User talk:Hilary Duff


 * You say you confirmed her identity, how'd you do that? Anyway, I'd be happy to undelete her old user and talk pages, if I knew that she didn't still want them deleted. And really, it was just Snowspinner who was wanting to verify her identity so badly, but I don't think even he wanted to chase her away. Everyking 04:01, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * It's absurd to say that anyone "chased her away". Snowspinner's request was simple, reasonable and in my opinion perfectly justified. Oh, and it's interesting that JGal2004 and Hilary Duff arrived at Wikipedia at exactly the same time. It's also interesting that "Hilary" quickly gravitated towards Mike Garcia given that Mike has a long standing reputation for playing convoluted mind games. It will be interesting if someone can take the time to analyse the user IPs and see where they originate from. -- FirstPrinciples 05:24, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)


 * Mike Garcia left a note on this talk page at 23:58 on November 16. Someone (an anon) added a mention of Hilary's user page to the article Hilary Duff just minutes earlier, at 23:46. My guess is that Mike had the article on his watchlist and noticed the change, same as I did, and we both left notes here at about the same time. Only two people, besides JGal, left positive comments on this page, me and Mike, and she responded to both of us. That's the extent of this so-called gravitation, which is just silliness. Learn to be more civil. Everyking 05:33, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should research Mike's history. He's already impersonated Eddie Van Halen although in a more obvious way. By the way, my first comment was perfectly positive. -- FirstPrinciples 05:41, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)


 * It's too bad she left. I'd like to see more of my fellow musicians contributing to Wikipedia. Elvis 06:09, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * He's probably impersonating JGal, and me too, I imagine. Everyking 06:23, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I think it's fairly obvious that JGal and "Hilary Duff" were the same user.

What happened to the user page and talk before It existed again? -- Mike Garcia 23:11, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * They were deleted by Everyking on their owner's request. Snowspinner 23:26, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

~*~*~*~

Snowspinner, what was your email? --*Hil* 19:22, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * sandifer@(NOSPAM)sbcglobal.net, less, of course, the (NOSPAM). Snowspinner 20:33, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

~*~*~*~

It might take a little while for me to be able to get someone to email you! Sorry! --*Hil* 19:52, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * In the meantime, I can undelete your old user page and talk page if you want. It would be great if you continued contributing here! Everyking 20:07, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

~*~*~*~

I'm okay for now. I don't want my old user page until I can confirm who I am! I'm so sorry, but really, as you can imageine, everyone thinks it's not worth it to email Snowspinner and confirm who I am. Everyone thinks I should just leave and be done with Wikipedia. If I can't get anyone to email Snowspinner, I will have to leave Wikipedia. --*Hil* 02:01, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ghetto.
Ok. If you are Hilary (which I believe you are), why did you call recording in your dressing room "ghetto?" Trust me... I live in the ghetto. --Saint-Paddy 17:30, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

~*~*~*~

I'm so sorry, and you won't believe I'm Hilary anymore!, but I don't remember saying that! --*Hil* 02:01, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Celebrities, real and fake
I've been involved in online celebrity-related discussion, and the maintenance of fan sites, for many years (going back to BBSs and proprietary online services before the Web even existed), and have been through several instances of alleged celebrities turning up in person online somewhere. Many of these have proven to be fake, a few real, and some remain indeterminate to this day. It's understandable, therefore, that any new case of this sort is greeted with much skepticism. It's also understandable, however, that any real celebrity who might go online would tend to be somewhat secretive about personal details they wish to keep private, and thus might come off as "sneaky" and cause the skeptics to doubt that they are real. This is something that can be hard to untangle unless somebody at the administrative level of the site in question actually gets in touch with the official management of the celebrity and gets a definitive confirmation.


 * (Addendum, 21 Dec 2004:) And getting such confirmations might be made even harder by the fact that celebrity management probably would prefer that their client not get online "unsupervised" like that in the first place... they tend to be "Marketing Types" that like to have anal-retentive control over everything that's said by or about the celebrity anywhere, to make sure that it's all consistent with their marketing plan, and targets the appropriate demographic, and doesn't offend anybody too badly, and so on. So they probably don't want it to be known for sure that the celebrity really got online by herself and said things publicly, even if she did.

I'll add that celebrities have also sometimes gone online "incognito", under fake names, to avoid the hassle of being mobbed by fans or challenged about whether they're real, or because they sometimes find it fun to jump into the discussion on a forum about them without anybody knowing who they really are; reportedly, J. K. Rowling has turned up in this manner on Harry Potter forums and chat rooms.


 * (Addendum, 23 Dec 2004:) And, just after I wrote that, Rowling put this in her own official site: "So now you know! Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince will be available from July 16th 2005 (and I do hope you consider it a decent birthday present, Delleve-who-posts-at-the-Leaky-Cauldron... not that I was watching the fansites on Monday night or anything...)"

Celebrities are human just like anybody else, and just like everybody else they vary greatly in personality and in computer skills. Some are computerphobes who won't touch a keyboard (even the "personal notes" supposedly from them on their official Web sites are actually typed in by somebody working for their management), while others are more "hands-on".


 * (Addendum, 23 Dec 2004:) Soon after I wrote the above stuff, Britney Spears and Janet Jackson signed my personal site's guestbook! :-)

--Dan 02:58, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * the ~*~*~*~ put on this page are the same as at this page http://22blog.com/HilaryDuff/ . Real or not the real Hilary does sign with Hil*

Is this Hilary?
Is this really Hilary Duff? Is she really on Wikipedia? I think it's her, maybe, but I'm not sure. That would be cool if it was Hilary, but everyone else says she's a fake. I hope someone can prove she is Hilary so people will stop bugging her.

--.:Jenni:. 13:57, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it is Hilary. She confirmed it on her website message board (www.hilaryduff.com) You need a paid account on her site in order to see it.


 * As well as, it seems, in order to see that the site has any message boards at all. As they're not mentioned as part of the fanclub description. Can we put this trolling to rest yet? Snowspinner 16:20, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that hostility like this caused the whole mess to begin with. Everyking 16:45, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Really? I could have sworn it was a troll impersonating a celebrity. Snowspinner 16:49, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * It didn't become a controversy until you intervened with a counter-productive attitude, you know. Have a little more consideration. Everyking 17:10, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I hope this doesn't chase away other people from the site. I don't see why it's an issue for her to post, nor why Snow seems to be making a big deal of this. Hilary, I hope you continue contributing, in spite of some of the fun personalities that live here. Keep on rockin.--Michaelk 01:29, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Socky socky socky puppet! User talk:JGal2004 tells all!