Talk:Amanda Congdon

message: Okay, I added two lead paragraphs to establish the significance of the subject and deleted some phrases elsewhere. "PR bio"? Five people worked on this, and my contribution involved research through dozens of sources. Pepso 18:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nicely done and I'm sorry for being obnoxious  -- I've become hypersensitive to bias (positive or negative) in recent weeks and I mistook genuine affection for a ginned-up attempt to pervert the entry.  I'm glad to see the facts of her work speak for themselves. Junkmale 22:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Fixed

message: 49,300 hits for  "Amanda Congdon" on Google LoopZilla 23:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Last time I checked (30 seconds ago), she only has around 11,000 hits on Google.  However I suppose it's fine that she has an entry, and it doesn't seem too much like shameless PR.  Secretagentwang 21:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Using Google Advanced Search "exact phrase," I got 73,900 results. Pepso 23:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  214,000 hits for  "Amanda Congdon" (exact phrase) today and 1,550,000 for rocketboom Gordo 07:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  My name in Google gets 20,000 hits Gordo 07:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Google hits 

message: OK, hold it just a minute.  You are upsetting the balance of the universe.  They use paid actors on Reality TV?  What?!?  I mean come on!  Maybe she was the coat check girl on The Restaurant but surely that must have been because she really is a coat check girl and happened to be working at "Rocco's on 22nd" while they filmed a program there.--69.118.202.131 23:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coat check girl 

message: I think that too much info is repeated with the amanda section in Rocketboom and this article.  --TrevorLSciAct 22:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  In that case edit the Rocketboom article!! Gordo 07:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is STILL the case.  Does anyone have time to merge some of the Rocketboom info over to its' appropriate page?  Species5618 (talk) 09:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge to Rocketboom 

message: The effort to merge is the last gasp of those who have tried to delete Gordo 07:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do Not Merge 

message: I'm switching the images so the candid is on the bottom--I don't know why I'm bothering to mention it here?  There should be no objections.  --TrevorLSciAct 20:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not objecting, but why did you switch? Pepso 22:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just thought that a posed shot makes the page look more professional (not the word I'm looking for but close) --TrevorLSciAct 23:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Switch images 

message: With all the availablity of this persons image on the internet - video logs, etc. we should be able to get a PD (or at least GFDL) image that is of better quality - the lighting in the current picture is aweful. --Trödel 19:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears that the image that used to be there was deleted. Will revert. —Rob (talk) 20:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wow that is a much better picture - I wouldn't even have thought it was the same person --Trödel 21:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is better... it is definitely pulled off her website... someone that know FairUse better than I needs to make sure that image is okay being up there, though. —Rob (talk) 20:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Chris Weaver, of http://www.TVPhotogBlog.com has kindly granted wikipedia a Cc-by-sa license to 3 of the photos he had of Congdon - I used them in the article. The picture in the infobox is a cropped version of :Image:Congdon-2.PNG (Congdon with Weaver)  but I don't have the skills or software to soften the pixalated look it has. Any help would be appreciated. However, I think the fair use would be fine since the use on Congdon's website is for promotional purposes, if we want to go back to that image. --Trödel 11:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, that's fairly obvious. :-) It's because the template resizes your image to 250px or so... which is bigger than the image you uploaded, causing pixelization, which looks bad. I'll replace just that image with the image that was in the infobox prior. —Rob (talk) 14:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: LOL - well I have no idea about any of that - I just found the pics after my complaint above - and asked Chris for permission to use them since they were fairly good quality (as determined by size and having decent lighting). --Trödel 20:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: They can be in the regular page, but something, somewhere needs to mention this conference, and what it was, and why she was there (or even just that she was there), before putting a pic in the body. —Rob (talk) 19:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL - well I have no idea about any of that - I just found the pics after my complaint above - and asked Chris for permission to use them since they were fairly good quality (as determined by size and having decent lighting). --Trödel 20:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chris Weaver images 

message: I emailed Congdon and asked if she could license a picture for use on wikipedia. She kindly agreed - and I hav uploaded the image to commons and included in the infobox. --Trödel 02:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Infobox image 

message: I'm a new user so I don't want to start cutting things out by mysef but I don't believe that a section on speculation about amanda's next project belongs in an encyclopedia article. This is not a gossip magazine but a source of information. Wikipedia is not People's magazine. If your really desperate, than put your speculation on the talk page. When it's been clarified what Amanda's next move is, than that should been incorporated into the article with a link in the reference section. Certainly not its own section on the page. This is making a major joke out of the whole Wikipedia.
--John Do 13:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Amanda's next project? section

message: Someone should add information about http://amandacongdon.com/roadblog/, I would but I don't have away with words as you can see!
::Done, although it could use some improvement and someone with a little knowledge on pictures should add some for that section.  TrevorLSciAct 00:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: AmandaAcrossAmerica

message: This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it.  Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed.  I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy.  In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright.  If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed, feel free to ask me on my talk page and I'll review it personally.  Thanks. ---J.S (t|c) 04:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess this was an automatic message. Considering that Amanda was a video blogger, having YOUTube links makes sense :) --Tilman 07:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, it shouldn't be a youtube link, since the YouTube version is just a copy of the original hosted on the Rocketboom site. I've updated the link so it points to the original, since technically the YouTube one is a violation of Rocketboom's copyright. It seems to me that any external link to a video should strive to link to the original source rather than copies floating around youtube. Acarvin 13:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Exactly.  Thanks for checking it. ---J.S (t|c) 22:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed. --Tilman 16:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  YouTube links 

message: Just wanted to say I am going to add info that she has struck deals with both HBO and ABC  (and I am so happy for her--but thats off topic.)  But also, in general, it seems that this article has lost some of the attention it once had, what changed?TrevorLSciAct 03:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  HBO 

message: I just did allot of clean up and rewording, and some slight reorganizing, hope y'all like the updated article--if ya don't complain here. Also just wanted to say how great this wiki thing works, and congratulate everyone who has worked on the article and how far it has come since I suggested it be merged into Rocketboom Looking back is just.. WOW TrevorLSciAct 02:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleaned Up 

message: I just did a lot more clean up and feel that MUCH of the Rocketboom information should be moved to the Rocketboom page.  This biography doesn't need such in-detail information about Rocketboom, that information would be more appropriate on the Rocketboom page.  Species5618 (talk) 09:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge Some Information to Rocketboom

message: before the article appeared manageable, readable, and allowed you to easily skip tot he part you want, now it's just one big block of text, it looks very intimidating, and I'm gonna change it back to the much more readable style. TrevorLSciAct (talk)
:Just changed the formating back to a good format that can be read. TrevorLSciAct (talk) 20:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's with the reformatting?  

message: It doesn't bother me that Amanda Congdon's entry is full of fluff and does not mention the controversy of her becoming fired from ABC, not getting her HBO contract, losing the court case with Rocketboom, or the major controversy over her Dupont infomercials, but I also believe a great deal of the information in the Rocketboom entry has been usurped into her personal entry and that info would better enhance the Rocketboom entry.
However, I'm not going to touch her article myself because I dont want everyone to freak out and start pointing fingers again. Else, I would only like to point out a few articles that others have written in case anyone is interested in the non-fluff history, as it relates to Rocketboom. Also, I would like to ask that someone else consider moving data to Rocketboom (like the EPic-Fu data which was motivated by myself and *included* Amanda, but was related to the deal I worked out with Epic-Fu, where Rocketboom owned 50% of the show at one time.) Hey, I'm just trying to include the truth here, lets not expect that the following info should be hidden when we expect integrity:
+Former Rocketboomer Shills for Dupont
http://adage.com/adages/post?article_id=115644
+ABC Videocaster Congdon Caught Working for Dupont on the Side:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/03/20/abc-videocaster-congdon-c_n_43867.html
+Amanda's Been Canned From ABC
http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2007/09/21/abc-amandas-been-canned
+Internet Celebrity Doesnt Translate: Amanda Congdon Let Go By ABC
http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/09/21/internet-celebrity-doesnt-translate-amanda-congdon-let-go-by-abc/
+Amanda Congdon's crossover dreams fade
http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9783641-7.html?tag=nefd.only
:Andrewbaron, could you please sign your comments? The only verifiable fact from the ABC departure is that the one year contract was not renewed. It is so far opinion as to why this is so, at least until someone presents the network memo or similar source detailing the decision. There were at least three different ways that ABCNEWS tried to stream the videoblog through, none of them quite satisfactory, as can be pointed out by her comments on a couple of the blogs, and how one week never made it to air. The DuPont controversy does deserve mention; although she denied being a journalist, she otherwise comes across as one. Such mention would probably also have to deal with CBS and FRONTLINE references to Amanda-era Rocketboom. The Rocketboom court case should be public record, so a detailed reference that would give someone else the ability to independently access the same part of the record referred to should suffice, although the case is also fair game as a source for any criticism of Rocketboom. That may dissuade you, but I think THAT source would contribute the most to the Rocketboom, AC, and any other WikiP article involved. As always, WP:BLP for all parties should be adhered. This is not a forum for personal attack, but when cited, your criticism carries the same weight as any other contributor's. Ultimately, the article should be neutral, leaving the reader to weigh the evidence as they see fit.
MMetro (talk) 00:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fluff Article 

message: Please see weasel like examples. Unless there are objections the below can be deleted to increase the credibility of the article. Pknkly (talk) 15:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Cleaned up all of these. Vnarfhuhwef (talk) 23:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasel words 

message: Please see examples of peacock terms.  The sentences would do just as well without them. Pknkly (talk) 15:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed or edited all of these. Vnarfhuhwef (talk) 23:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peacock words 

message: I see this article is tagged as being of questionable notability. I've seen and worked on other articles in Wikipedia that are not nearly as notable as this person.  I ended up on this page because of a news show on Current TV that did a short piece on Rocketboom and Ms. Congdon. I would say that she's notable enough to have a bio. Just my 2 cents. Vnarfhuhwef (talk) 22:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah.  Her fifteen minutes were up many years ago.  This article should be deleted.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:4F00:7D:E04A:FB7C:F8E0:3C69 (talk) 00:28, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability