User talk:Gwen Gale: Difference between revisions
→Amelia Earhart: Please fix your edit to echo what the source says, not what you want it to say |
MiszaBot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 5 thread(s) (older than 1d) to User talk:Gwen Gale/archive18. |
||
Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
|maxarchivesize = 250K |
|maxarchivesize = 250K |
||
|counter = 18 |
|counter = 18 |
||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
|archive = User talk:Gwen Gale/archive%(counter)d |
|archive = User talk:Gwen Gale/archive%(counter)d |
||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
}} |
}} |
||
{| cellpadding=2 cellspacing=0 style="float:right;text-align:center; border:solid 1px white; background:rgb(252,254,255);margin=5" |
{| cellpadding=2 cellspacing=0 style="float:right;text-align:center; border:solid 1px white; background:rgb(252,254,255);margin=5" |
||
Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
<br clear="all" /> |
<br clear="all" /> |
||
<!-- DO NOT POST YOUR MESSAGE HERE. Please post all messages AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS PAGE and if we're already talking about something please keep it in the same thread. NEVER EVER try to copy-paste old threads from my archives onto this page unless you CANNY know what you're doing (and there is wontedly no need to do this), thanks --> |
<!-- DO NOT POST YOUR MESSAGE HERE. Please post all messages AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS PAGE and if we're already talking about something please keep it in the same thread. NEVER EVER try to copy-paste old threads from my archives onto this page unless you CANNY know what you're doing (and there is wontedly no need to do this), thanks --> |
||
== Reviewers Logo == |
|||
Since the [[WP:Reviewing]] logo discussion has grown stale, should it just be left as is, or should I zap the discussion back to life? - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;">[[User:Neutralhomer|<span style="color:#900;">NeutralHomer</span>]] • [[User talk:Neutralhomer|<span style="color:Black;White;">Talk</span>]] • 19:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)</small> |
|||
:I uploaded another one. [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale#top|talk]]) 20:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::Sorry for the slow reply...a nap happened. :) I will give the new one a look-see. - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;">[[User:Neutralhomer|<span style="color:#900;">NeutralHomer</span>]] • [[User talk:Neutralhomer|<span style="color:Black;White;">Talk</span>]] • 01:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)</small> |
|||
:::I've been putting those up to show there is no need for that dreadful eye of Sauron... [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale#top|talk]]) 06:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::::There is a Meta/Labs discussion going on about the very subject, so you might want to chime in [http://flaggedrevs.labs.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia:Pending_Changes_issues#New_icon_to_avoid_confusion_with_search there] as well. I don't have a Meta account, so I could only post as an anon. - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;">[[User:Neutralhomer|<span style="color:#900;">NeutralHomer</span>]] • [[User talk:Neutralhomer|<span style="color:Black;White;">Talk</span>]] • 06:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)</small> |
|||
:::::They're aware, also that Mike Godwin has said "no eye," so I think it won't be that long before it's swapped out with a new logo, I don't care if it's one I did. He also said "no globe" but that's because the globe ''is'' copyrighted to WmF and hence not free, the hitch there is, the globe is already being used in sundry other project icons. [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale#top|talk]]) 06:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I think since Wikipedia is a division of Wikimedia, I don't think we would get in too much trouble with the globe being used. I don't see WMF suing en.Wiki, though if they did, it would be funny. :) So, while I understand the "no globe", I don't see it as a big problem. - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;">[[User:Neutralhomer|<span style="color:#900;">NeutralHomer</span>]] • [[User talk:Neutralhomer|<span style="color:Black;White;">Talk</span>]] • 06:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)</small> |
|||
:::::::Oh, that's not the worry at all, it's only that scrapper sites and others "shouldn't" be picking up the globe, since that's the "branding" of the project itself: Most managers of copyrighted logos tend to try and keep them within tight bounds, moreover to keep them from becoming generic (as happened to [[Yellow_Pages#Logo|this logo]] in many areas of the world), I understand his thinking on that. [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale#top|talk]]) 06:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::OK, now I understand. Then probably the lined logo would be the way to go. I directed the Meta discussion to the [[WP:Reviewing]] discussion, so they will see some of the other logos proposed. I only showed the one I liked. :) - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;">[[User:Neutralhomer|<span style="color:#900;">NeutralHomer</span>]] • [[User talk:Neutralhomer|<span style="color:Black;White;">Talk</span>]] • 07:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)</small> |
|||
:::::::::Guess I should have also said, I'm neutral on the globe showing up in project icons, but it's Mike's job to look at stuff almost wholly in a careful, legal way, which is why I understand what he's getting at. [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale#top|talk]]) 10:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC) |
|||
{{outdent}}Just a heads-up, [http://flaggedrevs.labs.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia:Pending_Changes_issues#New_icon_to_avoid_confusion_with_search this] discussion is ''not'' about the reviewers logo, but yet about the logo next to "Accepted" (shown [http://flaggedrevs.labs.wikimedia.org/wiki/1998_Pacific_hurricane_season here]). Sorry for the confusion. - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;">[[User:Neutralhomer|<span style="color:#900;">NeutralHomer</span>]] • [[User talk:Neutralhomer|<span style="color:Black;White;">Talk</span>]] • 10:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)</small> |
|||
:Yes, I was aware of that, nothing about the icon(s) for PC seems to have been thought through in any way. Unhappily, it does seem to me that the awful Eye of Sauron icon indeed echoed the hopes and outlooks of at least some of those who brought the tool to en.WP in a way far beyond the bounds of what many if not most editors thought it would to be. [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale#top|talk]]) 09:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== one photographer doesn't like another == |
|||
It would be good if somebody else were to keep an eye on [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zoriah Miller|this AfD]]. -- [[User:Hoary|Hoary]] ([[User talk:Hoary|talk]]) 09:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:Watchlisted. Something tells me the IP may be none other than the nom logged off. [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale#top|talk]]) 09:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::No, really? Well well. (Bet you never realized before that "Hoary" was actually Zoriah Miller!) -- [[User:Hoary|Hoary]] ([[User talk:Hoary|talk]]) 09:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::Yeah yeah, later I saw you'd said the same thing towards the bottom. Anyway we know this is all your doing, Zoriah, when will you take ownership of your abuse? :) [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale#top|talk]]) 09:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::::[[We are all Keynesians now|We are all Zoriahs now]]. But -- Who is the man who would risk his neck for his fellow man? Shaft! Can you dig it? ([[Theme from Shaft|It]]'s playing in the background.) Makes me want a [[Operation Clambake|clambake]]. Er, too much word association football. -- [[User:Hoary|Hoary]] ([[User talk:Hoary|talk]]) 10:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Come to think of it, I think the theme from ''Shaft'' is quite fitting for any talk about the [[Keynesian_economics#Criticism|Keynesian scam]], or [[L._Ron_Hubbard|Hubbard's brilliant racket]], break out the [[vuvuzela]]s! [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale#top|talk]]) 10:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC) |
|||
Can't recall when/if I've ever seen [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Vartanza contribs like this]. [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale#top|talk]]) 14:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:Oh, my own pattern of contributions was like this for a period of a week or so way back when. At least this person seems sane and balanced; I wish I could say the same about the other contributors to the "discussion". -- [[User:Hoary|Hoary]] ([[User talk:Hoary|talk]]) 00:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::Yeah, I was only sayin', can't recall if I've ever seen an AfD streak like that last for almost a year and a half. [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale#top|talk]]) 07:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Malcolm Rifkind]] == |
|||
Please would you check whether this talk page violates BLP. - [[User:Kittybrewster|Kittybrewster ]] [[User_talk:Kittybrewster|<font color="0000FF">☎</font>]] 17:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:What text in the article's current version might you have worries about? [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale#top|talk]]) 17:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::None - in the article. It got squashed on talk page. But I think the expenses accusations which were always ridiculous should be removed from talk. [[User:Kittybrewster|Kittybrewster ]] [[User_talk:Kittybrewster|<font color="0000FF">☎</font>]] 18:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::What I did see on the talk page didn't look like a worry to me. The expenses scandal in the UK, along with the utter financial bankruptcy of its government, are widely sourced. [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale#top|talk]]) 18:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::::I don't think abuse by a few MPs should remain recorded / discussed on the talk page of an MP who was hardly mentioned and did virtually nothing wrong. [[User:Kittybrewster|Kittybrewster ]] [[User_talk:Kittybrewster|<font color="0000FF">☎</font>]] 18:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::::It's all sourced and verifiable, he's a politician. Truth be told, it would likely be helpful to readers if there ''were'' something sourced about the expenses scandal and however he might have gotten tangled up with that, in the article text. [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale#top|talk]]) 18:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== Ibaranoff24/Sugar Bear == |
|||
*{{user21|Ibaranoff24}} |
|||
*{{user21|Sugar Bear}} |
|||
Remember this user? Their block was upped to indef after personal attacks, edit warring, block evasion/abusive sockpuppetry. They made a promise to you, and everyone, that they would not do any of the above. |
|||
They have recently renamed to the username Sugar Bear, and have started edit warring, and socking again. See [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sugar Bear]]. I have layed out the past history there, and I can here, if you wish to read it. |
|||
Plainly, since they have gone back on their word, and they are doing the same things that originally got them blocked indef in the first place, could you return their indef block?— '''[[User:Daedalus969|<font color="Green">Dæ</font>]][[User talk:Daedalus969|<font color="Blue">dαlus</font>]]<sup> [[Special:Contributions/Daedalus969|<font color="Green">Contribs</font>]]</sup>''' 23:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:I do understand what you're getting at and tend to agree with you. I'm ok with the month long block since in some ways a month is a stronger stop than an indef. I also see the IP has already been blocked. [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale#top|talk]]) 07:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::I fail to see how it's stronger. He made a promise and he broke it, he's had a history of edit warring and socks, he still seems to be under the understanding he can get away with it because he has had FAs and GAs. An indef would change that, IMO.— '''[[User:Daedalus969|<font color="Green">Dæ</font>]][[User talk:Daedalus969|<font color="Blue">dαlus</font>]]<sup> [[Special:Contributions/Daedalus969|<font color="Green">Contribs</font>]]</sup>''' 10:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::What I mean to say is, this guy has had several chances, but he keeps reverting back to edit warring/the idea that he's infalliable in terms of facts about things he likes. It's a repeating pattern of behavior that needs to stop, and now he thinks that because he's done a few things differently, he'll be able to get off on the socking. He needs to be shown otherwise.— '''[[User:Daedalus969|<font color="Green">Dæ</font>]][[User talk:Daedalus969|<font color="Blue">dαlus</font>]]<sup> [[Special:Contributions/Daedalus969|<font color="Green">Contribs</font>]]</sup>''' 10:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::It's harder to get a month-long block lifted than it is to get an indef block lifted (indef = ''indefinite'', which could mean a day or two): The pith of an indef is, the worry may be so great that the admin is thinking the user shouldn't ever be allowed to edit until the user has acknowledged and dealt with whatever's gone wrong, but this can often take very little time for the user to do, such as with indef blocks for legal threats, many of which are quickly lifted after the editor says they won't do it again. Meanwhile, he hasn't gotten away with a thing, he's blocked for a month, which is a long time on the Internet. If he keeps it up after the block lifts, the next one could be for six months or a year, or there could be a ban as the outcome of an ANI thread. [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale#top|talk]]) 10:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== stupidity for the day == |
|||
[[Edgar West|This fantasy]]. -- [[User:Hoary|Hoary]] ([[User talk:Hoary|talk]]) 00:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:Wow, it stuck for almost three years. I must say, the kid who wrote that hoax was a fairly keen writer (though the other two he seems to have done were a bit clumsier and [[Ghionis & McKee|this earlier one]] got caught straight away four years ago). [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale#top|talk]]) 07:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== Unforgiven == |
== Unforgiven == |
||
Line 107: | Line 42: | ||
:You deleted sourced content. [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale#top|talk]]) 20:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC) |
:You deleted sourced content. [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale#top|talk]]) 20:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC) |
||
==Zoriah Miller== |
== Zoriah Miller == |
||
The article, especially the sources are simply awful. If I came across it on my travels I'd like wipe it clean and add a bit back using proper sources, and fill out citations at that. I hate these sorts of articles. Miller has a weak claim to notability though based on coverage in a few books and newspapers though I think. It would be better written from sources like [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=trRJMrG4flwC&pg=PA173&dq=Zoriah+Miller&hl=en&ei=2BMlTOT6B-ejOPLc9b4C&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Zoriah%20Miller&f=false this] with proper referencing.[[User:Dr. Blofeld| <span style="border:1px solid blue;padding:1px;"> <font style="color:#fef;background:black;">'''''Dr. Blofeld'''''</font>]]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Dr. Blofeld| <font size="-4"><font color="Black">White cat</font></font color> ]]</sup> 20:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC) |
The article, especially the sources are simply awful. If I came across it on my travels I'd like wipe it clean and add a bit back using proper sources, and fill out citations at that. I hate these sorts of articles. Miller has a weak claim to notability though based on coverage in a few books and newspapers though I think. It would be better written from sources like [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=trRJMrG4flwC&pg=PA173&dq=Zoriah+Miller&hl=en&ei=2BMlTOT6B-ejOPLc9b4C&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Zoriah%20Miller&f=false this] with proper referencing.[[User:Dr. Blofeld| <span style="border:1px solid blue;padding:1px;"> <font style="color:#fef;background:black;">'''''Dr. Blofeld'''''</font>]]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Dr. Blofeld| <font size="-4"><font color="Black">White cat</font></font color> ]]</sup> 20:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC) |
||
:He's on the edge of notability, that's true. [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale#top|talk]]) 20:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC) |
:He's on the edge of notability, that's true. [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale#top|talk]]) 20:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC) |
||
==[[Amelia Earhart]]== |
== [[Amelia Earhart]] == |
||
Your comment that no one knows the truth behind the mystery of Earhart's disappearance applies to all theories, including those by the TIGHAR group which did not find any conclusive evidence in the campsite that indicated Earhart was there. FWiW [[User:Bzuk|Bzuk]] ([[User talk:Bzuk|talk]]) 22:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC) |
Your comment that no one knows the truth behind the mystery of Earhart's disappearance applies to all theories, including those by the TIGHAR group which did not find any conclusive evidence in the campsite that indicated Earhart was there. FWiW [[User:Bzuk|Bzuk]] ([[User talk:Bzuk|talk]]) 22:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC) |
||
:This seems to be the only relevant statement in the article: "There is evidence on the island suggesting that a castaway was there for weeks and possibly months." Ric Gillespie. FWiW [[User:Bzuk|Bzuk]] ([[User talk:Bzuk|talk]]) 22:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC) |
:This seems to be the only relevant statement in the article: "There is evidence on the island suggesting that a castaway was there for weeks and possibly months." Ric Gillespie. FWiW [[User:Bzuk|Bzuk]] ([[User talk:Bzuk|talk]]) 22:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 14:34, 26 June 2010
![]() | |
archives 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 |
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c8/Ambox_notice.png)
If I left a post on your talk page...
Please answer there. I'll see it, no worries.
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f2/Edit-clear.svg/40px-Edit-clear.svg.png)
Are you here because I deleted your article?
Please read through this first to find out why.
Unforgiven
If you have a moment, can you take a look at this, which looks to me like a needless page move. As there is no other film with this title, confusion seems very unlikely. So, no disambiguation issue. But, I cannot seem to figure out how to revert the page move. What am I missing here? Can you be of assistance? Thank you. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 14:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- See if you can revert the move here. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 17:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- See if you can revert the move here. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Apollo 13
Why did you revert my reversion of my own edit? I made a mistake and fixed it. Did you look at what you reverted before you did it? JSpung (talk) 20:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- You deleted sourced content. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Zoriah Miller
The article, especially the sources are simply awful. If I came across it on my travels I'd like wipe it clean and add a bit back using proper sources, and fill out citations at that. I hate these sorts of articles. Miller has a weak claim to notability though based on coverage in a few books and newspapers though I think. It would be better written from sources like this with proper referencing. Dr. Blofeld White cat 20:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- He's on the edge of notability, that's true. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Your comment that no one knows the truth behind the mystery of Earhart's disappearance applies to all theories, including those by the TIGHAR group which did not find any conclusive evidence in the campsite that indicated Earhart was there. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- This seems to be the only relevant statement in the article: "There is evidence on the island suggesting that a castaway was there for weeks and possibly months." Ric Gillespie. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- The source clearly says Earhart may have survived for months as a castaway on Nikumaroro. Please stop PoV pushing by wholly misrepresenting the source and undo your edit, which is not supported by policy. I truly thought you were a neutral editor here and I'm saddened to see this kind of PoV pushing from you. Maybe it's only a lapse, I hope so. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- I didn't see Earhart mentioned as the castaway, and there was no dating, DNA testing or any other means of making that connection. Jumping to the conclusion that Earhart could have been the only visitor or castaway is a real stretch. FWiW, I would love to see a conclusive answer to the riddle of Earhart's last days, but this report wasn't it. Bzuk (talk) 22:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- Bye-the-bye, I have recently tried to retrace Amelia Earhart's brief sojurns to Canada. She had served as "Sister Amelia" at a military hospital in Toronto in 1917–1918, had travelled to Banff/Calgary with her mother on her cross-country trip to Boston in 1924 and her two journeys to Newfoundland on the eve of her transatlantic flights in 1928 and 1932, were her only visits to Canada. I am doing an article on Amelia in Canada. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- Even the title of the sourced article is Amelia Earhart May Have Survived Months as Castaway. Your edit is wholly unsupported PoV pushing, please undo it now. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- Titles as you know are not written by the author, and this title has no relation to the information presented about a campsite that was discovered on Nikumaroro where a possible inhabitant may have been present. If you look I made a change in the statement attributed to the recent article and didn't actually strike out the submission completely like another editor had done. Review the original article and see if there is a genuine affirmation that the castaway that may or may not have been there, was indeed Earhart. FWiW, The article could easily have been titled: No one knows for sure if Earhart was a castaway on Nikumaroro, but that title is not as alluring or interesting as casting the tantalizing "what if/may have?" question. Bzuk (talk) 23:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- Has your wanton PoV pushing blinded you even to the first sentence in the article? Amelia Earhart, the legendary pilot who disappeared 73 years ago while flying over the Pacific Ocean in a record attempt to fly around the world at the equator, may have survived several weeks, or even months as a castaway on a remote South Pacific island, according to preliminary results of a two-week expedition on the tiny coral atoll believed to be her final resting place. Please undo your edit. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I already have changed the edit but does this statement not revolve around "may" and "believed" rather than "had" and "was". TIGHAR has not proved anything other than finding a campsite that they believe may have been used by Earhart but could have been used by someone else. Until final testing of DNA evidence comes in, this is just another tantalizing maybe. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- Has your wanton PoV pushing blinded you even to the first sentence in the article? Amelia Earhart, the legendary pilot who disappeared 73 years ago while flying over the Pacific Ocean in a record attempt to fly around the world at the equator, may have survived several weeks, or even months as a castaway on a remote South Pacific island, according to preliminary results of a two-week expedition on the tiny coral atoll believed to be her final resting place. Please undo your edit. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- Titles as you know are not written by the author, and this title has no relation to the information presented about a campsite that was discovered on Nikumaroro where a possible inhabitant may have been present. If you look I made a change in the statement attributed to the recent article and didn't actually strike out the submission completely like another editor had done. Review the original article and see if there is a genuine affirmation that the castaway that may or may not have been there, was indeed Earhart. FWiW, The article could easily have been titled: No one knows for sure if Earhart was a castaway on Nikumaroro, but that title is not as alluring or interesting as casting the tantalizing "what if/may have?" question. Bzuk (talk) 23:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- Even the title of the sourced article is Amelia Earhart May Have Survived Months as Castaway. Your edit is wholly unsupported PoV pushing, please undo it now. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- Bye-the-bye, I have recently tried to retrace Amelia Earhart's brief sojurns to Canada. She had served as "Sister Amelia" at a military hospital in Toronto in 1917–1918, had travelled to Banff/Calgary with her mother on her cross-country trip to Boston in 1924 and her two journeys to Newfoundland on the eve of her transatlantic flights in 1928 and 1932, were her only visits to Canada. I am doing an article on Amelia in Canada. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- I didn't see Earhart mentioned as the castaway, and there was no dating, DNA testing or any other means of making that connection. Jumping to the conclusion that Earhart could have been the only visitor or castaway is a real stretch. FWiW, I would love to see a conclusive answer to the riddle of Earhart's last days, but this report wasn't it. Bzuk (talk) 22:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- The source clearly says Earhart may have survived for months as a castaway on Nikumaroro. Please stop PoV pushing by wholly misrepresenting the source and undo your edit, which is not supported by policy. I truly thought you were a neutral editor here and I'm saddened to see this kind of PoV pushing from you. Maybe it's only a lapse, I hope so. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
An editor can't tweak what the source says to fit their own PoV. The source doesn't say "a castaway like Earhart might have spent months on Nikumaroro," it says Earhart herself "may have survived several weeks, or even months as a castaway on a remote South Pacific island." Please fix your edit to echo what the source says, not what you want it to say. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:05, 26 June 2010 (UTC)