User talk:Gwen Gale

Edward F. Sands

Hey... I see you've decimated the Edward F. Sands article, which is fine, I suppose, given that most of it WAS unsourced. The thing is, though, without anymore detail, it is no longer apparent why Sands is/was considered a suspect. I hate all the technical formatting on Wikipedia, but for the record, most of my sources when writing the initial article were this article from Taylorology ( http://silent-movies.com/Taylorology/Taylor19.txt ), which is hosted by silent-movies.com, one of the few realiable sources on early Hollywood, and Betty H. Fussell's biography of Mabel Normand. Frankly, I have no idea how reliable Fussell is as a source; I have read some transparently inaccurrate early Hollywood biographies though, and if Fussell was fudging with history, she at least did it well. Anyway, don't be surprised if I restore and/or expand the Sands article in the next few days, complete with sources.

It looks like you're new to Wikipedia, but even if you're not, rather than removing every unsourced thing you find on every page (because things AREN'T sourced), it's okay just to throw a tag at the top of the page saying that the article doesn't cite its sources. A lot of people will monitor those tags and research the claims on the page. This tends to be a lot more helpful than simply removing all unsourced materail, as a great many of the unsourced information on Wikipedia IS true.

Cheers! Wencer 05:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

What I removed about Sands was unsupported or PoV and in conflict with the documented record I've seen. Sands was a petty criminal with an arrest record and was a deserter from the US Coast Guard. He had stolen from Taylor and subsequently taunted the director. Given this, he was quite readily seen as a strong suspect.

While Taylorology is highly reliable as a repository of contemporary primary and secondary sources, many of the secondary (and a few primary) sources it duplicates are, on their own, quite unreliable (being tabloid newspaper accounts which were replete with fabrications and meaningless speculation). Much of the scandal was manufactured by newspaper writers in Chicago who were a) still "jealous" Hollywood had taken so much film business away from Chicago and b) were themselves often addicted to opiates.

Please cite your sources and bear in mind that shoddy tabloid text shouldn't be given undue weight in a short encyclopedia article, since this can quickly mislead readers.

Also please bear in mind that while many of us think Margaret Gibson's confession is credible, making her by far the most likely killer, her confession hasn't been otherwise confirmed by evidence and likely never will be.

Anyway yes, I think she was likely involved in some sort of extortion or drug thing... whatever, involving Taylor (who had so much potentially scandalous stuff happening in his personal life) and one day she dressed up as a man, snuck into his bungalow as he walked Mabel to her car and shot him when he came back inside. IMO either Margaret or some corrupt policeman/bystander wound up with the missing $5,000.

However, the case is still officially open, all of the records and physical evidence appear to be lost and thus, Sands is still a suspect and by the way, Faith did say the person she saw leave Taylor's bungalow could have been a much thinner Sands, along with mentioning it could have been a woman dressed as a man. Gwen Gale 16:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey - thanks for the latest cleanup of the article! Having just read Giroux's book - which I find way more lucid than most other works on Taylor or similar subjects - I thought I would source a few extra things. Giroux provides a much more extensive history of Sands' past, including his bizarre military history, although I'm not sure how reliable it is. He also makes the excellent point that Sands had little motive to kill Taylor, as he was still profitting from Taylor's further income and would risk being caught if he returned.

I very much like the "contract killing" theory of Giroux's, and believe the murder was likely committed by a hired gun acting on orders from gangland drug figures (with my backup theory involving someone committing the deed on the part of Charlotte Shelby). In any event, Sands' tale, while interesting, is probably full of red herrings. But isn't that part of what makes the case so fascinating? Cheers, Wencer 17:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Margaret Gibson's confession is credible, there is some strong evidence she was involved in both opium trade and an extortion ring so yeah, her likely involvement could plausibly have been a "contract" killing. I don't think Shelby had anything to do with it, most of her behviour can be interpreted as a reaction to the potential scandal and her detoriorating relationship with her daughters (she was, by all accounts, a manipulative, lying, greedy stage mother and it's understandable her daughters suspected her). As for Sands, petty criminal, likely with "identity issues," likely knew skeins about both Taylor's past and the director's wide ranging interests in erotic stuff blah blah. Truth be told, Sands likely "pimped" for Taylor until their relationship went bad. Hollywood still attracts both types of people. Meanwhile when Taylor was murdered Sands likely realized that with the burglaries and taunting he'd already done, if they caught him he'd wind up in prison (or dead) either way, so the moment he heard about the murder he ran so far they never found him. Meanwhile Gibson was an accomplished professional actress and a neighbour said she thought the killer could have been a woman dressed as a man. Now... could Shelby have hired Gibson to do the deed? It's plausible. The two have common, documented connections within the film colony and it's very likely they had at least met each other (Gibson even worked on at least one Mary Miles Minter film after the murder) but... beyond this not a shred of supporting evidence has emerged. Personally, I have no doubt several people went to their graves with knowledge about this murder which shall likely never be fully understood. Gwen Gale 18:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Mountain Meadows

Thanks for your efforts --Trödel 04:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The really funny thing is that the people who were reverting you think you're version is too pro-LDS, I wonder how they felt about being described as Lee's children :) --Trödel 04:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Lol they could still be grand-kids, trying to shift blame from John D. to Brigham :)

Gwen Gale 12:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll

It is simply for me as a mediator, and any future mediator to see where everyone stands. it will be kept within those who contributed to the page. WikieZach| talk 19:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Vand.

Are you an admin? Someone has vandalised my page [1]. Will you tell him/her to stop please? WikieZach| talk 22:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Gracias. WikieZach| talk 22:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a middle school boy... Gwen Gale 22:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll

Please provide me with a list of questions you want to be asked in the upcoming straw poll on my talk page. Or post them here [2]WikieZach| talk 21:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

RFM

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to Example. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. Please review the request page and the guide to formal mediation, and then indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you, [signature]

WikieZach| talk 13:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it was a mistake to name me as a party to that dispute, however, I'm willing to support Wikipedia policy and pitch in to collaborate on stabilizing the article. Gwen Gale 16:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I want you to know I meant what I said - I respect your efforts at MMM. I'm just so sick of seeing folks from both sidess get so heated about a topic they've not spent more than ten mintues reading about. There has to be a way to get people to research more, rather that just opine about something they are ignorant about. You seem to do your homework, and I want you to know that I want to work with you on improving the article, but not so sure Duke53 and Tinosa want to do anything other than fight, based on their being controversial in nearly every other article they've worked on (well, Tinosa has only edited one, and suprisingly has recieved two awards for it, hmmm.). Looking forward to working through the mediation with you. -Visorstuff 16:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep in mind, Wikipedia by design is not a scholarly project, it's a high traffic alphabetized meta blog and online community, kinda like a MUD. Yawn. Editors who seem belligerent and PoV driven are part of the landscape. This makes editing articles to a scholarly level (and by that I do not mean to a "PC" level) extraordinarily inefficient. Hundreds (if not thousands) of highly skilled and knowledgeable editors have been driven away from Wikipedia by this. With these "controversial" topics, the only way to deal with them is to cite and characterize everything as to provenance and source. It is typical that those who resist letting the tale tell itself in strictly encyclopedic language also wouldn't grok that a polemic narrative, however true, would by its tone alone be so lacking in credibility that their desire to alert the world (and careful readers) to these murders would be almost wholly thwarted. Gwen Gale 17:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The lack of scholarly level research and POV pushing reverting (along with death threats I've recieved) is one reason (of many) why I spend most of my time on talk pages, rather than articles themselves, hoping to point out and educate on the academic process. I feel it my duty as a historian not to leave Wikipedia, but to help correct such errors in the historical process. I do think that Brooks works are the most neutral (and blame placing) of any of the works, and she definitely places blame on Lee and others where it rightfully belongs. But she also stops short of drawing conclusions where there is no evidence, something that we should watch for in this article (on both sides of the argument). The massacre is/was an awful event, that is for sure. I just wish there was more openness of it at the time, rather than oaths of secrecy of the participants and an appeal for clerical confidentiality to Young. I'm glad you have a level head and are a gifted writer. Look foward to working with you. -Visorstuff 18:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Frickin death threats? By email or what?

MMM was horrific and the ensuing coverup was utter corruptness. In my humble view this history hints at the essential weaknesses, both intellectual and otherwise, of LDS's founders. I've met so many wonderful Mormons and have found that their faith and spiritualism has little to do with what Joseph Smith had in mind (which was mostly a way to enable men to get into plural marriages with young girls, often spritually and otherwise abused cousins or daughters of acquaintances, who had both little control over their fates and not enough experience to grok they were being scammed). About a year ago I was waiting for the tram in a park here in the European city where I live and was approached by a very friendly, clean cut American guy doing Mormon missionary work. After a bit of chit chat I told him that my response to Mormom prosthelytizing is always the same three words... Mountain Meadows Massacre. He'd never even heard of it of course and I wasn't about to be the one to tell him. Look it up on the Internet, I said, but don't let it sway your faith. Truth be told, the LDS has adapted for survival so much over the past 150 years that it's not even the same religion. Even the wacky pseudo-Masonic secret rituals have been gradually played down through the years (and this continues). Personally my outlook is naturalist, I don't think religion is as helpful as a thorough, balanced secular education and a stable family upbringing but whatever. Gwen Gale 20:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, via email for my work on Exmormon. It was horrible - my wife made me take a wikiholiday due to the threats.

I can completely understand your viewpoint. As a historian, I realize that men are men, and all make mistakes. As a believer of Mormonism, however, I also believe men can be inspired. It tends to be that way with historical US figures Jefferson may have had illigitmate child, Benjamin Franklin may have had mistresses, but what they did was, in my opinion still great. As for Smith and Young, they definitely made mistakes, but the more I study about what they did in regard to religion, the more I am convinced of how inspired it was. There are too many coincidences that add up to be coincidences for me. But of course for me, that is not why I believe, yet just more evidence to support my experiences that leads to my belief.

I think that when you study mormonism, you have to remember two things. First, when Smith walked out of the Sacred Grove, he didn't know everything about the religion he restored, and it morphed and changed over time (and still does - that's why Mormons believe in continuing revelation). It changed a lot, and if things weren't specified by revelation, they were usually tested until they were either adopted or rejected (sounds like catholicism's cultural adoption, no?). Hence I don't think smith founded mormonism for plural marriage, but it was practiced and right or wrong, it was hard for everyone involved in nearly every source I've read (yes, even hard for most men - financially and sexually and emotionally - although there were some who definitely did it for the sex), and it was definitely a part of mormonism for many years. Many criticise the church for not speaking much of it today, however, church leaders are prohibited from doing so (as to not appear to teach in support of the doctrine) according to the official declaration, which states if elders teach of it, they should be promptly reproved.

The second thing is you have to seperate the Mormon civic authority from the Mormon religious authority. This is not an easy thing to do, as in many cases they are intertwined. Certainly, in the case of the MMM, the civic leader of the local militia and the religious authority were the same, and religious promises were made for civic "duty" which in my opinion is deporable - especially when it leads to tragedies such as this. Young, who was territorial governor should have taken responsibility IMHO for it, however, as Church President Young was "protected" by his followers which made matters worse in the long run. I think this is merely one reason that the church does all it can to seperate itself from the political arena when it comes to leaders running for office and participating in civic duties. It could be miscontstrued (and has been) that all Mormons should be part of a certain political party, etc. This, from a historians point of view is very difficult, but I believe sheds great light on the motivations of followers of Mormonism.

Thanks again for the dialogue - it has been much appreciated. I am not a naturalistic historian as you are, I am a faith-based historian. I take accounts at their face value including the children at Fatima, Joan of Arc, Moses, Muhammed and Joseph Smith. I have no reason to doubt supernatural events, I may not understand them, or agree with them, but I have no reason to doubt. While I do not understand how all of these fit into my own world view, I treat them all as historical events, rather than taking a naturalistic point of view. Sorry for such long posts. -Visorstuff 21:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

That's ok. By the bye, whilst I understand (and have) strong spiritual feelings, my take on them is a naturalistic one. I mean, most people I know think Joan of Arc had hallucinations because of the way her body chemistry reacted to something in the local food. Meanwhile don't even get me started on Joseph Smith and his gold plated scam and anyone who doesn't understand he wanted to be king of the United States... should. :) Gwen Gale 21:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Mary Miles Minter

Hi Gwen,
Thanks for the message on my talk page. I took a fresh look at the link in Mary Miles Minter. I'm afraid that it does look like the interview is copyrighted and I don't see any kind of indication that it was uploaded by the actual copyright holder. Some of the movie clips used in the montage look like they might be public domain, but I don't know when those B&W movies were shot. The interview itself could be public domain, but I don't see any indication of that at all. According to the YouTube page the interview was taken in 1970.

Basically it seems to be a copy-vio to me. I think the best course of action is to see if you can find some kind of official upload from the interviewer.

Thanks for checking on it. I'd appreciate if you could re-remove it... (hopefully you can find a suitable replacement.) ---J.S ^(T/C) 15:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

What specific evidence do you have that the interview is copyrighted and that the clip is a copyvio? Gwen Gale 17:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, by default nearly everything is technically copyrighted by the person who produced it. The audio of the interview would be, by default, a copyrighted work. Now, the rights may have been released under public domain, permission given for re-use in the video, or the up-loader is the actual person who conducted the interview (or otherwise owns the rights). I just can't find any indication of that. ---J.S ^(T/C) 19:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Do what you like, but I wouldn't delete an informative external link without actual evidence it was a copyvio. Gwen Gale 03:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, the interview from the YouTube video in question was conducted by Charles Higham for his book "Murder in Hollywood." The individual who posted the video is more than likely Bruce Long, given the username. He's the editor of Taylorology. I suspect he has had contact and/or permission from Higham. If you want to email him to confirm, the address is at the bottom of his page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.197.163.8 (talk) 19:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

Single edits vs. multiple consecutive edits

Please make an effort to make all consecutive changes to a given article in a single edit, and not several consecutive ones. It complicates the article's history needlessly, especially when the article is fairly short and does not have many wiki-sections. LeaHazel : talk : contribs 19:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I wontedly do but that article is such a mess, especially with the revert warriors doing blanket reverts. I'm looking forward to seeing its content supported by scholarly citations sometime soon. Gwen Gale 19:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Please

Will you please agree to mediate in the mediation case for the mountains massacure case? WikieZach| talk 14:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Mountain Meadows massacre. For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 04:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

Mediation or arbitration

Thanks for your willingness to work through things at Mountain Meadows massacre and for your attempts to help guide the discussion. Its been painful to watch and I feel that there is no move toward compromise by Duke53. It seems everyone else is willing to work together. Wanted to get your thoughts - if you think we should move this conflict to artibration or try a mediation again? You may want to look at the results of previous arbitrations. See Wikipedia:Conflict resolution. Let me know your thoughts. -Visorstuff 15:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Please understand, I will not be a party to bringing any request for arbitration, end of the tale. Arbcomm views all parties to an arbitration as having failed and more often than not delivers sanctions and probations against everyone who has been named. Arbitration is never ever about content, but behaviour and online community. The solution to dispute by any active editor on MMM is a) to remember that WP policy supports consensus and b) one can always demand secondary source citations for every assertion and wording in the article, it's the only way. If someone wants the word "kidnapping" used, for example, I'm ok with that so long as the usage is supported by a published secondary source, preferably a history book or a peer reviewed journal but any published screed will do so long as it is cited as to provenance. Mediation's ok, I'd support another go at that but the last attempt at it was botched, I mean, so I was offline for a few days, they could have waited, whatever. The big lack with this article is its muddled and evasive prose. If I wasn't already familiar with MMM and read through it once, I wouldn't have much of a clue as to what it was about but then, Wikipedia does fall to its knees when it comes to controversial topics in the humanities and social sciences. Gwen Gale 02:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Amelia Earhart Myths

Gwen, thank you for your support on moving the myths section to another article that will link to the main article on Amelia Earhart's life and legacy. I still think you may want to revisit the "Flight for Freedom" connection to the common belief in a "spy mission" against the Japanese. The film was in production in 1942 and not released till 1943 but in the days following Amelia's disappearance in 1937, her mother heard the first of many rumours that alleged that the world flight was a spying mission. The source you have used for a citation is the TIGHAR information site, not the first place to go for reliable and verifiable information on Earhart. The math alone does not work- the Japanese connection was already firmly established by the time of film and was the basis for the plot not the other way around. On another part of the TIGHAR site is this note:"Flight for Freedom" - 1943, starring Rosalind Russell and Fred MacMurray...this film did much to promote the theory that Amelia was on a spy mission for the government. As you can see that is much more an ambigious statement. I have checked the sources on the film and found this quote from a 1943 NY Times review: "The film's ending expands on speculation regarding Amelia Earhart's disappearance during a 1937 flight." Again, the reviewer mentions the film's exploiting of conjecture not creating it. From another source: " The idea that Earhart was working for US intelligence was dramatised in the 1943 film Flight For Freedom. It's not clear how much this film created the conspiracy theory as opposed to reflecting it. Even if the theory was already in circulation, the film popularised it." [[3]] Another source dealing with the creation of the Amelia myth, states: "Conspiracy Theories Appear: In the first few days following the disappearance, there were some 300 reports of messages being received from Earhart's crashed plane. Undoubtedly, most, if not all of them were either hoaxes or misunderstandings. The conflict that would become World War II was brewing in the Pacific and soon after her disappearance it became a popular idea that she had been captured by the Japanese, or that Japanese forces had shot down her plane, or that she was working with the U.S. government on a secret mission against the Japanese."[[4]] Finally, the most reputable sources including Goldstein and Dillon provide evidence that the conspiracy theories had their origins mere days after Amelia's disppearance. BTW Have a Happy New Year. Bzuk 06:14 2 January 2007 (UTC).

TIGHAR is widely regarded as the most reliable, peer reviewed and scholarly source in existence regarding Earhart, their primary source documentation is easily the most complete anywhere and they know how to cite it. Perhaps you've misunderstood something you've read or heard about them but I respectfully suggest you have another look (their website alone takes a few days to get through, please take your time). As for the "Japan" and other pop culture codswallop, my interest in editing such material is strictly limited to thoroughly isolating it from content which is supported by scholarly citatations. Gwen Gale 07:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Hello! Do you think you could start including a bit more information in your edit summaries? Just looking at your edits to some articles about Christmas carols, for example, all you've said is 'rv'. Now, that may be true (all you've done is revert), but could you add what you have reverted and why, very briefly? For example, I can guess a couple of reasons why you would remove the pieces of music that were added to the examples of serious music often played at Christmastime, but other people might be puzzled. It could even lead to people adding stuff back, because they don't know why it was removed in the first place, and that could lead to edit wars *horrors*. So, basically, please add more info to your edit summaries :-) If it's clear vandalism you're reverting, 'rvv' or 'rv vandalism' helps; if it's a clear test edit you're reverting, please say that too! Hope to see your edits around some time. Skittle 17:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Those were simple reverts of stealth vandalism by a relatively prolific anon (who had been previously warned). I didn't mark them as rvv because I was simply sweeping up after his tracks. Sorry for any misunderstanding but personally I see zero risk of any edit warring over this, the anon's edits are rather loopy, after all. Gwen Gale 17:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

In List of Christmas carols, adding wikilinks to some of the carols (whether read or blue links) didn't seem that loopy to me. If you'd said in the edit summary 'rvv by known vandal IP', that would have helped me, at least :-) And I try never to underestimate the potential for an edit war. I was once involved in one over whether an article should say 'full stop', 'period', 'full stop/period', 'period/full stop', 'full stop', 'period' or I forget what else. Skittle 18:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Haha! Trust me, we agree. I would've tried halt. Sorry again 'bout bein a lazy bitch :) Gwen Gale 00:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

MMM

thanks for the note - I just thought it was a complaint by those looking for problems that could easily be changed - thanks for sticking through the reversions as I know you usually like to avoid such things (don't we all :) --Trödel 17:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Amelia Earhart

Hi. Can I ask you politely to tone down the sarcasm there? We can disagree without being rude, I think. --Guinnog 19:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I guess you mean this. To read it without the intended irony then, please imagine the word helpful as unhelpful. Gwen Gale 23:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Yes, that was what I meant. Imagining the word as unhelpful (as I had been doing) still leads me to read your message as implying that I was suggesting "Loading up an article with the ravings of people hoping to make a bit of money off wholly spurious and unsupported claims about famous dead people", or that my polite disagreement with your view on how to improve the article was somehow comparable with what you wrote.

As I had already made clear I wanted to improve the article, this seems to rather unhelpfully assume bad faith on my part. In fact, while I can easily explain at length my reasoning for not wanting to split the article at this time in terms of Wiki policy, there is a far easier reason not to do it, as you have already found; trimming some of the undue weight from the weird theories part of the article, thus improving the article, avoiding the creation of a pretty worthless article (that would grow and grow and need to be maintained, and attract no end of trolling), and avoiding the creation of an undesirable content fork. I applaud you for what you've done.

I just wanted to remind you (and I very, very seldom do this) that there are human beings behind these posts, even ones you disagree with. I do appreciate your good work on the article, and I'm not aggrieved or offended or anything. Just "a word to the wise" as we say in Scotland. Best wishes, --Guinnog 03:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Haha. Thanks for letting me know you're not a bot :) Either way, I'd already left a note on your talk page. As for the codswallop, I'm openly hardcore about some stuff. I don't think a reference to Fred Goerner's unscholarly, retirement funding project has any place in an encyclopedia. However, I also recognize that in collaborative efforts like a public wiki, there is more than one flight path to Howland Island, so to speak. Gwen Gale 03:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I confirm I am a carbon- rather than a silicon-based intelligence, yes. :) I do appreciate what you are doing here; maybe I can help you, even. Your last sentence encapsulates perfectly what I was trying to say. It is by far the single hardest thing about this project, in my opinion, working collegially with others. Best wishes, and keep up the good work. --Guinnog 03:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Amelia header

Enlighten me- where is the POV and lack of clarity in my writing the following?

"Amelia Mary Earhart (July 24, 1897 – missing as of July 2, 1937) was a noted American aviator whose aviation career included many milestones. She became the first woman and second pilot to fly solo across the Atlantic, on the fifth anniversary of Charles Lindbergh's Atlantic crossing. She was an influential early female pilot who was instrumental in the formation of The Ninety-Nines, a women's pilots' organization. Among her many awards and achievements, Earhart was the first woman to receive the Distinguished Flying Cross. After setting numerous records, she disappeared over the central Pacific Ocean during a circumnavigational flight attempt in 1937, sparking a near-mythical public fascination with her life, career and ultimate disappearance." Bzuk 12:22 22 January 2007 (UTC).

Ok.

• She became the first woman and second pilot to fly solo across the Atlantic, on the fifth anniversary of Charles Lindbergh's Atlantic crossing

This is a paraphrase of a quote in another author's book and represents the public impression of the feat.

The article can list these accomplishments. Besides, the achievements are garbled and very misleading, never mind the mention of Lindbergh, whilst perhaps an attempt to boost her image or whatever, in truth distracts. I mean, Lindbergh in the Earhart article header?

Amelia was influenced by the attention that Lindbergh received,

• She was an influential early female pilot who was instrumental in the formation of The Ninety-Nines, a women's pilots' organization.

The 99s are a wonderful and meed group but hardly one of Earhart's more noted/famous/known accomplishments. This sounds like a blatant advertisement for the 99s. Put them in the article, cool, but not in the header. Her association with Purdue was at least as influential and it has no place in the header either.

Amelia was their first president and was involved in the early meetings to create the organization; although there are other instances of her participation in womens' groups, this is the clearest example of her influence on women pilots. It is the largest organization of women flyers worldwide and there are numerous connections to the Earhart legacy including the naming of an air race, the Amelia Earhart Memorial Trophy Race, that had been instigated by her friends in The Ninety-Nines. To this day, the most prestigious award given to a woman flyer is the Amelia Earhart Award bestowed by the "99's." As to Purdue, she was a faculty advisor who took a great interest in promoting and supporting women and women's issues, but her work there was not primarily with aviation.

• Among her many awards and achievements, Earhart was the first woman to receive...

She was a celebrity, an icon, intelligent, charismatic, so so cool, a cultural trailblazer and so on, I gush for Amelia but she was only a competent pilot and the aviation community remembers her for the former, not the latter. The above implies she received scads of awards for highly skilled flying which is not the case. She got the DFC, that was significant and, as far as I'm concerned, culturally and socially deserved but this extra wording sounds like an Amelia Earhart propaganda piece, a "selling Amelia as the greatest pilot" thing. It's unsupported and PoV.

• After setting numerous records, she disappeared over the central Pacific Ocean during a circumnavigational flight attempt in 1937, sparking a near-mythical public fascination with her life, career and ultimate disappearance."

Amelia's career in the air was remarkably brief as she set seven speed and distance records in 1930-1933 but a great deal of time was spent in other pursuits.

Distorted time implied, distorted context for the second world flight attempt (which was botched in several widely documented ways, culminating with her and Noonan's tragic disappearance). The entire "near mythical" phrase spins like Amelia-selling original research, conclusion and interpretation to me. I'd want to see citations supporting the use of "near-mythical" along with support for the notion that the public has been specifically "fascinated" with "her life" and "career." I'd suggest I could find many more citations referring to this fascination as a tabloid thing mostly focused on her image, youth and disappearance. The only myths involved have been the wild inaccuracies spread about her.

The grouping of her aviation achievements with the abortive final flight connects her setting out on a last vain-glorious attempt to remain in the public eye. I am not unware that Amelia's drive and ambition in the last years clouded her judgement and ovrwhelmed her skills, which were adequate but not superlative. She left the trailing antenna off because she was not just offloading weight, she was unable to use it properly and thought it was a distraction. Her arguments with Noonan on the last flight caused a navigational error that landed her miles off course in reaching Africa. Her tutoring from Paul Mantz left him exasperated as he wrestled with her obstinent refusal to learn modern radio communication. There are some theories that the jumbled radio messages resulted from the use of the wrong frequencies between the Electra and the Itasca.

Lastly, I must say again that the writing tone here reads like cheerleading and advocacy. I think that's also true for some of the article sub-section titles. All of this greatly detracts from both the article's accuracy and credibility. None of this is encyclopedic. Gwen Gale 05:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It may be a surprise to you that I am a professional writer and editor and I chuckled at your assertions that I am not establishing a "neutral" asessment of the Amelia Earhart mystique. I have providied substantial citations where merited and did not assume that the introductory paragraph, albeit, "dashed" off, contained any contentious issues, but if you insist, I will provide a complete citation list as to where these statements were derived. BTW none of the statements are mine originally, and checking the article history, you will find that my entries concentrated on "tweaking" other editors' work- fact-checking, elaborating and expanding. Bzuk 13:12 23 January 2007 (UTC).

So do you write encyclopedia articles for a living? Peer reveiewed scholarly journal articles? Tabloid articles? Sports articles? Political speeches? Ad copy? What. Anyway, going by your responses, I don't think you read my replies carefully. My concerns (I think) are limited mostly to the main header and some subsection titles. Gwen Gale 15:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, your method of posting replies is too time wasting (you intersperse them in my posts and don't even skip a line to demark them) so let's say I don't accept your reasoning. Please take any further discussion of this to the talk page where others can see your reasoning too, thanks. Gwen Gale 22:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments on the Amelia Earhart discussion page

Gwen, if you haven't seen these yet, these are my final comments on the introduction to the Amelia Earhart article:

Article length, content and intent

Length

The notation "This page is 51 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles. See Wikipedia:Article size." has now placed the Amelia Earhart Wikipedia article into the category of a major article at least in length. Compared to other significant figures' biographical articles, here are some following statistics: Thomas Jefferson: 75 kilobytes long, Abraham Lincoln: 84 kilobytes long, Charles Lindbergh: 46 kilobytes and Wright Brothers: 62 kilobytes long. The introductory paragraphs of each of these major biographies are similar: Thomas Jefferson: 250 words, Abraham Lincoln: 147 words, Charles Lindbergh: 81 words, Wright Brothers: 199 words. Previous to the current edit, the introductory paragraph in the Amelia Earhart article was 49 words. The current revision is 97 words which is entirely consistent with the length of other biographical articles on Wikipedia.

Content

The qualifications for a well-researched, scholarly article may partly be attributed to the use of verifiable statements. In the Amelia Earhart article, 50 statements are cited with proper citations (Harvard Style) with 22 books listed as references (MLA style). In addition, 12 websites/internet sources have been provided. This list of resources is entirely consistent with the other aforementioned biographical articles. Anyone who wants to check the Wikipedia articles can do the count, but generally, there are substantive reference lists including primary sources.

Intent

There are "five pillars" of Wikipedia contributions. Briefly (or not so briefly), they are:

1. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of encyclopedias, striving for accuracy with "no original research."
2. Wikipedia has a "neutral point of view," advocating no single point of view, presenting each point of view accurately and providing context, citing verifiable, authoritative sources.
3. Wikipedia is free content anyone may edit and no individual controls any specific article.
4. Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general "pillars."
5. Wikipedia has a code of conduct:

• Respect your fellow Wikipedians
• Be civil
• Be open and welcoming
• Avoid making personal attacks or sweeping generalizations
• Stay cool when the editing gets hot
• Avoid edit wars
• Act in good faith and assume good faith on the part of others
• Follow the three-revert rule
• Never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point

I consider all the edits in the Amelia Earhart article (save the obvious vandalism) to be in "good faith" and have contributed to making the document a more scholarly and interesting account of an iconic figure in history. If necessary, When a conflict arises as to which editorial version is the most neutral, we (as a group) can declare a cool-down period and tag the article as disputed and hammer out details on this talk/discussion page and, if needed, follow dispute resolution.

I sincerly regret the influx of commentary that has arisen over a very minor edit of the introductory paragraph into two paragraphs. I have attempted to redress this via a citing of my sources that will hopefully address any issues of errors, ommissions, inaccurate, overly verbiose statements or lack of neutrality in my editorial submissions. Again, I welcome any other editor "writing over" the entry. FYI, I will now revert to my other life as a writer and come back to this article when things are a little "cooler."Bzuk 20:37 24 January 2007 (UTC).

Comment

Thanks Bzuk! For my part, I noticed that one of my initial posts about the header, whilst intended to be good natured and pithy, could have come off as a bit snippy. I thought you understood my non-interference in your many helpful edits in the text was total approval (or whatever, you know what I mean). When we have the time (and yeah, things have maybe settled down a bit) I hope we can further discuss my nit-picking, bitchy concerns about the header :) Gwen Gale 21:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I can only say, me too, I wrote that stupid comment and your nomination for "bad faith" editing in haste and never intended to post it (as you can tell by the mediocre spelling and typos there) and hit post or save by accident. I couldn't change it and immediately tried to post a new comment to try to be more civil and give you a truer indication of my attempt merely to expand on the first thing that a reader would see in looking at the life of a particularily interesting person. Bzuk 22:19 24 January 2007 (UTC).

That's cool :) Meanwhile my only worry has been the very same thing... it's that "first thing" the reader sees which can sway her subsequent interpretation of the body text. Gwen Gale 21:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Be Civil

No one likes accusations of things. I also don't need your repeated warnings. If you don't stop I guess I'll have to make a complaint out of it. Sqrjn 03:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Please stop using sockpuppets. Please stop violating 3rr. The only reason I haven't posted difflinks of your behaviour to the admin notice board is I'm not much of a grass. Gwen Gale 03:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Sqrjn was subsequently blocked for 3rr and no, I didn't grass on him. Gwen Gale 13:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

I overwrote your edit there. I will make sure to put your changes back. --Guinnog 05:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

No worries, I took care of it. Gwen Gale 05:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

You beat me to it. I should let you get finished before I make any more changes. It could be a nice article I think. --Guinnog 05:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Fuck, I've swept and scrubbed my way through the whole thing. Hope it's ok. Gwen Gale 14:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Mulholland Dr.

Thank you so much for your edits. I've seen it several times, and while it captivates me, one of the most beautiful films I've ever seen, I don't know that I actually _absorb_ enough of it to be coherent-glad you can. :) Chris

Happily, it works away at the mind on several levels, so the plot (which is indeed quite coherent) can wait if need be. Meanwhile Lynch salvaged a failed TV pilot (which, given its budget, would have represented a disaster for most directors) into a stunning cinematic work about Hollywood. Gwen Gale 16:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Two Questions

I have copied your user page and used a slightly modified version for my own User:Netuser500. Please let me know whether that's okay with you.

I've noticed that you've used the verb "to grass" here on your talk page. I had no idea what it meant, but I've found it defined on http://www.peevish.co.uk/slang/g.htm. It seems to be the UK equivalent of "to rat" in older American slang. Netuser500 16:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep, it means "snitch on." I saw you swapped the word Wikipedia with encyclopedia. I must say, Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia, it's a wildly popular, alphabetized metablog and online community which is given high priority in Google search results. The non-controversial math, computer and science-related entries are wontedly helpful and trustworthy. Social science entries can be quite dodgy though and the controversial ones are often misleading. Gwen Gale 17:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Neta Snook

I am creating a number of articles that will link to the story of Amelia Earhart. The first is about Anita "Neta" Snook Southern who was Amelia's first flight instructor. Please check the page Neta Snook and tell me what you think. Bzuk 15:00 19 January 2007 (UTC).

It looks wonderful to me! The tone and structure seem mostly balanced and always neutral. Gwen Gale 20:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The Lesbian lead

Keep fiddling with it...this is entertaining! :-) -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 07:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Haha! Gwen Gale 09:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

User warnings have changed

Heya, take a quick look at WP:UTM. Looks like we have a new set of warning messages. Cheers! --Brad Beattie (talk) 00:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

At least they're clean and helpful. If only the wonted WP article in the social sciences/humanities could be like that :) Gwen Gale 00:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Placing warning on talk pages

I am an administrator and have noticed your recent postings to an editor's talk page here when I was leaving an unrelated note on the page in question. This got my attention and I looked at the contribution history of this user, and his edits to the article Amelia Earhart which, based upon the context of these messages, I must assume is the article being discussed. In the first posting, you have accused this user of edit summary abuse. I have been unable to find any indication of this in the history of either Amelia Earhart, Talk:Amelia Earhart or this talk page. In your second allegation you are accusing the user of trolling and bad faith edits. Such allegations require some evidence, and based upon all of this user's edits to this article, I see no merit to the accusation of Bad Faith. You have suggested the user read WP:TROLL; I, in turn, recommend you read WP:AGF. 23skidoo 04:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The messages were justified, the issue has diffused, I've left a slightly longer message on your talk page, welcome to Wikipedia. Gwen Gale 13:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

So anyway here is the diff wherein Hayford Peirce made the uninformed and careless accusation. So far as I know the issue has been resolved and there are no hard feelings on my part, I'm only providing this citation to show the basis of my response. Cheers to you both! :) Gwen Gale 17:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Noah Buschel

Actually I'm in agreement with your proposed deletion of Noah Buschel. Is this person really notable at all? Watchlist, sigh... Maury 22:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

...Heya, yeah, sigh, apparently he has directed some noted independent films starring actors who have regularly appeared on US national television and moreover seems to have been signed to a significant trade book or screenplay deal. Bzuk bounced his book link when he couldn't find it on Amazon (not a flawless test but it did look like link spam to me too) and his article reads like utter vanity which is why I knee-jerked into an afd and then... gulp... in gathering support for the afd I soon found more or less the opposite. If I misinterpreted what I found by all means let me know, the article is so lamely written! Gwen Gale 00:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I did try to research the novel beyond cursory efforts to find cataloging information but found scant details anywhere and no ISBN. I agree that Noah Buschel has some cachet as a film director but the novel. That Must Be Yoshino, seems to be an obscure work. The fact that he includes himself in the novel under a psyedenoym and simply names celebrities in the plot still makes me think that a mere mention of Amelia Earhart does not warrant its inclusion as a significant aspect of popular culture affected by AE. Bzuk 16:32 27 January 2007 (UTC).

I do agree, I think it amounts to linkspam for now (which is to say, maybe an early marketing attempt) and until some evidence of wider readership or whatever can be cited it doesn't belong. Gwen Gale 17:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

AE's "open marriage"

It was an open marriage but I guess the term should be supported with a citation. Gwen Gale 15:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

There is some conjecture not only about the modern concept of the "open marriage" and how it applied to Amelia Earhart as well as some recent revelations from the Putnam Binney family that Amelia's marriage was much more conventional than previously regarded. She was reputedly a good "mother" to her adopted children and there was genuine affection between the two parents, notes one of their children. This information is derived from a television interview with the surviving Putnam children on the 60th anniversary of the disappearance of Amelia Earhart. Bzuk 16:32 27 January 2007 (UTC).

Erm, trust me, being a good mother with genuine affection for one's spouse has naught to do with the bounds of an open marriage. As I said though, I've no problem excluding the assertion without a citation. Gwen Gale 17:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have more clearly stated that one of the grandchildren addressed the issue of infidelity and offered that she had seen no evidence of it. There is a lot of speculation of Amelia's daliances with Gene Vidal and Paul Mantz, but these remain mere conjecture. I cannot find any instances of G.P. Putnam being unfaithful during their marriage although he remarried shortly after Amelia was declared officially dead in 1939.Bzuk 18:17 27 January 2007 (UTC).

Why would a grandkid have seen anything? I mean, f**k. As for GP, I've never heard of him being with anyone else during the marriage but so ...? Some people, especially those accustomed to publicity and image marketing, are way careful about that sort of thing, I've often seen it first hand and the skills of both GP and AE along these lines are widely documented. None of this is meant as criticism of anyone, after all and none of it conflicts with the notion of open marriage which, once more, I see no need to put in the article unless it's supported by a citation. Gwen Gale 19:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply

The interview subject was Sally Putnam Chapman, the granddaughter of Earhart's husband, George Putnam and one of the foremost scholars on Earhart. You cannot dismiss her testimony as just that of a "kid."(BTW- you still tend to rant a bit, you got to cool it in arguments- you know the first to lose their composure, etc.  :}) This historian has documented Earhart's life with great precision and has recently donated 492 items, including rarely seen personal and private papers from both Amelia Earhart and George Putnam, such as poems, a flight log and a prenuptial agreement to Purdue Libraries' Earhart collection. It is a typewritten copy that was made sometime after the original two-page (four-sided), hand-written letter that Amleia gave GPP (in the letter, an inadvertant slip addresses him as Gyp [sic]). The letter was written in pencil on gray stationary and had many corrections including crossed out words. It had the header "The Square House, Noank, Connecticut" which is also in variance with the typewritten copy. Both GPP and AE had spent the weekend (February 7-8, 1931) together at George's mother's home- "The Square House" and before the judge, Judge Anderson, a family friend, arrived on Saturday, Amelia handed her future spouse the "prenups" letter. Reference: Lovell 1989, p.165-166. Quote: "It was pencilled longhand... a slip or two in spelling meticulously corrected." The later typewritten note has the word medieval incorrectly spelled. The original note has some slight variances in the header, use of commas and the saluation but is spelled correctly. Bzuk 13:33 28 January 2007 (UTC).

Didn't I already mention the importance of citations? Please beware of slipping into original research. Lastly, I think this would be more helpful on the article's talk page, where other editors could see it. Gwen Gale 20:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

All the information presented is derived from: Lovell, Mary S. The Sound of Wings. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1989. ISBN 0-312-03431-8, a comprehensive biography of both Amelia Earhart and George Putnam. The Earhart/Putnam prenuptial agreement is available online from the Purdue Libraries' Earhart collection but as indicated, this Earhart letter is a later copy. Bzuk 21:33 28 January 2007 (UTC).

I'm sure this stuff is already cited in the article. Gwen Gale 02:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Amelia

Wow, you are thorough. You helped fixed Klara Hitler's article (shortly after I found it and tried to make it better), and you killed/zapped some tiny (but bad) changes to Amelia Earhart's page. (Netuser500, but not logged on. Hey, why can't I my corrections as minor?) 24.107.194.216 04:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Log in with a WP username and the "minor" checkbox will appear when you edit. Gwen Gale 17:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Advice for a newbie

If you have the time and inclination, I'd appreciate it if you would read the last section at Talk:North America (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs). What I see are two or three people insisting on keeping a false statement in the article because they've found those words in two sources. Some others have cited other reliable sources which prove (at least to me) that their quotation needs to be qualified. However, they revert all qualifications because (as best I can tell) they believe their sources count and the other sources don't. A warning, over there I've obviously let my frustration show, which I guess I shouldn't have. In your opinion, should I bother with an RfC (if you have an opinion, that is)? Thanks for any advice. It seems really sad that such an important article (it is marked as one of 150 essential articles for an encyclopedia) should contain such a blatant solecism, IMHO. (Well, I doubt you'll think I'm humble if you do go and read what I wrote.) 68.89.149.2 19:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia, it is a mega traffic meta blog with alphabetized entries. Strong emotional responses are wonted from noobs until they learn how things work around here. Back off is all, it's not worth it, find some articles where you have a bit of knowledge and there aren't too many PoV warriors and trolls lurking about. Half the people who edit here are crazy. Many of the rest are either writing way beyond their ilk or are trying to sell something. When you have more experience, you may sometimes be able to apply WP dispute methodologies and your understanding of the system to sway an article into something resembling scholarship but beware, you'll end up spending most of your time protecting articles you've helped build from vandals, trolls and fools.

First thing though, get a username now, you don't want your IP showing up all over the place and nobody, including me, gives much heed or trust to an anon. I hope this helps and by the bye, welcome to Wikipedia! :) Gwen Gale 19:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

You don't recognize my IP addresses? After that time we spent fixing Klara Hitler? I'm crushed! (Well, no, I'm not really crushed, and my mother has always maintained that I better not quit my day job to go into comedy. She also has told me not to try to sing.)

Heck, the whole point of registering was to be able to nominate silly articles for deletion. However, it seems that any three fans can keep any cruft-only article from being deleted. You're starting to convince me that this isn't an encyclopedia. I'd have to hyphenate "mega-traffic meta-blog" though. (I blame my copy-edit mentors for my compulsions to use hyphens.)

Thanks for the advice. I guess I'll move on. No one has vandalized (or fixed) my ridiculously short summary for Normative yet. Unfortunately, I'm out of ideas for that article. Netuser500 20:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Haha! Sorry, I truly do ignore IP numbers and no, don't even think about singing unless you've scientifically tested your phrasing, intonation and charisma before a flock of middle school girls, who swooned, nothing else will do, trust me, only they are hard wired to understand these things, but this gets somewhat short-circuited long before one is old enough to vote. I don't like hyphens :) Forget AfD, mostly, it's a waste of time. Let the junior woodchuck club handle them. Normative is not troll bait but give it time. Gwen Gale 20:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

OMG, I followed your links (loved wikitruth, btw), and I had to revert vandalism at Elvis! Netuser500 22:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

How hopelessy normative of you. :) Gwen Gale 23:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Grace Kelly

Please discuss on the talk page before reverting to badly vandalized versions of this article, especially since it contained four copies of itself and had infobox problems. --PhantomS 22:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't. Please check the history more carefully next time. Meanwhile, you might want to talk to the anon who has been endlessly messing about with it, instead of me and if vandalism is intefering with the article's history (which has happened lately and may have happened this time) I do support any effort you might make to fix the article and be done with it, by the bye. Gwen Gale 23:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Fred Noonan

Gwen, I noticed you are a frequent editor to Fred Noonan. I'm curious where your interest stems from. My maternal grandmother was Mary Bea's younger sister. There seems to be so little information about Fred - I'm interested in whatever is out there. Ronnotel 22:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

We know a lot about the basic trajectory of his life and there are many letters, some published, most not. Nobody has been able to find his employment history in the Pan AM archives, although his employment there was widely documented externally. He was a highly talented navigator whose place in aviation history has only recently been more widely noted. My interest in Noonan stemmed from an intersection of sundry stuff, archaeology, history, aviation, feminism and so on. WP isn't a place for original research but if you have any materials relating to Fred please email me (see menu). Gwen Gale 23:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Nothing documentary I'm afraid, just recollections from my mother who was six the only time she met him. All she remembers is that he and Mary Bea were very elegant. Ronnotel 03:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmph! Never heard that adjective applied to him. Way to go Fred! Gwen Gale 03:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I know that Mary Bea had a very swank salon in Oakland before she married Fred. After Fred died, she married Harry Ireland, a very wealthy financier. She always moved among the elite. I've always been curious how Fred and Mary Bea met. Ronnotel 04:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I do know Fred wound up in Los Angeles after successfully navigating the first, widely publicized Pan Am clipper flights (and charting the new Pacific routes himself). Paul Mantz, who was deeply connected into both the showbiz and aviation communities there, already knew Earhart and Fred got snatched up in that heady atmosphere. His hope, apparently, was to get some more publicity from the world flight and then start up a profitable navigation school. Gwen Gale 04:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment response

Gwen, in response to your comments on my discussion page, I have no interest in feuding either. I am sorry that you find my comments patronizing, these statements are meant to be accurate (I'm not sure what was inaccurate, nonetheless, they are meant to be accurate commentary). I have no abiding interest in any of the articles I write or edit, as I had already indicated, my wikipedia contributions are a hobby not a passion and I, too, have spent too much time on the internet and have to ration my time accordingly.

I happened upon the Amelia Earhart article in passing but it seemed to be constantly under siege with vandals attacking it. The same attack/revert/attack syndrome was like the Charles Lindbergh article I had been editing that also has undergone a lot of vandalism. In much the same method as store owners do, if you create a meaningful piece of work (say a mural on the side of the building) it sometimes keeps the thoughtless people away, I determined that if the articles were as well-written as possible, vandals may leave them alone. (HAHA, that sure didn't happen.) As for Fred, I think he is a very valid part of the story of Amelia Earhart and like Jacqueline Cochran and Neta Snook which I have also edited, as much detail and well-researched information will merely strengthen the final article. And then again, it's only a Wikipedia article after all. Did you notice the above comment by Ronnotel? :} Bzuk 22:40 4 January 2007 (UTC).

The vandalism at AE was no different than at any article covering a topic widely referenced in popular culture, was mostly of the "drive by middle schooler" variety and was wholly under control. Wikipedia is replete with vandalism, it's a public wiki, after all and as you've hopefully learned, vandals don't wontedly read stuff before they garble it. Gwen Gale 23:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

psycho-astronaut page

i accept the entire removal of the passage...none of my edits were original research though...all i ever did was phrase that sentence summing up that la times article in slightly "less disparaging of NASA" terms...the la times clubbed them about it almost as a "ha ha...lets see how paragonesque ur astronauts are now" type of attitude with some of their coverage...i felt direct quote from a newspaper sentence like this was beyond wikipedia and more for the news pages on the web...it has to be paraphrased and taken in context as "some felt" showing the newspaper opinion that this was so...Benjiwolf 18:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

You use the term "psycho" for this section heading and deny you're engaging in OR? You used the words "strange" and "sensational" in the article which were not supported by the citation. Your edits were pure original research and your uninformed input has caused the article to be diminished. I assume you're editing in good faith but I have no interest in disputing this with you. Gwen Gale 18:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Article stability

Gwen: I think that, in the long run, those early gestures to get the judge to grant Lisa bail are going to look unimportant. As the story evolves, I invite you to re-evaluate the mention of other astronauts and NASA in her latest section. BTW: I rarely remove references, but I do sometimes relocate them. Those news articcles will be there for a while, and then start to fade out. Remember! Wikipedia is not a newspaper. (WP:NOT)--199.33.32.40 19:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! You might want to get a username, then start reading up on Wikipedia policy rather than only citing it. Gwen Gale 19:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

You might want to look at the tortured history of the Barbaro article for an example of a story that was steadily diluted via news (and sports) accounts. Now that the story is mostly over, it has settled down quite a bit. For a while there, it did not seem to matter "what happened" with the injury and aftermath; what seemed to matter was, in quotes, what this or that media person had to say about the situation. If you want article stability (without stupid tricks like protecting it) focus on the subject of the article in a narrow fashion. And when something more important happens, review the relative importance of past events and start trimming, just out of respect for the reader's time.--199.33.32.40 19:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the lecture. When something more important happens, I'm sure the article will, after much inefficiency, well-meaning but clueless input by noob or agenda-warding editors and anons along with endless gnashing of teeth, be adapted more or less accordingly by WP editors following WP policy in good faith. Meanwhile, please post this stuff over on the article's talk page and whilst you're not required to, it might help if you got a user name. Gwen Gale 20:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Lisa nowak support page

Gwen, the page is absolutely not for advocacy, it is to make the person suffering from severe love obsession (I've sometimes been in the same situation, it is unbearable feeling) feel better. let people write her that they love her. Please, restore the link. I already wrote to Plek.

Regards, Ilya Shapiro (kirpitchom@hotmail.com)

Yeah yeah, love makes you crazy. Politely put, what you propose is an advocacy link. In WP jargon, it's linkspam. Gwen Gale 20:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

She is severely sick person, and first at all need psychiatrical support...and support of the people who've been in the same situation. we very often need to hear that somebody love us, that somebody understands, even from strangers...In legal area, whatever happens-happens, nobody will contest that. This is therapy.

Erm, that's so sweet, but this is not the place for your original research. Gwen Gale 20:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

didn't get it...what research do you mean?

You did not support your remarks about Nowak with citations from reliable secondary sources. Gwen Gale 20:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

what remarks are unsupported? Maybe you think that she wanted to rob her? There were her testimony and a lot of evidence...Anyway, if there will be evidence from secondary sources, will you put my link back?

Maybe you'll advise me to change the text on the page so it'll be acceptable for WP?

First, this is the English Wikipedia and I don't think your English is up to editing here yet (for example, the verb conjugations in your last comment were rather missed). Meanwhile, please brush up over at WP:Original research, thanks. Gwen Gale 20:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Lisa Nowak

In the great tradition of stating the obvious, I'd like to say that you're doing a great job on the Lisa Nowak article. Keep it up and don't let the WP:TROLLs bite you! Cheers. --Plek 22:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Mu'nin! I have removed the tidbit about her (focus-group-tested, obviously) amateur radio hobby and her callsign. To me, it looks like an undue invasion of privacy, akin to publishing her cell phone number. Just let me know what you think. Cheers. --Plek 11:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The Watchers are watching

The ghosts of Lisa McPherson and Ayn Rand are looking over your shoulder as you type. Type cheerfully!--71.141.237.249 22:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Haha! Tell the Wikitruth! Gwen Gale 23:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Nowak

You haven't cited a source anywhere near the assertion, nor have you demonstrated that your source -- whatever it is -- is reliable. And please discuss on the relevant talk page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AuntieMormom (talk • contribs) 15:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

You're mistaken. The source is cited in the article. He's a flight communications contractor at JSC. Parenthood.com got it wrong, misinterpreting what Nowak said during an interview. I left a message on your talk page because I think this goes beyond article content. Gwen Gale 15:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Leather jackets

I did not state your edit was trivial. I stated that the fact that two people appearing on her behalf wore "brown leather jackets" was trivial compared to enormity of the charges and her actions. Now your expanded claim that they were wearing brand-new, identical jackets is potentially less trivial as it could be seen to be an attempt to influence the court by showing that astronauts have the Right Stuff. Provide a citation that they were brand-new and let's keep the discussion going. Rillian 03:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that's cool. Believe me, I've been looking but so far (sigh), I only have the visual content of the hearing videos which at least support the simple descriptive statement. I think lots of people who read the Nowak article intuitively grok the significance of the reference and it's not PoV at all (but would be, over the top, if the text read "there they were in their brand new, identical Chuck Yeager circa 1948 costumes of brown leather jackets with black fur trim, looking for all the world like they'd been nicked from the prop archives for the movie The Right Stuff) which is why nobody deleted it before. That's it. I'll keep looking for a text cite confirming what is starkly apparent in the news videos oh and by the bye, the article text doesn't say they were new or identical... yet anyway. Gwen Gale 03:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

No worries. Agreed that choosing their attire to make a "Right Stuff" impression on the court is not POV and relevant to the article. Rillian 03:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It is utterly irrelevant fluff that they wore jackets. But.. no reason to remove it from the article other than to avoid the appearance of being overly anal retentive. --Blue Tie 03:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:NASA_lisa_nowak1.jpg listed for deletion

Just letting you know I've put Image:NASA lisa nowak1.jpg up for deletion since we have a better version available (Image:Lisa Nowak.jpg). Evil Monkey - Hello 04:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Cool! On my talk page I'll say, I like that pic of her :) Gwen Gale 04:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

For all the hard work on that Nowak mess. :) - Denny 18:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a very rare current events intersection of my editing interests, is all... thanks! :) Gwen Gale 18:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Comics

Yeah, I've gotten kind of aggressive about tossing out examples after watching "in popular culture" sections grow to Tokyo-eating size in article after article... everyone wants their own favorites in, and pretty soon the important points are lost in all the detail. As long as there is a good list article for the excess examples to go to, they can be trimmed down to those that illustrate a point of some kind, in my opinion. —Celithemis 23:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Aye 'n the article's getting ripe for it. Gwen Gale 05:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

"Would", not "did"

Nay, nay, sir! The sentence in question is explaining why Captain Nowak decided to make the drive to Orlando in adult diapers: "...so that she would not have to stop to urinate." "Did" does not cover her motivation. And by the way, no one (except Capt. Nowak) knows whether she "did" in fact stop to urinate; perhaps she decided to, just once, somewhere around Tallahassee, perhaps.

Your deletion of my "that", which simply makes your understood "that" clause explicit, is petty.

The above unsigned message was left by User:Writtenright

Please sign your posts with ~~~~. Anyway you're wholly mistaken about the syntax thing and I wasn't talking about her motivation at all. Meanwhile the lack of a that as a conjunction where the context is self-evident is widely described.[5] If you're going to be hopping around Wikipedia with a username like that (here it's a demonstrative pronoun and anyway the context is not self-evident, in more ways than one by the bye) you might a) learn how to read carefully (you seem to skim and interpret words as synonyms which are not) and b) learn some more grammar and syntax. Begone. Gwen Gale 23:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

You are impolite

I think you are impolite. What do you mean vandalize? Instead threatening people explain what is you pain.--204.13.69.220 21:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Somebody using your IP did this is all, many times from different IPs. I'm sorry if the message I left for that individual startled you or made you feel unwelcome. You can avoid seeing those if you get a username, but that's not required. Anyway, welcome to Wikipedia! Cheers :) Gwen Gale 23:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for explanation. That is not me who changed the Nowak article.--204.13.69.220 00:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I didn't think so. Sorry again for any misunderstanding :) There's a generic message explaining how this can happen at the bottom of IP-only talk pages like the one you have but folks sometimes don't read it haha! Gwen Gale 00:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Fildelity IL, thanks!

Hi. thanks for your help with the Fidelity, IL article. You sound like a faily upbeat editor. My name is Steve, I live in New York, NY. Glad to meet another positive wikipedian Please feel free to add any other ideas. See you. --Sm8900 02:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey! Truth be told I'm a misandric, PMSing f**king bitch with a snarling caffeine addiction but thanks for the kind words anyway, I can dream. Looky! Someone says I'm upbeat! :) Gwen Gale 02:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Nowak

"Drive by humor, eh?" ....Ayup. :-) — Rickyrab | Talk 18:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

AE headings

As to whether a "sense of adventure" or a "sense of daring" works better, a bit of semantics here, since I had actually used "daring" in the first line, that's why adventure seemed to fit since she did have an adventurous childhood. I will work on it some more. Bzuk 21:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

Yes the word repetition sucks but I think daring is far more helpful than "adventure" which also sounds to me like a human interest, go go Amelia magazine article. Erm, the notion being, I think her life speaks skeins of go go stuff without any need for (wholly unintended) bits of spin. Gwen Gale 21:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I derive my commentary/observations from research; Earhart historians have previously commented on her childhood sense of adventure. Again, to make things clear, the Amelia Earhart article is interesting to me but not an all-consuming passion. I have no abiding interest in this topic, I edit over 200 Wikipedia aviation-related articles at the same time for "fun." Bzuk 23:12 11 February 2007 (UTC).

Whatever. You've claimed the article as your own. I don't do revert wars. Gwen Gale 04:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Lisa Nowak

Trolling makes Wikipe-tan cry (and makes Gwen go eek), so please don't troll.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Lisa Nowak. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please read WP:3RR. BJ^Talk 09:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to high profile article editing on Wikipedia. And here I thought I was discussing everything patiently. Sigh. Thanks BJ for trying to help in good faith. Gwen Gale 09:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

That has to be the most civil response I have ever received for giving somebody a warning, thanks. I can easily tell you are acting in good faith but I counted 4 reverts in 4 hours, clearly over the 3RR limit. What I try to do when I need to revert things other than vandalism and I'm getting near the revert limit I often ask other editors to have a look and revert for me. I have added the page to my watchlist so I can help you keep the article in good shape. BJ^Talk 10:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

You know, if you look at the diffs carefully you'll see they weren't 3rr, since content varied and I was carefully trying to talk about every point calmly at each turn but yeah, I know what you mean anyway. So far as asking other editors to jump in and help, that's cool and it's within Wikipedia policy but I think it can easily become "gaming the system," or whatever (let's not even talk about admins 'n wheel wars :) ...in that if I call for help from an editor who doesn't know the topic, it's not scholarly. Did I say scholarly? Wikipedia? Yeah, haha, there are tonnes of lower profile and non-controversial articles on WP which are. Don't you hate that feeling when you know you're falling into an editing fight but think/know it's not your doing and get too wrapped up in it anyway? Gwen Gale 10:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I do understand what you mean but quoting the policy "An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. Any editor who breaches the rule may be blocked from editing for up to 24 hours in the first instance, and longer for repeated or aggravated violations." BJ^Talk 10:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh f***. I was the bitch then. They've changed the wording. Thought I was dealing with editors who were under the old "mirror" rule. Thanks for taking the time to read my reply and tell me. Argh. Gwen Gale 10:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Why did you perform this edit? If it were part of a quote, you can put the grammer fix in brackets to denote that it is not the exact words spoken. In this case, though, it is not part of a direct quote. --Baba gump 19:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I've already explained that and yes it is part of a direct quote. Are you deliberately misrepresenting or are your reading skills lacking? Meanwhile please stop gaming the system by badgering me in the hope you'll sway a couple of articles to your PoV. Gwen Gale 20:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that your reading skills are indeed lacking (get those eyes checked, please). The phrase in question is not inside quotation marks. Even if it was, there is a way to fix grammer for the appropriate context. Please stop inserting incorrect grammer. You are bordering on 3RR violations. --Baba gump 20:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

My drive-by edit of the day: the word you're trying to use is probably "grammar"; not "grammer". Thank you. --Plek 20:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Baba gump, please see WP:Troll. Gwen Gale 20:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Carly Buck

Your comment on the AE page: "Carly called me up and said she'd like that tidbit to remain a secret"- actually cracked me up. I didn't figure you for a wicked sense of humour-(I still write in Canajan style)– good stuff! Have a Happy Valentine's Day. Bzuk 5:30 14 February 2007 (UTC).

Haha, I was gonna say she was cruising over Roswell New Mexico in an alien spaceship when she called but... I didn't have room in the edit summary. A happy VD to you to! (Erm, Valentine's day, that is ;) Gwen Gale 06:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)