User talk:ZeeToAaa

"underscores societal reactions"

Hello ZeeToAaa:

Can you tell me what that phrase means and how the image does that?

Thanks. Wanderer57 (talk) 03:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I did not know how best to say it.... but Paris is the celebrity we "love to hate". She is vapid, self-centered, and amazingy dull and untalented as an actress and as an individual. If it were not for her family name and fortune, she might well have ended up serving french fries someplace. Society seems to have a strange fascination with this woman and her continuing set of problems. Though many may be a bit envious of her fortune, everyone seems quite happy to tale a few "pot shots" at her indulgent lifestyle. Thus, in the article's section of popular culture and parodies, we find mention of "Haris Pilton" in ""World of Warcraft", "London Tipton" in "The Suit Life of Zack and Cody (et al). Image Image:812 image 17.jpg showing a cartoon Paris hugging a cartoon Butters from an episode of South Park shows how popular media is using the Paris noteriety to entertain and educate. The image Image:Paris in Jail.jpg does the same thing, just showing it in a different manner. So maybe "underscores societal reactions" is a poor choice of words... but the video parody image is just as worthy of inclusion as the South Park image... and for the same reason. They both illustrate critical commentary for the article. I belive the picture should stay... how might I better phrase its return? How about "illustrates commentary on the price of self-indulgence"

I hope this train of thought does not sound confused. Thanks, ZeeToAaaZeeToAaa (talk) 19:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the feedback. It does not sound confused.

The impression I get from your first few sentences is that you are expressing YOUR views of Paris Hilton. Are you aware that this is how it comes across?

Specifically re the image. I'm still skeptical that it belongs. I'll think about it and maybe seek another opinion. The caption re "the price of self-indulgence" is POV. Captions should be neutral, shouldn't they?

Wanderer57 (talk) 01:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand your point of view and have modified the caption to refer to it as "tongue-in-cheek so as to stress it being a popular instance of parody just as is the Southpark image right above it. I have noticed a lot of activity on the Paris page, and this would seem to underscore the popular interest in her as a person and as a celebrity. I voiced my personal opinion so as to share my train of thought... and I find I agree with you. With your words in mind, I have modified the caption, removing the POV and simply making a statement of fact. Saying something in the simplest terms is usually best. Thank you for this discourse... and a Merry Christmas. ZeeToAaa (talk) 06:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. The caption is much better. Merry Christmas to you. Wanderer57 (talk) 18:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

And thank you in turn. Have a terrific New Years! ZeeToAaa (talk) 23:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome

Thanks. I can't catch them all either. Happy new year, Wanderer57 (talk) 22:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Omovies

An editor has nominated Omovies, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omovies and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)