"

Is it UNDO? 
Years later, it's 50% of her OWN self-promoting website. My instincts tell me that loyal fans - that is ""fans"" as in the root word fanatics, will contact her through her website and pled with her to remove her account of the incident (or see her memory besmirched on Wikipedia! – That’s just humor to make a point, let that knot in your panties loosen up a bit. Come on. Life will go on if a mild accurate account of the arrest is included). JFK had multiple extra marital affairs, people are interested in that fact. In Clinton’s day, people were so interested that he went through impeachment because of his outside-of-marriage-activities. In Mary Ann’s case, it is all the more interesting because it allegedly has been her co-star, Gilligan, supplying her marijuana for years.

BLP: 
No one answers Chowbok’s questions on any of the “reasons” why this information is blocked, that is, “answer” in the sense of saying anything other than rhetoric. WHY MUST THIS INTERESTING EVENT BE EXCLUDED FROM WIKIPEDIA WHEN THE SUBJECT’S OWN WEBSITE DEVOTES SPECIAL ATTENTION TO IT? Because those guarding her memory, unlike her, can’t deal with a least brief mention of the truth? But in that vein, are we as loyal citizens of Gilligan’s Island duty-bound to protect our virgin queen? Grow up. Let the truth be included.

If Mary Ann writes a biography, the excerpts released by the publisher will assuredly include the arrest while in possession of marijuana, and those facts will be the ones that bring attention to her book. The most worn pages of her biography will be the pages discussing the arrest and the aftermath, unless it turns out that she was in a long-running threesome with Mr. Howell and the Skipper. Oh, by the way, why do I refer to her as “Mary Ann?” Because I am being disrespectful; much like the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of you are to Chowbok and anyone else who disagrees with you. No amount of charm or politeness on my part is going to win a single one of you over. You need to rise above the digs and the rhetoric and improve this article because the exclusion of this information of significant interest to the vast majority of people hurts Wikipedia. If you can’t get over sweet Mary Ann getting her adorable little button nose dirty, or you can’t rise above me being disrespectful, you surely won’t elevate yourselves to include the facts simply because it is, editorially, the right decision. 
I
F YOU WANT TO PLAY THE ROLE OF EDITOR, THEN TAKE ON THE BURDEN OF DOING THE JOB WITH THE PRIDE OF MAKING UNBIASED EDITORIAL DECISIONS. If you are simply a Mary Ann worshipper, then join her fan club, bow towards Gilligan’s Island seven times a day, and burn incense before her golden image; but don’t pretend to be an editor with the slightest degree of integrity.

Years later, HER ACCOUNT OF THE INCIDENT is told only through the words of her lawyer. She refuses to give a personal account. I find that fascinating. Even O.J. spoke personally when he denied murdering his ex-wife. Hell, in his case, he spoke DIRECTLY to the Judge in front of a live TV audience, even though he had four of his lawyers standing right next to him. Mary Ann, on her own website, still hides behind the unsigned words of her lawyer (I highly recommend reading his words. If the presentation/spin upon the events is not hysterical to you, you have not yet developed the critical thinking necessary to be an editor (well, anywhere but on Wikipedia; interestingly, a place I do not have the right to edit the Sacred Page of The Virgin Mary Ann). 
The CONSENSUS is that Mary Ann is MORE WIDELY KNOWN for the arrest while in possession of marijuana than anything else she has ever done. It's not only the top single reason that anyone searches for information on her, variations on arrest/marijuana/drunk driving are the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of the any searches about her.

BE BOLD?: 
“Be Bold” and edit says Wikipedia’s founder. But the bullies on this issue say, if you are “bold,” you will be sent messages to stop editing, and we will block you from editing anything about Mary Ann as her page is “protected.” 

I can go to the Wikipedia page of Wikipedia creator and founder Jimmy Wales and edit anything I chose on his page, but not so Mary Ann. I can even go to the page about that other “Mary” - you might have heard of her, she gave birth to Jesus Christ, Lord and Savior - and edit anything and everything.

What credibility can any editor of Wikipedia have when its founder’s page can be edited, pages of living and revered religious and historical figures can be edited, but editing of a 1960s’ short run ensemble cast sit-com bit player’s page must be reviewed and “approved” by self-proclaimed “editors,” aka B.O.G.I, the Bullies Of Gilligan’s Island.

Included PROMINENTLY in the article on Wales is the d