Talk:Girl With A One-Track Mind

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of Blogging WikiProject, an attempt to build better coverage of Blogging on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the Project Page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.

I've added the above template as the name of the author, Zoe Margolis, redirects here. The above should be taken to apply to her rather than the book or blog - David Gerard 15:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Advance

I don't actually think the author has made any "claim" about how much she received. "Six figures" is press speculation. She has explicitly stated on the blog that despite many people's assumptions, the book has not made her rich.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.216.109.65 (talk)

[edit] Speculation

I've removed unsourced speculation about the allegation that Margolis' "outing" was part of a PR campaign, which fails WP:V. --Richardrj talk email 10:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the speculation again, it had been re-instated by User:Disreputable whose sole contributions to Wikipedia have been to add this tin-foil hat theory to this entry. --Stalfur 10:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
In fairness, he had tried to provide sources for it this time, but I agree with you that it is still speculation (the opinions of one person on a discussion forum - big deal!) and quite unsuitable for an encyclopedia. BTW, you also (perhaps unintentionally) removed a couple of good references, so I've reinstated those. --Richardrj talk email 11:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
That might well have been my sole contribution to date, but everyone has to start somewhere. I'm sure you'd rather that newcomers stick to drooling, fanboy contributions like yours, but some of us have functioning critical faculties. Before I leave you boys to your games, one question: why do you assume that I'm a man, Richard? --Disreputable
You sound like a wonderful addition to Wikipedia... I believe other websites are more interested in these kind of accusations, both on the subject and those who try to NOT base Wikipedia information on someones ruminations on a forum somewhere. Just the facts m'am. --Stalfur 12:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Umm, there is nothing in this article that is "drooling" or "fanboy". Believe me, I am well aware of the need to keep out such material and will take it out if it appears. The article as it currently stands is entirely neutral and factual. And I don't assume you're a man. I referred to you as "he" because I believe that the singular they is grammatically incorrect. The word "he" has historically referred to both genders, and as far as I'm concerned it can continue to do so. --Richardrj talk email 13:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)