Talk:Ellen Simonetti/Archive 1

message: User User:Not Dilbert claims I am wrong to revert his earlier changes about the case being dismissed but he only directs me to PACER a non free search site to verify this. I see no evidence of a dismissal anywhere else and am tempted to remove it from the article.Master shepherd 17:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, so if you can't find it on a free site on the internet the dismissal never happened?  How utterly stupid.  It is for entries such as this that Wikipedia has the reputation that it does.  If you doubt that her case was dismissed by the USDC on October 28, 2005, why not email the lady and ask?  Obviously I am lying about it, and I just happened to pick that date out of thin air. -Not Dilbert  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Not Dilbert (talk • contribs) 23:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I looked further and found a citation to back you up.  I don't think it is asking too much that there be some accessible evidence to support a statement of fact on the page. Master shepherd 04:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dismissal

message: Removed speculatory information and cleaned up grammatical errors. 7 Feb 07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Not Dilbert (talk • contribs) 16:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: User User:I Hate Queen Of Sky 
Sorry but the sources provided are from the subject's own blog for the majority of it.
Peoplle might not like the truth but i hardly see how it is violating her privacy to provide quotes and information and sourced links to the Subject's own blog. 
What better source do you want? It is straight from the horses mouth!
If Ellen does not like what is said she could remove the offending entries from her blog then the references would not exist.
Too many people are trying to protect Ellen aka the subject when her own blog provides the evidence of her true writing style and personality.
Stop the war, if you dont like what Ellen has put on her blog blame Ellen, she wrote it.
You might not like the fsct she put a porn website screenshot on her blog, or that she advertised the site SWYDM,  but the evidence is there on her blog.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chulcoop (talk • contribs) 21:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: User User:I Hate Queen Of Sky 
from the horses mouth:
this is a copy & paste from Ellen's OWN BLOG to back up 16 17 18. Hi All;Today I looked in my Guestbook and it appears that Mr. Stinkle is telling people that SWYDM, the site I have linked on the left of my blog, is a PORN site. Maybe you all should go to SWYDM and check it out for yourselves. It is a Friendster-type friendship/dating site with photo-rating.;Does this look like PORN to you? On the other hand, the ad that Mr. Stinkle had on queenofsky.com until a couple of days ago was HARD-CORE PORN. Here's what Mr. Skinkle's site looked like before... what do YOU think he is promoting here?
it is reference 16 in the article and can be obtained here
http://queenofsky.journalspace.com/?cmd=displaycomments&dcid=566&entryid=566
So i am not source. I know that in fact it was I and not Mr Stinkle who first broke the story and then Mr Stinkle carried it on, however as stated i CANNOY PROVE THAT so am willing to let Mr Stinkle take all the credit.
But still the evidence is this:
She admitted someone Mr Stinkle had told her it was a porn site (swydm) She said it was not. She then provided a screenshot of what was on his queenofsky.com (not her) site and put the screenshot on her journalspace journal. The sywdm site metions adult content in the t&c and also in searches by showing "18" stickers. An apology that she made a mistake cannot be found anywhere on her blog (strange ref but if someone reads the lot they wont find it) She no longer advertises the swydnm site.
I cant prove this but this was once i provided the evidence (photos) to her but as i can tprovie it then not mentioned except in this delete thing.
Wiki has gppd and bad about people. You think it deserves an entry.
I also put GOOD things about her like rights activist etc.
I helped in some other areas to make it FAIR.
My motives are irrelevant i have just been more honest.
As long as it is all accurately sourced (esp from her own blog) does it matter?
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ellen_Simonetti" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chulcoop (talk • contribs) 03:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ABout all this porn stuff

message: The following edit by User:Chulcoop was moved here per WP:SELF:
:"Ellen has mentioned the Editing War of this Wikipedia entry on her blog. She admitted she started this page. She claimed that the versions being provided by her critics were more authorative than her own. She also claimed she would no longer edit it or be responsible for its contents. ."
—Preceding unsigned comment added by CosmicPenguin (talk • contribs) 04:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved from the main page 

message: This entry on Ms. Simonetti is filled with childish rants. The section marked as "Controversy" included items that are not, in fact controversial. One person from one blog wants to ensure he has the opportunity to slander Ms. Simonetti by using Wikipedia. It is not enough to provide sourced links when the material is blatently used out of context.
His edits demonstrate poor grammar, pathetic sentence structure and absolutely lack cogency.  An intelligent editing is to state that the hate blog exists, give its URL and then list two to three of its top complaints and let people go there to read his rants if they so elect.
This has just become silly and it frustrates the legitimate purposes of wikipedia.  16:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is not the place for a blog-war 

message: Some prefered my contraversial version and some preferred my more boring version.
I have therefore tried to rephrase some of the more contraversial comments i made to make them appear more suitable for this wikipedia encyclopedia.
There is nothing contentious in this new "version" i have done and if there is anything contentious on Ellen's own blog which this references, well thats not the fault of this entry is it?
This is the version where i said you have to be british to "get it". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chulcoop (talk • contribs) 19:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compromise 

message: I am not certain what to do with this section.  Much of this material was generated by some of the vandals, I believe, as a way of justifying a negative opinion of the subject.  However, the facts just don't hold up as particularly damning - per a google search, "senior mommas" is indeed a common expression in the airline industry.  
The comments about airline maintenance seem hardly worth a negative reaction.  The phrase "white trash", while off-color, so to speak, is not generally perceived as "racist" per se.  It is a common, mildly derogatory southern expression, often used humorously, as I believe was the subject's intent in this case.  The two references (the YouTube video and the "I hate Queen of Sky" blog) bear little resemblance to the examples cited here.
Besides which, if we want to start nit picking personal blogs for off color or extreme remarks, I imagine one 
wouldn't have to look far...
I suggest much of this material be deleted and the links to the "opposing" sites be restored - let those sites
take responsibility for justifying the negative reaction.
Clearly, however, part of the story of the subject involves this negative reaction, so perhaps the section
should stay.  06:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  On "Critics and controversial aspects of her blog" 

message: Given the nature of the situation we seen to be facing with regard to development of this entry, editors and others should pay close attention to the Wikipedia policy regarding the biographies of living persons: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BLP  Bdushaw 13:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia Policy concerning the biographies of living people

message: I have reverted out much of Not Dilbert's comments.  They seemed to represent a pov; I've tried to strike a compromise.  One of the sources of contention is whether the photos are risque or not; this seems to be a gray area, a case where the degree of risqueness is in the eye of the beholder.  Pursuant to the Wikipedia policies regarding the biographies of living persons, we have to either say nothing, or at least carefully nuance the statements.
One of the problems I have is that I am unsure of what we really know, vs. all the stuff that has been claimed.
(1) Do we have a reference stating exactly why E.S. was terminated, i.e. a statement from Delta giving the actual reasons?  It seems to me termination because of the photos and "disparaging" comments is an obvious assumption, but a reference to a statement from Delta as to exactly why would be far better.  For example, Delta is in bankrupcy now; perhaps they were just looking for any excuses to terminate people.  As I recall, E.S. had a difficult time getting Delta to state the exact reasons for the termination.  I note also that the termination was without warning - there was no "you must remove the material, or you will be fired"; as I have stated above, one could make arguments about Delta's poor approach to this case.  Indeed, for all we really know, E.S. could have been terminated for reasons completely unrelated to the blog - yes?
(2) What elements of the photographs identify the uniform and airplane as Delta?  If one were an expert at this sort of thing,
one might be able to identify those things as Delta, but to me they seem "generic" airlines (and I fly quite a lot).
(3) ihqos above stated that QoS disparaged Delta by name prior to termination.  Does anyone have evidence that this is so?  My view is that the commentary was lively, occasionally-off color and opinionated - but falling short of the claim of "disparaging Delta Air Lines, etc."  But lets review the evidence.
I've read the Wikipedia policy carefully, and it seems to me that if this back and forth continues, then removing this article altogether would be the prudent approach and consistent with policy.
P.S. I've looked at the Shilpa Shetty article, etc.  I see that article as rather badly written...just because some other article does something does not justify the same approach here.  Bdushaw 20:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What do we really know?