Talk:Suzy Rice

New by only an hour to what is titled as "an Encyclopedia," I attempted listings in the three areas of professional activities and credits, and, editing, seem to have received a caution by someone called "Hadal" about "vanity."

Is this not an Encyclopedia? Perhaps I misperceived "Wikipedia" as a literary and resource site, when, in fact, it is a "morality" forum? Please advise, I'd be interested in knowing why entering content here is being misperceived through someone's moral code of numbering entries, versus the actual content attempted to be provided here.


 * Whoa there. I never said there was anything wrong with vanity, but we should try to keep it at a minimum (IMHO). ;) Your article was moved to Suzy Rice/Susan Elizabeth Rice by another user, presumably because of your varying name. You overwrote the redirect and created two articles with the same content; I merely fixed the problem. And at the moment, your "encyclopedic article" reads like a resume. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not monster.com. This doesn't necessarily mean you don't deserve an entry in Wikipedia.


 * Furthermore, some people may disagree with the practice of writing about oneself simply on principle. I'm not here to make a judgment on this, however. -- Hadal 05:24, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

=
=================

If I wanted the features and characteristics available through "monster.com" I would use "monster.com" and participate there.

Why do "credits" read "like a resume" to you?

They're credits. People work long enough, they accrue credits that are more extensive than others. Doesn't make it "a resume" to list "credits" and, from what I can read on your "user I.D." page, you've pretty well capitalized on a "resume" format there.

This is a very offensive start to a site that's SUPPOSEDLY about information.

And, the last place I'd ever list "a resume" was on the Internet. Defining work credits defines a person, and listing four of my main credits in life hardly represents "a resume."

You've applied some personal resistence to my very sparse entry -- deeming it "vanity" -- which tells me that's your reference about the site use. Mine was to include information.

I'm very sorry I ever attempted to participate here. I have since CORRECTED the poor grammar used in that "rewrite" of my entry, by whoever it was and if there's any more issue about this one, harmless stop here by me, I'd be very grateful to have my entry deleted.

This has been a bad experience for me. To use your word, "whoa."

-

I also accessed the feature that your site makes available, an image include, and said image is now removed.

Why? Why provide the image include tool if it's deleted afterward? The image is a representation of who I am as an artist, so why delete it?

You know, it's not looking too conducive to actual "information" availability here, from this one dismal beginning.

Very disillusioning.


 * ''For any third parties reading this, please see for Suzy's original article


 * Firstly, I sincerely apologise again if I've offended you. You have met no opposition, unless you see turning two duplicate articles into one article as opposition. Wikipedia does not like duplicate articles; as there was nothing to merge, I redirected the duplicate. This is all I have done. None of your other edits have been redirected or reverted (and aside from this article, changed in any way). The image you uploaded is still there: see Image:475wde_Title_SuzyRice_SusanElizabethRice_HorizontalAqua.jpg. I do not recommend re-adding it to your article, but you are welcome to add it to your userpage.


 * Secondly, just because I think it's vanity does not mean it does not belong in Wikipedia. My userpage reads like a resume because userpages can read however you like. My userpage is not an article, and this article should not be your userpage. I was not the one who rewrote your article, but I do not see any grammatical errors in Hephaestos's version (which, IMO, was far closer to an encyclopedic entry than the original). Be that as it may, if you feel I've wronged you there are avenues to express your distaste. See Dispute resolution (although I very much hope this won't go that far). If there's anything else you're upset with, please tell me. -- Hadal 10:24, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

I'm having a little trouble understanding why someone who clearly should understand design and layout is unable to spot the difference between the original version of the article and the wikified version, and to understand why it has been edited as it has been. With the very best will in the world, I find Ms. Rice's comments a little offensive, and vastly lacking any insight whatsoever; which is a shame. My experience is that users of Wikipedia positively bend over backwards to be courteous and helpful to new users.

Not like my listing(s) isn't(aren't) professional, well done, interesting to read and look over, linked well and accurately, to the point, generally O.K. In the five minutes I've spent looking at things, no, your first article was not well written - in terms of the ordinary style of entries in Wikipedia. Nor do I think your reversion of the Lucasfilm link represents "linked well" ... neither was your original article linked well, in terms of Wikipedia's house style.

You know, I just don't know where the online negativity comes from. I dunno. You don't find your own journal article crashingly negitive? Perhaps it comes from you, just as much as from others. Just a thought.

What is wearing down the Internet is too much negativity, too many critiques, not enough content. Uh-huh. Am I to presume that we make an exception for your critique of Wikipedia, and your dismissal, after minimal research and thought, of the tens of thousands of person hours that have gone into providing better than 250k pages of content? It's all really just not adding up for me right now.

I live in hope that you'll stick around, at least to the point of improving your own entry to the point that it becomes a biographical listing more close in format to many others on the wikipedia, rather than the stub that it currently is. --Tagishsimon

=
========================================

To User:Tagishsimon:

"Wikipedia" is billed and titled as an "Encylopedia."

It isn't a blog or a journal, or a public bulletin board, or usenet group, or online otherwise personality pickapart, at least, not be definition of "encyclopedia". Although I can read here that there is much confusion by some about what constitutes "definitions" and information.

Meaning, we could all begin some "new internet definition" of information to include the fact that "HTML is vain because it has too many characters," or, perhaps, "information is ugly because the word is spelled with too many alpha characters."

I haven't seen a site entry by me -- to which you refer -- anywhere in Wikipedia, an "Encyclopedia," so critiqueing on your emotional terms something I've authored elsewhere in the world of words isn't relevant to a Wikipedia ENCYCLOPEDIA entry.

I placed a brief and correctly worded, spelled and grammatical defining entry in Wikipedia that defines me as an individual within a professional capacity: briefest, most recognizable, "public" level information that equates with my name in print and media, and that was done to draw distinction between me as one individual and other individuals in our human culture who share the same name as I do, and who are also public figures -- that I took initiative and placed the entry on Wikipedia instead of paying a Public Relations employee or personal manager or whomever to do so, isn't an emotional issue so it's strange that someone else would so project negatives upon that fact (that I authored the original and correct entry and that was later negated by whomever based upon their applied value judgements about that, which included in retort some wrongful changes to my original entry, making that origianl entry incorrect afterward, due to someone else's value judgement about the fact that the correct entry was authored by me -- the two issues make no reasonable or logical sense to my way of thinking, however, and that's the ongoing point that renders Wikipedia content unreliable in the perceptions of others).

Perhaps Wikipedia is still growing to such an extent that "public" means "graffitti" to some, as per your foolish language here, of the personally derogative kind, which is what I was earlier defining as "too much...negativity." You do not include any kind or constructive addition to the information that defines my person as reflected in this entry of definitions (what have you likewise "contributed" or not to the information by and about others?), so you write about your grousing emotions.

My entry was "edited" after I placed it on this site by someone or others to include misspellings, poor grammar and incorrect information, and, included someone also adding that the credits I'd originally written represented "vanity" and equated the contents of that origianl entry as representing "a resume."

Then your comments appear, which amplify the level of misinformation, concentrate an entry about a random individual to you as being something related to your own emotive interpretations of information, and then reveal your own animositities as a writer about...what? It's a mystery to me.

I'm curious how you FEEL about Van Gogh? Does his missing ear make you angry? Does it make you laugh? Do you resent him? Do works of art and creative credits represent assaults to you? Are you generally concerned and "made angry" when you read facts and figures? Why not write a webpage about all those emotions and spare the personal invective about me in Wikipedia. I would appreciate it, as I am sure, many millions of others would, likewise.

However, as to Wikipedia, the fact that a briefly defining set of professional accomplishments by me, written here in such a brief format as to be efficient as possible -- correctly spelled, grammatically accurate, factually correct -- should not at all, not in the least, be further gunked up by anyone's feelings and interpretations about their own emotional state. I emphasis, "should not be" because I read here that Wikipedia with it's "wiki" interactivity is simply a usenet forum wearing a nice logo.

I hope it grows to become a better resource than what is at present.

Signed: Susan Elizabeth (Suzy) Rice October 16, 2004

Date of birth is needed.--109.252.95.217 (talk) 08:51, 24 October 2020 (UTC)