA, but this doesn't make the edit automatically POV.
3: According to the reference, "The State of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Judicial Department ORDERED that respondent is found guilty of professional misconduct set forth in specifications 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 as found by the Referee and this decision" - so there was a finding of misconduct.
4: This is definitely not just a minor disciplinary event.
So I'll restore the deleted edit and copy this discussion to the Olivarius-Talk. If you want to answer, pls do it there.-- Dewritech (talk) 16:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments, which I have taken onboard. I have now had the time to read the decision carefully and also check her other disciplinary history which checks out just fine. I propose to edit the paragraph as below (items linked here will be moved as footnotes / references). I think this presents a fair and useful picture of the subject but have not replaced the current text as yet since I want to get input. Placing it here now, and pending other input, I will post this to her main page in 12 hours. Also, while researching this, I found a few other minor changes that I will make on her main page now. I trust this is in order.
Olivarius was originally admitted to practice law in Virginia.Virginia State Bar. http://206.113.151.134/attsearch/search.aspx In 2008, she applied to the bars of some additional states. Her application to New York contained errors and omissions that prompted her application to be revoked in 2012 by the Appellate Division of the Third Judicial Department. While finding that the omissions constituted professional misconduct, the Court “acknowledged the Referee's conclusion that [Olivarius’] failure was more due to carelessness than an intent to deceive and defraud.” http://decisions.courts.state.ny.us/ad3/Decisions/2012/D-14-12%20Olivarius.pdf Her bar applications to New Hampshire and Minnesota did not contain those errors, and she remains an attorney in good standing in Minnesota, lprb.mncourts.gov/LawyerSearch/Pages/default.aspx New Hampshire,http://www.nhattyreg.org/search.php Virginia http://206.113.151.134/attsearch/search.aspx and England and Wales.http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/find-a-solicitor/?view=solsearch#formtop Her reapplication to New York, as invited by the Appellate Division,“Under the particular circumstances presented, we conclude that respondent's application for admission should be revoked, but without prejudice to respondent's renewal of her application for admission based upon the record in this proceeding and any additional information requested by the Committee on Character and Fitness.” is pending. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pukkativa (talk • contribs) 13:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The account Elstonbrene appears to have been created solely for the purpose of making edits on this page. Edits were poorly cited and gave undue weight to contentious information and so have been removed. -- UFO Music (talk) 17:43, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I once again removed unreliably sourced information from Elstonbrene. -- UFO Music (talk) 18:55, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Ann Olivarius. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:58, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ann Olivarius. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Conflict of Interest[edit]

My revisions to this page were flagged as possible "conflict of interest" by user:MPS1992. I appreciate the opportunity to clarify my relationship to the subject of the page. I do know Dr. Ann Olivarius, who I first met when she was my lawyer for a particular matter. But I am, first and foremost, a scholar. My entire professional life has been dedicated to scholarship - my journal articles, books, conference presentations, as well as all of my wikipedia entries. I stand behind the factual accuracy of all of my writing, whether it is in wikipedia or other publishing outlets. As a scholar, my entries on wikipedia are factual and accurate, as per the conventions of scholarship in academia. The Ann Olivarius page was out of date. I took it upon myself to make revisions and updates. You can see that everything I added is carefully and externally sourced, and my tone and content is fundamentally fair. I am happy, as per the collaborative nature of wikipedia, to discuss particular items and make further revisions, if they seem appropriate - just as I am for all the pages I have edited. I also note that I am now affiliated with The Rhodes Project, which is a scholarly study of women who have received a Rhodes Scholarship. But, again, this no more evidences bias than saying, for example, that my wikipedia entry on the Iatmul people or the Sepik River is biased because I am a professional anthropologist who studies the Iatmul. Again, I stress that all my entries are fair and factual, and carefully sourced and cited. Cadbury333 (talk) 13:07, 12 September 2018 (UTC)Cadbury333[reply]

I have reviewed the conflict of interest and the article text, and consider all statements to be accurate and appropriately referenced.Nga19 (talk) 14:06, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article reads like a promotional piece. Even if some of the items included are referenced it does not mean they should be in the article. Many are primary references, and they are all positive. While that is possible it is unlikely for an individual like Olivarius, as I am sure she probably has critics. And the peacock language also makes this suspicious that someone either with a strong POV or COI has been editing this article.VVikingTalkEdits 14:24, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed on the above comment. I have now taken a crack at it, in order to remove any promotional content. The sourcing in the previous version was really bad, either not mentioning her, or trying to wedge in material that is beyond the scope. But I want to make sure that I didn't miss anything, so was wondering if any other editors believe that there is still a need for the COI tag (nearly none of the material previously added is still here). 2001:569:712B:C000:7947:2FCB:93EA:F0E9 (talk) 00:43, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look. Isingness (talk) 01:24, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ann_Olivarius&oldid=1202026340"