Talk:Ellen Simonetti/Archive 1

Speculation about sales figures

I wonder how many copies of her book will be sold. I haven't seen any pre-publication reviews. TruthbringerToronto 04:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The first March 4, 2007 update was fairly accurate, and presented a well balanced account of the facts, as well as substantiation. Just becuase someone does not agree with facts does not necessarily mean the information should be deleted. 68.2.41.65 (talk · contribs) 04:30, March 5, 2007 (UTC)

Dismissal

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)

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)

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)

Cleanup

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)

Ditto 22 Feb 07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Not Dilbert (talk • contribs) 14:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Chulcoop, you need to clean up your contributions so that they're not just a bunch of unconnected tidbits. -Not Dilbert, 2Mar07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Not Dilbert (talk • contribs) 15:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Sources

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) —and— —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chulcoop (talk • contribs) 22:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

ABout all this porn stuff

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)

Moved from the main page

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. [1]."

—Preceding unsigned comment added by CosmicPenguin (talk • contribs) 04:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not the place for a blog-war

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. 65.241.212.174 (talk · contribs) 16:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

from chulcoop I have tried to provide an honest and fair , and now more mature contribution.

Most was sourced from her own blog so she couldnt sue something which scares many.

It is now tidied. I dont think there is a need to remove any more info but tidy up spelling and grammar by all means.

IO just hope she is all paying you well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chulcoop (talk • contribs) 04:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Please clean this article up

This article has basically been spammed. The article needs to be cleaned up and reduced to the basic facts. The hostility directed toward Ms. Simonetti needs to be removed from the article. Stick to the facts, folks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.41.39.124 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Compromise

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).

Update again

by IHateQueenOfSky It seems some have gone beack even further and are now treating & tidying up the original "cotnraversial" version by me.

I am not responsible for htie new version. I think many feel "the truth about her must be known" rather than the "fairytale" view of her.

I did not restore the link to ihatequeenofsky. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chulcoop (talk • contribs) 01:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Further update : if you cant beat em join em again.

I did it first so i might as well do the extras.

I Hate Queen of Sky blog was mentioned by Simonetti herself in a radio interview and that info has been provided.

Provided extra refs to montel and elder.

It seems people really do want the truth rather than censorship afterall.

So there are now so many versions going around not sure what anyone wants anymore. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chulcoop (talk • contribs) 04:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

For the reference to people not standing her and i hate queen of sky on her talkradio show listen to segment 1 from about 7 mins to 7 min 30.

she also mentions this wikipedia editing on the radio show.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chulcoop (talk • contribs) 04:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Horribly Written

The edit wars have taken their toll on this article. The current version is unreadable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.245.249.110 (talk • contribs) 02:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

On "Critics and controversial aspects of her blog"

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. Bdushaw (talk · contribs) 06:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

sure about No Appearance Fee?

it says

, but she received no compensation for such appearances where is a reference for this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chulcoop (talk • contribs) 06:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I originally added the statement about compensation, but in a personal e-mail from QoS she denied getting any compensation (I gather that no compensation for appearances is standard practice in the U.S.) When I originally added the statement about compensation, I was only guessing and had no reference for that. I am inclined to delete the phrase ", but she received no compensation for such appearances" and leave out the issue of compensation altogether.

In general, I am in favor of simplifying/reducing this article significantly. Some of the material here came out of the blog wars (c.f. my entries near the top concerning the negative opinion) - the details of why some folks seem to hate the subject seem beside the point to this article. Indeed, the case for the negative opinion is rather weak. Obviously, not everyone is going to like the subject, but she is hardly an adolf hitler, a porn hawker, or spammer. I don't think it is the responsibility of this article for making the case as to why some people hate QoS... Bdushaw 20:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

User IHateQueenOfSky comments.

At everyones request i originally removed the critics secction but it was reinstated by others whom felt this was censorship. THe point of it is this. Queen Of Sky has been telling the whole world that Delta are a nasty company without a sense of humour. People think she ONLY got fired for putting pictures of herself on her blog.

She went further and critisised employees, management and ridiculed paying custoemrs online.

I have provided the links to try to explain to people, based on her writing style, why they may have fired her.

Heather Armstrong "dooce" since her firing has said she now in retrospects understands why this hapened and does not blame her employers and feels she was "stupid". QofS aka Ellen, however still maintains she did nothing wrong. THe purpose of the contraversial section is that it allows readers to examine particular entries for themselves to get a fuller picture.

Most people cant simply "look at her blog" because she has removed links which allow EASY ACCESS to some older entries. I have provided such direct links.

The inference was this. If she can slag off the red cross WHILE STILL WITH THEM, given that they are a charity, what do you think she did to Delta?

The "white trash" comment maybe commonplace in america but raised a lot of issues here in the UK when Jermaine Jackson used the comment on TV.

Follow the Shilpa Shetty bit.

Also as i have said before if "fuckawalas" and "cunts" and "popadoms" are allowed in the Shilpa Shetty article why not this one?

In summary although this appears to be a blog war it is about this.

QofS has always felt she did nothing wrong but have fun in a break on a plane.

When in fact by her vry writing she badly represented the comapany with her comments.

At the time hr name came out and Delta were associated with her in the BBC article the whole world was looking at them. At that time she still had a lot of the nasty commnets about them and Deltas custoemrs on there. Delta were under a lot of pressure to act, esp as she referred to some customers as "old bags".

If you go to adventuregirl.journalspace.com then you will see the blog of a current flight attendant which does not embarass her employer.

It is a positive blog.

I'm not trying to censor Ellen but feel people need to have a better understanding of why she may have been fired. It wasnt just the photos.

The point of the section is to say,look before ooming to a judgement, look at her writing style and things she wrote while with Delta. She is not the victim of boring management she portrays she is.

That was the whole point.

On the Terry Wogan entry it talks about "Wogs" asd other things with no references.

I see the new wiki war is about traditionalists versus modernists.

But as stated you cant "jsut look at her blog" to find the offending entries as unlike on many other blogs she has removed the calendar links. I managed to do it because i know a lot about journalspace. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chulcoop (talk • contribs) 07:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It makes no sense to answer all these points - the article is not to arbitrate and make the case for how horrible Delta is or how horrible QoS is, but merely to state the basic problem - employee v. employer rights. The article does not warrant pages and pages of nuanced points as to Delta or QoS's behavior, backed up by detailed blog quotes, counter quotes, etc., etc; its just not that important on the grand scale of Wikipedia. Are we to have a half a page of explanation as to how folks in the U.K. react negatively to the phrase "white trash", while those from Texas have a different view of it? (I know a New Zealander who after a large meal in the U.K., leaned back and said "I'm stuffed" - bad in the U.K., o.k. in New Zealand) I lived for a time in Louisiana, and to me the complaint about the use of "white trash", and the suggestion that E.S. is some sort of racist because of it, looks completely silly! "People think she ONLY got fired for putting pictures of herself on her blog." - not so; the article clearly comments on the photos and other inappropriate material. You are basically trying to pass a judgement on QoS (e.g., your name "IHateQueenOfSky" rather gives your pov away), whereas I don't believe the article should be judgemental. If it were Adolf Hitler or Saddam Hussein, well, we can say they are bad guys. But in this case? You want the article to "slag" the subject, while one could equally "slag" Delta's behavior - hence the law suit (rather than a wikipedia war) to arbitrate the matter. Let us not forget that (for now anyways) in the U.S. there is freedom of speech, and hopefully that means one can have a personal blog with out being slammed on the Wikipedia for all the things you say; its a personal blog for crying out loud... Shall we open a Wikipedia page on the "Ihatequeenofsky" blog and give a detailed critique of what is on that rival blog (and you complain about "white trash"...)?

Let us also not forget the recent history of this page with its juvenile vandalism and ludicrous argument over whether E.S. has a major going concern selling pornography or not. Let's please keep it simple, succinct and stick to the basic facts - please note that just because some minor point is a fact, does not mean it has to be included.

If you feel that strongly about the situation, then please set up your own blog/webpage detailing the arguments, and we'll link to it from the page. The existing "Ihatequeenofsky" blog seems to me a running series of personal insults and juvenile antics; hardly a serious discussion of the matter. Perhaps the link to it ought to be removed. Bdushaw 12:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Policy concerning the biographies of living people

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)

I actually REMOVED by "public demand" all the bad stuff about her and the critic section. However it was reinstated by others then others stated to tidy it up and master it.

I actually added the stuff about the Committee to Protect Bloggers and her setting up the Bloggers Rights blog.

I am one of the few Ellen trusts to be HONEST and despite ihqofs she has still posted some of my recent comments in her guestbook.

The point was this.

Look at the Shilpa Shetty article re: Fukawala, cunts etc. It makes the ES article quite tame.

Maybe you are a yank and i am a brit and what each sees as acceptable will differ.

When i joined AOL and moved to the US chat section it gave us a warning. It basically said (but not in these exact words but this was what it meant) yanks are prudish bores without a sense of humour and they will take what you say the wrong way so be careful. Not thier exact words but pretty much summed up the special warning they gave. Esp as they waffled about Page 3.(topless nudity in british newspapers)

Remove what you want.

I did but it was restated by others by popular demand. Chulcoop 16:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

What do we really know?

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)

1. QofS claims to have a tape recording of her being fired over the phone and she put it on her blog in the left hand side.

Of course it could be fake but given that the BBC, CNN etc have all interviewed her it is likely she showed them a written confirmation of her dismissal.

As is standard practice for all companies, Delta stated she was no longer employed by them in a BBC article (may be ref 2 or 3?) but would not state why due to confidentiality.

This discussion does not suggest a concrete, verifiable reason for her termination - the wikipedia statement of policy demands something more concrete, seems to me. That some statement is "likely" is exactly the sort of thing the Wikipedia policy admonishes against in this situation. 128.208.159.113 01:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC) (Oops I forgot to login 128.208.159.113 is Bdushaw.)

2. I provided info about the "senior mamas" entry. She did provide bad comments about staff, customers etc however this was done anonymousely without mentioning the name of the airline.

But she did put the photos on her blog and therefore then she bacame identifiable. Suddenly there was a face and id to the comments.

However that aside nearly all the links are to those on HER OWN BLOG. Therefore this gives an indication of her writing style.

The only reason that wiki has the rules it does is to prevent being sued.

That's not the only reason - there are reasons of moral and ethical responsibility, respect for the real people that are the subject behind articles such as these, and the desire for Wikipedia to be an objective, responsible encyclopedia. The legal issue is the issue of last resort, so to speak; when it has gotten that far, something has gone wrong.128.208.159.113 01:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

If the comments are about what the subject has said on their own blog with references then wiki cant be sued.

As for rique, cmon she shows her bra in one of the pics.

Yes, there is a glimpse of a bra in one of the pictures. In the U.S. rating system, and in the U.S. we are more prudish than others per the discussion above, that would be rated "G". Does this justify the blanket suggestion that she posted "risque" pictures on her blog? I don't think it does, considering the sorts of things that are out there these days. As worded now, I think it is accurate - some see the photos as risque, some do not. 128.208.159.113 01:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Ellen wont sue. She actually WROTE the very first entry on here herself as she admitted in her RADIO interview.

So Ellen herself claimed the reasons why she was fired.

Whether or not Ellen will sue is irrelevant - lets take a correct, accurate approach to the article, per the Wikipedia policy. Under the present circumstances, we have to bend over backwards to be accurately referenced - t's crossed, i's dotted. The article at several places correctly notes that the sole source for some of the information is Ellen's blog, and suggests that such statements are not verified. That makes ALL statements on the blog not verified...included the stated reasons for being fired, yes? So much of this general discussion is so speculative, and supercharged by those who have expressed a real animosity to the subject - this is exactly the sort of situation the Wikipedia policy regarding living persons addresses. This article has to be NPOV. It seems obvious enough that the blog was the reason for the termination, but we have to take a careful approach here. 128.208.159.113 01:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

If she wasnt in fact fired for that reason Delta would have to sue a lot of poeple and explain to a judge why they had waited so long to do so.

If you dont like it leave it. Ellen wrote the first entry for self promotion purposes. I provided some balance along with others.

If she doesnt care as stated in recent entries wny should anyone else.

I care because I believe that the Wikipedia is a noble and beautiful thing that deserves attention to accuracy. I also care because it is in my nature to have things stated correctly and accurately. I also care because I don't like to see the sort of personal abuse we so recently saw on this Wikipedia page. Ellen gave up caring because of the rather amazing abuse that was heaped on her here; that's a fairly pathetic reason for then saying, "oh well, she doesn't care!" 128.208.159.113 01:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

She wont sue, its all backed up by fact, or at least, Subjects version of the facts.

We will never get a response from Delta. Chulcoop 23:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

All the more reason to be a little more tentative in the description. 128.208.159.113 01:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Did Delta senior f/as get on? I dont know. But she claims they didnt and i made the claim she made the claim they didnt and provided a ref to her OWN BLOG.

Is it really her? Could it be an imposter in all the tv and radio shows? Is the BBC wrong? Afterall just last year (or was it the year before) both 2 heads of the BBC were fired because a reporter got a story wrong (I am serious).

A solicitor was sent to prison for "murdering" her child. She was according to all the papers an evil murderer. A few years later she was aquitted when one of the "expert" that gave evidence at her trial was found to be incompetent and an unrelaible witness.

So was she a murderer or not? At the time the fact was as all the papers said so she was. Later she wasnt.

OJ Simpson was found innocent and guilty of the same crime without convicion or aquittal of either.

How far do you want to go?

How do we know Heather "DOOCE" Armstrong was really fired for HER blog?

She provided the original entry. I provided links to her OWN blog. The source was the Subjects OWN BLOG and if you read all the stuff above Wik rules state that a SUBJECTS OWN BLOG can be treated as a reliable source providing it is not over self serving.

Given what she actually had on her original blog im not surprised they booted her.

And you have to appreciate that "abusing the uniform or sexualising it without permission" is a firable offence.

Delta is apparently a very conservative airline. They dont want their staff behaving like porn stars.

Maybe not now. People have seen the photos for so long maybe. But cmon. Having your work uniform on while it is unbuttoned showing a bra. It is a bit rique.

But given that the argument is what she wrote and got fired for i think it is obvious.

If you dont like this article there are others yoo should get rid of too. Chulcoop 08:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You are making extreme statements here, and most of these comments are not relevant to the article. I am not suggesting we remove references to E.S. being fired for the blog, merely that we don't really know the details of why Delta fired her. Really, we don't; there is no reference. Nevertheless, everyone accepts that it is reasonable that that is what happened. The fact that you are "not surprised they booted her" is hardly up to the Wikipedia standards as a reference; I refuse to argue with you about these sorts of points because the argument is not relevant to the article. I refer again to the Wikipedia policy regarding biographies of living persons that we have to be sure that everything stated is properly supported by reliable references; the article has to be NPOV; material that is repeatedly contentious is to be removed immediately. The blog itself is one source, but we are all agreed (I hope) that that is not an entirely reliable source, if for no other reason than it is clearly only one person's point of view.

You suggest above that E.S. behaved like a "porn star" - you come on now, that's hardly the situation; that's hardly NPOV. You lose credibility when you say things like this.

"abusing the uniform or sexualising it without permission": Why, oh why is this in quotes? Is this a reference?

As for other articles, I am not working on other articles, I am working on this one.

The article seems to me to be becoming fairly balanced now, however. Are there elements that you or others would like to see changed; what changes are you advocating?

I think we have gone around in circles enough that I will request arbitration, per the heading of this discussion page.Bdushaw 08:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)