User talk:Foxyfreangel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Julie Andrews

RE: It seems that this site uses the inappropriate usage of the word vandalism. To present a differing view of a subject is not vandalism. I have only recently joined this at the prompting of another and gave my blog site link. This was done twice, there was not repeated vandalism as you claim. It was only done twice since this site is difficult to navigate and understand right off They seem to feel that what I have to say is unsubstainsiated, solely because it is in blog form. Other than personal remarks on things, There is much research into the rest of it. More so than what is being presented at the fan sites. Julieandrews.org and julieandrews.co.uk, both are unofficial and very one sided as to the real Julie Andrews. Perhaps this is what you want for your site. I don't know. But I would remove the links for those two and any other fan sites that want to put their links up, because they are in severe copyright infringement as to images and articles, both. By having this on your site means you are endorsing their illegal activies.

Sincerely, Foxfyreangel

First, there is (at the moment, anyway) exactly zero citeable "evidence" on either site; and, repeatedly replacing the link after a warning to not do so is indeed vandalism, as has been explained to "Mikko Jack" at Talk:Julie Andrews. Simultaneously, neither site presents "evidence" so much as a "hit piece". This point cannot be stressed enough: while arguably suitable for personal sites and/or blogs, until/unless both evidence and presentation are addressed, neither site will be included in any reputable encyclopedia, including Wikipedia. This is not a "site", this is an online encyclopedia; once again, I implore anyone who wants to get involved here to read WP:NOT (<- this is a link, please, click on it and read). Meantime, I challenge you to tell me what about the cites currently linked at Julie Andrews constitutes "illegal activi[ti]es" (with the possible exception of image copyrights). RadioKirk talk to me 23:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)