Talk:Elizabeth Daily
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
||
Pardon me, but among people in general, despite the fact that E. G. Daily did indeed do the voice of "Buttercup" from "Powerpuff Girls", it is by far the most relevant that she is credited with doing the voice of "Tommy Pickles" from "Rugrats" alone. And in addition, I don't think "Powerpuff Girls", which was indeed at first two short clips on Cartoon Network's world premiere toons, never got the same attention as "Rugrats" got. Any questions? --65.73.0.137
- I don't see why we should remove info just because someone says its obscure. This is an encyclopedia, it's supposed to educate people. I'm going to reinstate a mention of this rule. --Morwen 19:43, May 15, 2004 (UTC)
You are most completely a logical person, and I admit it. I understand your cause. Now how's about one of us or another user do research of other voice talents this actress has provided. What do you say? --65.73.0.137
- And re '' - yes, it was intended to be italics. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles) Morwen 19:54, May 15, 2004 (UTC)
Can somebody tell me why her bio on IMDB brings up the film cherry busters? I'm not familiar with the wiki system, but surely someone can help change that, in respect to the actress.
[edit] Birthdate
What source(s) say(s) that E. G. Daily was born in 1961? Marcus2 03:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- The CABI. --Fallout boy 03:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
E.G. Daily was officially born in 1961, although some people say she was born in 1962.
[edit] Middle Name
Is it Ann or Anne?
[edit] Official site
If you click on the "News" link on the official site, one of the news items is the National Lampoon movie Pledge This!. Considering this is a movie that's in production, I'd say that makes the site current enough to justify being included in the article. As for vanity, what exactly is objectionable (or unexpected) about celebrity's official site involving vanity? If celebrities weren't at least a little vain they probably wouldn't be half as interesting. And what are you talking about with "website imperialism"? I want to put the link back in the article, but I'm afraid Marcus2 might spam me again. Anyone else wanna bite the bullet? - Ugliness Man 09:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- I changed my mind, I'm going to restore the link, mainly because of this:
- Wikipedia:External links#What_should_be_linked_to
- The first item says "Articles about any organization, person, or other entity should link to their official site, if they have one." So, Marcus2, if you wish to continue being an asshat about this, I humbly request that you do three things. First, explain how a site that discusses a movie currently in production is "defunct". Second, explain why vanity on a celebrity site is in opposition to Wikipedia's guidelines. And third, link to something in the wiki guides or manuals that explains what the notion of "website imperialism" is. - Ugliness Man 09:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- She is not a celebrity. She isn't even in the World Almanac . Marcus2 15:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- You're about one degree away from being a troll. I don't know where you obtained your self-righteous defnition of the term "celebrity", but she is in a National Lampoon movie that's coming out soon, she's done voice work in a handful of popluar animated series, and she had a hit song. And I noticed your latest justification for removing the official site again was that "it's a mess"? What the hell is that supposed to mean? You can't find a real reason to keep acting like this, so you come up with something vague and impossible to define? Let's get one thing perfectly straight here, since you obviously haven't figured it out: including the official site among the external links is specifically within Wikipedia's guidelines. So far, you haven't been able to justify in any way shape or form that your removal of the link complies with any of Wikipedia's guidelines. Since you obviously missed it the first time, I'll repeat, articles about any organization, person, or other entity should link to their official site, if they have one. Note that the guideline doesn't say "celebrity", so your latest excuse is bunk. Or would you like to now claim that she isn't a person? - Ugliness Man 15:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- You are just plain wrong about my ice getting thinner and about me being close to being a troll. Anyway the site is a mess. It's stupid, and, in addition it isn't accurate. Rugrats was not the highest rated Nickelodeon show in its eleventh year, according to the site. She may also be a one-hit wonder, if she had any hits at all. I'm on a mission to change that stupid guideline. Stay out of this, and get a life. Marcus2 17:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with Ugliness Man, there is no reason not to link to that site. - SimonP 17:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- -
- What in the world is "not accurate" about linking to someone's official site on their article? The page itself might contain inaccuracies (according to you), but it's still the official site. I'm sure any official George W Bush site would contain inaccuracies, but relevant Wikipedia articles should still link to them. And you're on a crusade to change Wikipedia to bend down and submit to your version of "accurate" or "relevant"? Your opinion of the quality of an offiical site should dictate whether or not it gets linked to? "Get a life" is a pretty lame retort to someone who's just telling you how it is. I dare you to "report" me to an admin; get them to tell me that I should stop expecting that articles actually follow the guidelines, and conform to your standards, since you obviously know better than them. This is, after all, what you're telling me. Maybe you need to start up your own wiki.
- Besides, if you think that she's so insignificant, if you think she's not actually a celebrity, and you think that her music was inconsequential, and all this stuff... why are you so passionate about protecting the "accuracy" of her article? Think of the energy you're using trying to not allow the official site to be included in her article, yet you tell me to "get a life"? If she's so useless, ignore her article and piss off, we'll both be a lot happier. - Ugliness Man
- I think it's clear that there's no reason the site shouldn't be linked here. And if he removes it again, there's no reason he shouldn't be tagged for vandalism. Crumbsucker 12:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- Nobody's going to tag me for vandalism. And besides, who cares what you say? ("...there's no reason he shouldn't be tagged for vandalism.") You are apparently disabled, young man. Do you want people to think you're disabled? If not, then don't post comments that are filled with untruths or insults. I am NOT a vandal. However, I agree with you that the site should be kept. Marcus2 02:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
- First, you've now resorted to name-calling. Second, I doubt you know this person's age or gender, so you're also being presumptuous. And third, why do you suddenly agree? What part of your previous argument has changed?
- The vandalism issue is apparently a matter of opinion. Repeatedly removing an official link, thereby defying Wikipedia's standards, with justifications you seemed to make up yourself as opposed to citing anything having anything to do with Wikipedia standards... at the very least it resembles vandalism. If you can make up fake reasons for defying Wikipedia standards, then others should be allowed to stretch the definition of vandalism. Myself, I think your actions more closely resembled trolling, which is equally deplorable. - Ugliness Man 13:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
- "However, I agree with you that the site should be kept." Thank you for wasting our time. Crumbsucker 00:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
- Nobody's going to tag me for vandalism. And besides, who cares what you say? ("...there's no reason he shouldn't be tagged for vandalism.") You are apparently disabled, young man. Do you want people to think you're disabled? If not, then don't post comments that are filled with untruths or insults. I am NOT a vandal. However, I agree with you that the site should be kept. Marcus2 02:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
- I think it's clear that there's no reason the site shouldn't be linked here. And if he removes it again, there's no reason he shouldn't be tagged for vandalism. Crumbsucker 12:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- You are just plain wrong about my ice getting thinner and about me being close to being a troll. Anyway the site is a mess. It's stupid, and, in addition it isn't accurate. Rugrats was not the highest rated Nickelodeon show in its eleventh year, according to the site. She may also be a one-hit wonder, if she had any hits at all. I'm on a mission to change that stupid guideline. Stay out of this, and get a life. Marcus2 17:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- You're about one degree away from being a troll. I don't know where you obtained your self-righteous defnition of the term "celebrity", but she is in a National Lampoon movie that's coming out soon, she's done voice work in a handful of popluar animated series, and she had a hit song. And I noticed your latest justification for removing the official site again was that "it's a mess"? What the hell is that supposed to mean? You can't find a real reason to keep acting like this, so you come up with something vague and impossible to define? Let's get one thing perfectly straight here, since you obviously haven't figured it out: including the official site among the external links is specifically within Wikipedia's guidelines. So far, you haven't been able to justify in any way shape or form that your removal of the link complies with any of Wikipedia's guidelines. Since you obviously missed it the first time, I'll repeat, articles about any organization, person, or other entity should link to their official site, if they have one. Note that the guideline doesn't say "celebrity", so your latest excuse is bunk. Or would you like to now claim that she isn't a person? - Ugliness Man 15:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- She is not a celebrity. She isn't even in the World Almanac . Marcus2 15:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
