Talk:Ellen Simonetti

message: This article was automatically  assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 11:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: I've added the screenshot of Simonetti's blog for illustration purposes.  I am trying to figure out
a way to add useful/informative images to the blog article, and this is a test case.  I believe such screenshots, judiciously chosen and formatted, qualify as "fair use", but I am surely not an expert in what constitutes "fair use".  If I've missed the mark in my assertion of "fair use" in the image description, 
please either help me to develop the appropriate description or try to explain to me why this doesn't work.  Thx.  Bdushaw (talk) 20:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blog page upload 

message: User , an apparently single-purpose account, made quite a few changes to the article.  All were reverted except, so far, the most recent (diff):  
: ==Delta filed bankruptcy a week after Ellen Simonetti filed the law suit==
: Law.com article states misleading comment about this case. Her case was not dismissed, but transfered to the bankruptcy court since Delta Airlines filed bankraptacy [sic].
: Reference: http://chapter11.epiqsystems.com/claimpdf/50f35f04a4054ce98ea08b27e34199f90000005035.PDF
User Sagan2000 was advised in edit summaries and on the user's talk page to engage in discussion here but has not done so.  I haven't checked the pdf link and don't know if it's a reliable source.  If it is, it may be used, but a humongous section heading wouldn't be needed for this bit, I think.  Any ideas about if or how to incorporate this into the article with appropriate chronology?  — Athaenara  ✉  18:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The reference cited (http_chapter11...) was a pdf document recently provided by Simonetti on her blog in response to the recent changes to her Wikipedia page.  I agree that a separate heading for this is not necessary, and that the present section is out of place.  This document and the "court docket" may well come under the notion of "no original research" - how can we as wikipedians take these original documents and draw inferences?  (We are not lawyers to decipher the chicken scratches of that original document!)  I suggest dropping them entirely, and perhaps sticking with more standard references.  Some of the "law.com" references are not accessible, however - subscription only; we might well also drop "law.com" entirely also, and replace it with other more accessible references.  law.com does not seem to be a publication on its own; rather it looks like it collects legal references published elsewhere.  To summarize:  recent references suggest that the suit is deferred/stayed for now, that the Simonetti case is still used as an example of employee-employer blogging problems, and (if I remember correctly) this story is related to the rise in a blogger's code of conduct.  IMHO Sagan2000's edits do not appear to be particularly constructive.  Bdushaw (talk) 11:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Also, it look's as if Simonetti's "blogging code of conduct" is somewhat different than blogger's code of conduct.  Not sure how to reconcile the two, or to better document the former. Perhaps it is just the "Committee to protect bloggers" that is meant here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4278241.stm).  It looks like that organization started-stopped-and started again.  Bdushaw (talk) 11:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

text: with "Her case was dismissed on October 28, 2005."
That edit (diff) replaced content which was supported by July and September 2008 sources with an unsupported claim, alleging above (diff) that a 2005 docket is sufficient.  — Athaenara  ✉  22:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent changes 

message: OK let's end the madness. The lawsuit has not been dismissed. Delta filed for bankruptcy protection a week after the lawsuit was filed so all pending suits were transferred to bankruptcy court in NY. That's where the case is now. See this PDF referred to above - the "received" date on the claim is 2006, a year after the law.com article claims the case was dismissed. So it would appear that the law.com statement is in error. I will edit accordingly and any further unreferenced edit warring will lead to a request for page protection. Thank you. – ukexpat (talk) 16:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Status as of 12/5/08 

message: ; Ellen Simonetti 
→ in re: 
I think it's time we reported that persistent IP reverter, don't you? I have been in contact with Ellen and she has confirmed what is in our version of the article. If this nonsense persists, I will ask her to have her lawyer contact me to see if we can find even more references as to the current status. Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 02:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been following the nonsense...  I thought I'd comment that the Simonetti page has been subjected to regular, if low level in recent months, vandalism/troublemakers.  I began working on the page when I happened across it a couple of years ago now and found it to be a cesspool of mysogynism.  New valid references may or may not make a difference; some of the "contributions" are not honorable (the two references I found seemed respectable enough).  In any case, it is likely that there will be continued low-level trouble with the page, irrespective of the present IP reverter.  The page seems to require long-term, if low-level hopefully, maintenance, alas. Bdushaw (talk) 04:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

text: We're supposed to warn them, so I substed the  template on the user's talk page (diff).  The article's problems with vandals and negative POV-pushers came to my attention on the BLP noticeboard* more than a year ago, not quite as long ago as Bdushaw knew of them and began watching it.   I think long term page semi-protection would be an appropriate partial remedy.  As an admin, I could technically do that, but as an involved editor I'm not sure I should be the one.  — Athaenara  ✉  04:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  * [archives 11 and 12, March 2007 (added by Athaenara 23:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

text: P.S.  I think this discussion should be copied to the article's talk page and continued there.  — Athaenara  ✉  05:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I did request page protection, but it was declined. – ukexpat (talk) 17:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that decision is consistent with previous requests, as I recall.  At the moment the problems are not severe enough to warrant long-term protection - I think it is the wikipedia philosophy to prefer to keep access to articles as open as possible, even if it means pages require a bit of correcting attention from time-to-time.  I can't say I disagree with that, but it does mean that pages like this require some regular attention.  Left on its own, I suspect this page would drift off into madness again...  It would be helpful, I believe, to protect against editing by generic IP addresses - some of the edits may well be in good faith (I suspect that 70.174.183.163 firmly believes the law suit was dropped), but it is hard to deal with people who pop up on arbitrary IP addresses and refuse to discuss matters on the talk pages; its the whack-a-mole syndrome.  Bdushaw (talk) 22:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, I don't firmly believe her lawsuit was dropped - I know for a fact that her case was DISMISSED.  Get a pacer account and access the docket in the NDGa District Coirt and SDNY Bankruptcy Court.  Her Ga case was dismissed because DAL Inc. filed BK.  She filed a "proof of claim" in the SDNY which NEVER progressed to an adversarial case, nor was it a "transfer" of her Georgia case.  DAL is out of bankruptcy and her case is deader than Generalissimo Francisco Franco.  Please learn something about bankruptcy court before you go making incorrect claims.  Wikipedia is already dubious enough as an inaccurate source. 70.174.183.163 (talk) 02:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The argument you make is not admissible in Wikipedia court.  It is based on "original research" which is verbotten; it is not verifiable ("get a Pacer account"?).  Rather, wikipedia policy is that articles must be based on reliable references/publications/established literature; wikipedia is rather strict about that, because it wants to be a reliable and accurate source of information.  You, Mr. 70.174.183.163, have gone about this topic and conflict in an entirely inappropriate way.  I didn't "go making incorrect claims", I merely asked you (twice) for reliable references to support your view; you had none.  The most recent edit on this madness was probably the best, which was to remove the sentence altogether.  Bdushaw (talk) 21:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Forwarded discussion

message: Ellen Simonetti is only known for her blog about her work with Delta Airlines, otherwise is unknown.82.44.87.177 (talk) 11:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If this was a case of an "ordinary" dismissal, I would agree with you, but this was in fact one of the first "bloggers' rights" cases, so I think it merits inclusion as a separate article. – ukexpat (talk) 16:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article to be merged with Delta Airlines is suggested 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Ellen Simonetti. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081216041912/http://committeetoprotectbloggers.org:80/ to http://committeetoprotectbloggers.org/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Ellen Simonetti. 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:
*Added  tag to http://chapter11.epiqsystems.com/claimpdf/50f35f04a4054ce98ea08b27e34199f90000005035.PDF
*Added  tag to http://journalspace.com/this_is_the_way_the_world_ends/not_with_a_bang_but_a_whimper.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070813192811/http://weblog.infoworld.com/dickerson/001393.html to http://weblog.infoworld.com/dickerson/001393.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://committeetoprotectbloggers.org/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified