Talk:Minor CTU agents in 24/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Robert Ellis

Ellis was not a CTU agent, so what is he doing on this list? He should be on the list of minor 24 characters.Richard75 01:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Picture for Valerie Harris needed.

Edgar Stiles

His name is spelled Stiles with an I, not a Y. Refer to 24 official website profiles for confirmation. --MistahWhippy —Preceding comment was added at 07:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Darrenrichards.JPG

Image:Darrenrichards.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Milo tense

The section about Milo is written in the wrong tense. Could someone please edit it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phoenixfan (talk • contribs) 02:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with the tense, what do you think th eproblem is?--Lucy-marie (talk) 19:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't want this to sound negative, but Lucy-marie, what is your native language? The Milo section starts with past tense, shifts to present perfect tense, then goes to simple present tense. And that's just the first paragraph! Later, it returns to present perfect, changes to past perfect, becomes simple present, then finally to past tense. This thing's a mess, riddled with typos too. TunaSushi (talk) 17:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The reason that you are complaining about the first paragraph is that you are not reading them as indivdual sentences, it is as if you are trying to have each sentence flow into the next as if chronoligcally. The firs paragraph is Milo's entire contributions to day one and each sentence is virtually a seperate paragraph. The sentences themself are to short for this so have been compressed into one paragraph.--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I would like each sentence to flow "as if chronologically". As a matter of fact, I insist on it. Most readers would. That's a major point of exposition and narration. If you don't see this problem, I suggest that you improve your English grammar and sentence structure skills. TunaSushi (talk) 20:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Every person has a diffrent style of writing and that you dislike one way of writing does not mean that you can force a specific writing style on another person. You can insist on chronology all you want, but may be in serious danger of violating WP:NOT#PLOT. This is due to most chronolgical accounts be a regurgitation of what happened. The current version does not violate that. If you want to have a go at writing a new fist paragraph go ahead but please be aware of it not being made a plot summary. Also my English is fine it is just a difrent style to yours.--Lucy-marie (talk) 12:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Surely there's someone out there with capable writing abilities who can clean up this page once it's unlocked. I really don't understand why Lucy-marie seems so determined that 'her' version is the only one allowed. Angelriver (talk) 22:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I have never insisted that my version be the only version. I have merly insisted againts one version being force over another which violates policy on WP:NOT#INFO and WP:NOT#PLOT. Also typos are not a reason to revert a version.--Lucy-marie (talk) 12:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Then why, Lucy, when others tried to change the article to a better-written one, not to mention one with fewer typos and grammatical mistakes, did you continue to revert the article back to the one you had written? You know, the one where every other word was misspelled and all grammatical rules had been tossed out the window? You forced your version over the others by doing so. And yes, Lucy, typos are a plenty good enough reason to revert or rewrite an article. Especially when the article contains as many horrendous typos as yours did. Bad spelling, bad grammar, and bad punctuation are NOT a writing style. They are mistakes, and in an effort to maintain some kind of quality, they need to be corrected. No offense Lucy, but if you're old enough to police the Wiki site, you're old enough to learn to spell and to write properly. Angelriver (talk) 14:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

No typos are not a good enough reason if you, see typos the sensible thing to do would be to fix them. I also find it offencive to once again cticise grammar by the sentence "if your old enough...". I say we move on to actually improving the article quality reather than going around in a circle. I also would like to say that there has been no alternate vesion placed on this talk page to critique. This is not my fault as i have no problem with current Milo version. The curent McGill version thoughis 90% a text dump and needs changing.--Lucy-marie (talk) 14:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not just the typos. It's the typos combined with the grammar and punctuation mistakes that make it nearly impossible to slog through. And of course you found what I said OFFENSIVE, but you didn't find it the least bit offensive to call me stupid earlier. Again Lucy, no offense intended, but I think the only way to improve the quality of the articles is if you don't have a hand in writing them. At least not until you learn some of the basics of good writing. Also, it doesn't surprise me that you have no problem with the current Milo version--you wrote it. It seems that others have a problem with it, however, which doesn't surprise me in the least. As far as the Lynn article, of course you have a problem with it--you didn't write it. Angelriver (talk) 14:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that a step back form being so emotinally attached to this need to be undertaken. I also say stop with being personal as I have stopped, also writing a section does not instantly prohibit a user from contributing. By that logic both you and me should not be contributing at all. I say that constructive criticsm on the content of the sections, should be undertaken and not going around in a big circle and not progressing. I have provided an opportunity to be constructive at the bottom of the page.--Lucy-marie (talk) 15:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Lucy-Marie, you aren't taking any criticism constructively. The Milo section is poorly written (as is the rest of this page), with a specific complaint about the verb tense. You can't see it, as stated above, so I detailed the way it was flawed. You dismiss the critique and question my abilities of comprehension.

You interpret that I'm trying to force a writing style, so then you throw the Wiki policy alphabet at me - in effect forcing your prose over others.

You say, "Also my English is fine it is just a difrent style to yours." I think that sums up the entire issue. You don't see the problem because you lack the proper skill set. In the text that I quoted, there is no punctuation, run on sentences, typos, and improper selection of a preposition. TunaSushi (talk) 16:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, provide a solution to the problem by writing your own version here for all to see and critique. Rather than continually attacking the user, be constructive. I also do not force anything upon anybody I simply uphold wiki policy. If you dislike wiki policy discuss it on the policy page.--Lucy-marie (talk) 16:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Lucy-marie, the preceding statement is in violation of Wikipedia policy WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND. "Wikipedia is not an anti-leech community. Users should not criticize others on not devoting time to edit." I added my version anyway, but you were wrong to demand provision. TunaSushi 21:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

My version:

TunaSushi (talk) 17:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Quality

The quality of the merged articles is noticably poor. There should be an active effort to bring them to the quality they held when they had thier own pages. If it is possible ,we should copy the old information from the old pages and replace the garbage currently here. MoChan (talk) 00:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I've done this for Lynn, but it keeps getting changed to the old garbage. Lynn McGill (talk) 17:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

This be because backgorund info on things such as is fluent in C and C++ are irelevant. Also the article is written in this was to avoid plot sumarising and the incusion of other characters action in the character summary. if you think you can do better first say what is worng with the quality at the moment.Also the quality if the other articles was poor as they were just plot summaries and fan cruft.--13:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't put he was fluent in C+ or C++, because he wasn't, anyway, there were plenty of spelling and grammar errors and yours was written from a negative point of view rather than neutral. Lynn McGill (talk) 17:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

It was not written from a negative point of view. it was wrtitten from an NPOV as far as possible it is only negative to you because it is not posative to you. If you find spelling errors correct them, that is what is meant to be done. Ok on to what is wrong in your version you saying he had met Chloe and Kim at memory lecture prior to day five is completly unecessary fan cruft. Also saying he recognised bill but did not mention if they had met, if not notable fan cruft.also most of the rest is just a plot summarry like 'Lynn stepped out for a while'. This is just some of the glaring rubbish wrong with version you like. --Lucy-marie (talk) 14:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I took that out before you said that. Anyway, the stepping out was vital to the character because that's when his key card got stolen. And I think this one is a little more neutral. Lynn McGill (talk) 17:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

You just seem to want to import the previous page in to this areticle. the article should be re-written so it is as concise as possible and and liitle non other characters as possible. This POV nust also e a neutral as possible.--Lucy-marie (talk) 14:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

And it is. It's far less than the same page, about the same length as the people around it, which is unusual since he was a more significant character than Lee Castle. Lynn McGill (talk) 17:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Wrong the page is not for the recratio f the previous useless page create don ly by obsessive fans. I personally think you would be better sauited to 24 Wikia where you can edit as many page as you like about 24 and not have anyone have a go at you about how badly it is written. The fact that lee castle has a longer section is irrelevant. maybe he had more airtime in total or there was more stuf that happened with that character. Comparing one with another is wrong and shoul dbe accepted as such.; The current revision you have is horrible and does not address the points ibn earlier comments.--Lucy-marie (talk) 15:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you just said, but it was hypocritical. MY version is not horrible, YOURS is. Have you tried to read it? It's very bad. Mine is written well and addresses all points of the character concisely. Lee Castle certainly did not have more air time than Lynn McGill, so there's another irrelevant point from you. I'm afraid you're wrong on all points. Lynn McGill (talk) 17:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

You are taking a hypothitcal statement literally and you are applying your opinion to try and get nasty over a trivial issue. Please note you have broken the three revert rule and may be liable to a temporary ban for doing so. None of the point I have raised are irrelevant that is just you opinion. Pleae also not none of my point are wrong, if you are so correct please either log in or create an account because hiding behind an IP is cowardly.--Lucy-marie (talk) 16:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not opinion, it's fact...ask other people which is better...they'll pick mine. Lynn McGill (talk) 17:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Stiil opinion not fact more opinions don't make fact.--Lucy-marie (talk) 16:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you've also broken the three revert rule because you keep changing it to your article, which isn't nearly as well-written. Lynn McGill (talk) 17:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

One more thing please will you sign your comment with the 4~ at the end of your comments.--16:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Page now fully protected for 6 weeks so neither of us can edit this page.I ahve not brokwn the three revet rule as I have only reverted three times you have revetd four.--Lucy-marie (talk) 16:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's good! Thanks! Now you're thinking reasonably. Lynn McGill (talk) 17:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

~~Uh, Lucy-marie...how can I put this politely? Your editing is atrocious. Likewise with your spelling, grammar and punctuation. The other version of the write up about Lynn McGill, the one that is currently in place, is vastly better written and executed. Please, for the sake of everyone who likes to read without having to see so many GLARING grammatical errors, leave the current Lynn McGill article in place. Thanks. 68.243.223.159 (talk) 17:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)Angelriver.

Thank you finally bothering to sign your posts. I shall only leave the current articler as it because no one but administartors can edit it. As for gramatical errors if you find them fix them, don't come along and lampoon the original editor. It seems as if you do not want to bother fixing gramatical errors rather you want to impose your prefered version. Now no one can esit until december 30 courtsey of your stubborness.--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Umm...that last one wasn't me. But I'll go back and sign mine...Lynn McGill (talk) 17:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

~~Uh, Lucy-marie? How can I put this politely? The above was the first comment that I made to this page. And really, I shouldn't have to take the time to fix all of your grammatical and horrendous spelling errors. You should already be aware of them yourself. Seriously hon, get Firefox and use the built-in spell checker sometime mmm'k?? ~~Angelriver.

Ignoring above patronising, chauvinistic and idiotic comments above.--Lucy-marie (talk) 18:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

~~Chauvinistic?? You are a female, and I am a female. I really don't see how chauvinism applies here, unless you are confusing my entries with those of the person calling himself/herself Lynn McGill. And even if one assumes that the person signing his/her name as "Lynn McGill" is a male, I still don't see any chauvinism. Personally, I think it's a little ridiculous the fighting that is going on over the article about Lynn. For one thing, I certainly don't see him as a minor character and therefore don't see the reason his article was merged. I hardly think that a character who sacrifices himself for others is a MINOR character. Maybe you didn't like the character, but I've read both versions of the article in question, and yours was written from a negative POV. And please, dear, could you refrain from making personal attacks against me? I may have been critical about your questionable writing talents, but I've not resorted to calling you an idiot. Thanks. ~~Angelriver November 18, 2007.

Please take off your rose tinted glasses and look at the subject from a neutral and objective point of view. I also never said you were personally an idiot just the comments made there were idiotic.--Lucy-marie (talk) 23:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

While chauvinism is commonly used with 'male', it doesn't always mean that. Chauvinism is any kind of superiority. Lynn McGill (talk) 23:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

~~Uh....Lucy? Pardon my ignorance, or maybe it's these darned rose-tinted glasses I'm wearing, but would you mind telling me what "cooments" are? And why were they idiotic? Because I disagreed with you? That's a heck of an attitude.....And to you, Lynn McGill, I understand completely, and I stand corrected. Being a woman, I just always associate chauvinism with men, but you're right--either gender can take a superior attitude. ~~Angelriver. November 18, 2007.

Will you please move on you petty individual the rest of the world does not have time to play games. please either login with an actual account or move on. As you are being cowardly and hiding behind an IP. Now move on you absolute wally.--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm just wondering (besides what an abolute wally is) why you even bother to merge Lynn's article and keep revising it to your edition if you think it's petty? Because if you really thought that way, you would not bother. Lynn McGill (talk) 21:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment I was refering to the user not the article itself. Lucy-marie (talk) 00:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

~~Can someone tell me what an abolute wally is? I think I may have been insulted again by this name-calling individual, but I'm not certain. ~~Angelriver, November 19, 2007.

Look get lost, you clearly are only here to antagonise. Move on or I will seek to have you moved on.--Lucy-marie (talk) 00:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

~~I'm not the one who's being antagonistic. I'm not the one who has issued insults. I'm not the one who has resorted to name calling. That was all you, dear, and if I'm correct, those are considered personal attacks which are against the Wikipedia rules which state:

"Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will not help you make a point; they hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia."

I'm just here to show my support for the current Lynn McGill article, and to express my opinion that it is the version that should remain in place. But you have a nice evening. :D Angelriver (talk) 00:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)Angelriver, November 19, 2007.

~~Uh...Mr. McGill? I was just wondering how long you've been a fan of the show and what your favorite episode was that features the character of Lynn McGill.......Angelriver (talk) 00:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)Angelriver

I like all the episodes..it's so hard to decide. I've been a fan for onyl a brief period of time now, though. Lynn McGill (talk) 02:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I began watching the night of the CTU nerve gas attack. I immediately remembered Sean Astin from Lord of the Rings and was quite impressed with his performance in that episode. I was very sad when he died, but at least he went out as a hero who saved everyone else.Angelriver (talk) 02:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you tell me what, if anything, this has to do with the article!? This talk page is for discussion of article content not how much you liked the show.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 04:10, 20 November 2007

(UTC)

To Oni, when did I talk about how much I liked the show? I was talking about how much I liked the character of Lynn McGill. And is it really necessary for you to be so confrontational? The article is about Lynn McGill, and that is what I was discussing. Is there a problem with that? Angelriver (talk) 09:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, in some cases it is . This is not a fansite, forum or personal discussion soapbox. This discussion is for discussing the article content only. Not for discussing your personal likes and dislkies over whats on T.V--Lucy-marie (talk) 10:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, the article CONTENT was about Lynn McGill, his role at CTU, and the sacrifice he made. My COMMENTS were in reference to the CONTENT of that article. How the heck does one discuss the content of an article (when that content is about a character) without discussing the character? It's ridiculous. Get over yourself Lucy. You're not the Wiki police. And by the way, what's a dilkie? You keep using words like that and "wally" with which I am not familiar. And by the way, I didn't get on a soapbox and talk about how much I like the show or what's on TV. Show me where I did, if you can. Angelriver (talk) 16:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Asking someone "I was just wondering how long you've been a fan of the show and what your favorite episode was that features the character of Lynn McGill" is absolutly nothing to do with the content of the article. That is asking someone thier opinion on the show itself. This is NOT I repeat NOT a fansite, or your general soapbox, or discussion on the show. If you want that E-mail each other or use thier pesonal talk pages. Do not bring your discussion of your likes and dislikes of the show here. Also if you have a problem with certian words I suggest you use a dictionary, also your grammar is out, by starting a sentence with and.--Lucy-marie (talk) 11:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay Lucy-marie you are just being ridiculous. I have read your entire discussion/arguement, this is coming from an objective outsider. Angelriver, yeah, your comment about the episodes was forum-style and unneeded. Lucy, I'm sorry, but you seemed to shrug off every question asked of you about the Lynn McGill section and make personal attacks such as calling "hiding behind an IP address" cowardly multiple times, and have resorted to name-calling twice. You also are unable to look at your own work from an objective point of view. Some of your points are right, but others are just plain dumb, like the one about how length doesn't matter. If a character that was significant (and this goes for all of them, not just Lynn) for a long time in a season then yes, their article should be more in-depth. Not as in-depth as an individual article, but not a skin and bones one either. And, by the way, you have the ability to fix your own spelling and grammar and puncuation mistakes. We don't need to do it for you.--Phoenixfan 13:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

<<Do not bring your discussion of your likes and dislikes of the show here.>> I didn't talk about how much I like/dislike the show. My comments were about the character of Lynn McGill. Which part of that are you not understanding?

<<Also if you have a problem with certian words I suggest you use a dictionary, also your grammar is out, by starting a sentence with and.>> The words with which I took issue weren't in the dictionary. If you're going to insult me, please go ahead and use regular words so that I can understand exactly HOW I'm being insulted. Also, STOP editing MY comments. If you want to edit your own comments to reflect you spelling corrections, fine. But leave MY comments ALONE! Angelriver (talk) 00:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

<<Angelriver, yeah, your comment about the episodes was forum-style and unneeded.>> Understood. Won't happen again. Angelriver (talk) 00:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry but length is completely irrelevant. The most major character in the whole of a T>V show could have just one line in the whole show and there would be little to write on that one character. Another character who is considerably minor could provide thousands of line for the show and be all padding with loads to write about them. I also say that if you spot a typo fix it, don't complain about it and go winging to the person who wrote the section. I also dispute that you are an outsider Phoenix as you have been involved heavily in editing the page reverting the page. The quality of the article is not meant to be a skin and bones but it must stop including other characters going ons and must not be a plot summary of any kind. The balance is hard to find admittedly in some cases, but using the criteria stated above is not the correct way to go about it. The correct way is by reading WP:FICTION, WP:PLOT and WP:NOT#INFIO. These are objective criteria created by someone way before we joined and are generally accepted as a standard.--Lucy-marie (talk) 22:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

<<The most major character in the whole of a T>V show could have just one line in the whole show and there would be little to write on that one character. Another character who is considerably minor could provide thousands of line for the show and be all padding with loads to write about them.>> Lucy, would you please cite an example for us where this is the case? I've been watching TV for a lot of years, probably longer than you've been alive, and I have NEVER seen a case where the MAJOR character of a series has only one line in the show. Nor have I seen a case where some minor, two-bit character has had enough impact that he/she inspired thousands of lines of dialog NOR intense discussion from viewers. That is ridiculous. I don't think your example is credible. Angelriver (talk) 14:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that example was a little off. And when I said objective outsider, Lucy, it was pertaining to this specific arguement. And I'm sorry that I keep pointing this out, but again you shrugged off the truths about your name-calling and instead latched onto my statement about length and based your whole response on how wrong I am. Take responsibility for your actions.--Phoenixfan 13:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Quick question, Phoenixfan, do you believe that my article (the one currently in place) is sufficient or does it need change? Lynn McGill (talk) 19:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Lucy-marie, I agree with mostly all of the critique against your atrocious posts. The original Lynn McGill article was well written (I wrote most of it myself) and concise. Your edits, the content of all these talk entries, and the attitude you convey are antithetical to the wiki concept. You reply with personal indignation to any criticism. Merging the characters to a single page was a bad idea, and removing the depth of the original articles leaves too much history uncovered. TunaSushi (talk) 16:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The original article was writen well for a plot summary and not for the use as an encyclopedia article. The merging of the characters is well within the policy scope of wikipedia and is activly encouraged in some cases. The pages which have been proposed for merging have been done in accordance with the policies of wikipedia. The history of the original article was mainly non-info, plot summary and fancruft. Sentnces such as "He had met Chloe O'Brian & Kim Bauer at a memory lecture prior to Day 5" The use of that sentence alone removes the article fom being a well wriiten article on three gounds. 1. It's unrefrenced 2.It is not information necessary for wikipedia articles 3.It is fancruft. Please could you also read up on WP:MERGE for the criteria for merging articles. One more thing my Native language is British Sign Language.

I absolutely agree. The merge was, indeed, a bad idea and completely unnecessary. The entire page, as well as the articles themselves, leaves much to be desired. And Lucy-marie, I just read something very interesting on the merge page. It states:

"Closing/archive a proposed merger

To provide clarity that the merge discussion is over and that a consensus has been reached, it may be important to close and then archive the proposal discussion."

That never happened Lucy. No consensus was ever reached in this matter. You had at least two dissenting opinions about the articles in question, and you arbitrarily decided to merge the articles without further discussion and without consensus. You broke the merger rules, and you did so on purpose. Angelriver (talk) 23:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Please note that it is not a vote and verifiable policy was not discussed in the descenting opinions. Also the section you are discuing is optional. The opinions that were discussed were on the lines of he was a herioc, great character and did not reason his notability. the sentnce "DO NOT MERGE!!! What have you got against this wonderful character". " loved Lynn McGill! Best darned boss CTU had! Of all the nerve!" that was just some of the comments. Also It sems to be orgoten that he only appeard in ten episodes out of one hundred and forty four. Please read WP:DEMOCRACY for more information, on discussions and straw polls.--Lucy-marie (talk) 12:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It's funny, Lucy, but aren't you the one who insisted that even a minor character could inspire THOUSANDS of lines of dialog and have a huge impact on the show? The character of Lynn McGill deserves more attention than that which you have given him. I really don't understand why you felt it was necessary to merge the pages. They weren't doing harm to anyone. This was just your way of forcing what you wanted on everyone else. Angelriver (talk) 14:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I did not say that minor characters could "inspire" thousands of lines of text I simply said some minor character had the potential for a greater length than some major characters. The reason for the mergers was that there needs to be a shriking of all T.V character pages down to the bare minimum required. This is to prevent plot summaries and dispersal of inofrmation occuring. Also the characters tagged for merging fall well within the criteria for meging and were subject to the posibilty of being deleted as two article which were tagged for merging were also tagged for deleion. please see [Ali] and [Amador]. If the pages were all split again the majority of them would eventually be deleted due to the notability critera not being met. By merging the pages the notability criteria for a page is not as strict and information on the majority of charaters can be kept. Also just because pages have been sitting there doing nothing doesn't entitle them to stay there. That is why we have deletions and mergers of pages.--Lucy-marie (talk) 14:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes Lucy, you DID say that. Here is exactly what you said: "The most major character in the whole of a T>V show could have just one line in the whole show and there would be little to write on that one character. Another character who is considerably minor could provide thousands of line for the show and be all padding with loads to write about them."

That was your quote, and now you seem to be backpedaling. And what exactly gives you the right or authority to decide what stays and what goes? You seem to think that it's your responsibility to reform the entire Wikipedia site. Angelriver (talk) 14:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I never said it could provide "thousnds of lines" as a stand alone. I placed a caveat at the end which is being overlooked "and be all padding with loads to write about them". That comment does hold water as the Chase Edumnds chcarcter which has been considerably shrunk to its appropriate size contained well over 100 hundred lines un-merged. Has now been shrunk to 10 lines removing all of the padding for the character. This is an example of character pading in a relativly minor character in the "grand scheme" of 24. I also do not think it my "duty" to reform the entire site. I do however think it is right to clean up fancruft, content for the sake of content and unecessary pages on wikipedia in acordance with wikipedia policy. I also think that you think you have the right to stop porgress just because you dislike it. I would suggest that WP:IDONTLIKE is read in regards to this. I would also like to say lets move on and discuss content of the sections now as I have provided an opportunity to do so below.--Lucy-marie (talk) 15:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to stop progress. I'm trying to ensure that the articles are of good quality and are well written. You leave out a lot of details that are important. Details don't automatically equal fancruft, as you put it. Angelriver (talk) 16:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I am all for detail just relevant detail.--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

No, you're only in favor of details that YOU find relevant. Others see it differently, though you seem to be unwilling to accept that fact. Angelriver (talk) 19:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I favour detail which I beleieve to be relevant in in acordance with wikipedia policy. Unecessary detail should be avoided at all costs. I have also never failed to conced that other people have a diffrent opinion to me. It ssems you want to steam roller over my opinion becasue it is difrent and that I can back it up with wikipoedia policy.--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Lucy, we all know that you're the Wiki police and that you can spout the Wiki alphabet better than anyone else. But please tell me, how am I steamrolling over your opinion? You've been more than free to express your opinion, and everyone here has heard it. Just because I disagree with you, doesn't mean you're getting steamrolled.Angelriver (talk) 23:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

You are avoiding the arguments and just giving you opinion back without saying why your versions are compatible, with wiki policy.--Lucy-marie (talk) 01:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Lucy, it really sounds like you’re not used to people standing up to disagree with you. Well, news flash. That’s the way the world works. Not everyone is going to agree with you. You’re proposing destroying dozen of Wikipedia pages for no other reason than you think they should be. Many of us do not agree with you and are not going to stand on the sidelines as you rewrite dozens of pages that hundreds have contributed too simply because you think they are too long. --MiB-24 (talk) 00:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

You sound like you are getting ready for war. I suggest you step back and be objective. I simply try to enforce wikipedia policy and not personal likes and dislikes. If you have a problem with what I am doing and think I am voilating wiki polciy then by all means provide evidence and report me for these breches of policy. It seems that sombody is now standing up to you and not moving out of your way. This may be a first for you as you think it is a first for me. I will not simply give in becasue another editor or group of editors disagres with me. I will continue wih my rguments until they are proven to be either; in voilation of wikipeda policy or to be anti-cncensus, when wikipedia policy is not involved. I this case wikipedia policy is involved.--Lucy-marie (talk) 01:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Then prepare for a fight because I will not simply roll over and let some teenager enforce her interpretations of Wikipedia rules. --MiB-24 (talk) 01:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

And I will join you in the fight, MiB. This is ridiculous! Who are you, Lucy, to enforce Wiki policy? You're not an employee. Why do these pages bother you anyway? They aren't affecting you or your quality of life. Like I said down below, just because something CAN be done doesn't mean that it SHOULD be done. And they are anti-consensus. You DID NOT have consensus when you merged the Lynn article, and it looks like you don't have consensus now either. Angelriver (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice if the admins or whoever makes the final determination would read the arguments that the people who are opposed to Lucy’s suggestions are presenting. It is obvious that characters from “24” that were on the show for 3, 4, 5, even 6 seasons are NOT minor characters. She has no logical explanation behind why she is doing this other than the totally mindless excuse of “I was forced too.” She should be forced to provide a concise, thought out response and not keep side stepping the issue with whines about being attacked. And please Lucy, use a spell checker. Since you’re a teenager, I do not expect you to write on my level, but please try to make your comments literate. --MiB-24 (talk) 02:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I would also like to know how she was "forced" to do these mergers. Sounds a little fishy to me. Has she even answered this question? There is NO VALID reason to merge the pages--just her desire to do so. I'm with you. I'm getting sick and tired of the self-appointed Wiki Censors who think they have the right to tell me what should or should not be on the site. Angelriver (talk) 02:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Now Lucy, right here and now, provide a rational reason as to why you want to merge these pages. Don’t say “you were forced too” because that alone should be grounds for the admins to deny your requests. Also, don’t tell us to go look else where for your answers. Reply right here, on this page, as to why you want to wreck pages on all of the main “24” characters. --MiB-24 (talk) 02:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't hold your breath, MiB. The only answer you're likely to get is another "I was attacked and forced to do it" or "It's Wiki Policy so I can do it." She won't give you a valid answer because there simply isn't one. Angelriver (talk) 03:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Then if Lucy cannot present a valid argument, the admins should deny her merger requests. --MiB-24 (talk) 03:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

She doesn't need their permission. She can do it if she wants to. She's done it before, and she'll do it again, unfortunately. Angelriver (talk) 03:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, this time she is going to have to fight for it. I noticed on most of her tagging episodes, few if anyone opposed her. She wants a fight; she’s going to get one. --MiB-24 (talk) 03:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm with you. All the way. I've finally had enough of this. There is no reason to merge all of those articles. Angelriver (talk) 03:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the dispute in progress

I've read both of the entries causing this dispute. Both of them are not written as opinions. As far as I'm concerned, this entry needs to be unlocked, and the users who have caused this fiasco need to be blocked from editing it for some time. Stop acting like children and grow up. This is Wikipedia.

Mr Congeniality (talk) 00:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Understood. I'm sorry for my part in it. I came on trying to end it, but I pretty much got caught up in it myself. I won't participate in that "discussion" any longer.--Phoenixfan 19:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

McGill version to critique not insult

This is my version of the Lynn McGill section please crtique it professionally and not childishly and irrationally.--Lucy-marie (talk) 14:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

REVISED VERSION:

Too much deail in and reads too much like a blow-by blow plot summary revised section.

paragraphs such as:

"After receiving a call from his drug-addicted sister who was requesting money, Lynn went to meet her and subsequently was beaten by his sister's boyfriend who stole his wallet which contained his keycard that gave him access to the building."

Whole para could be shortened to: McGill went to meet his sister after reciveing a phone call and ws subsequently mugged by her boyfriend.

After refusing to warn President Suvarov's motorcade of an impending attack, Audrey Raines--together with Edgar Stiles and Chloe O'Brian--took it upon themselves to attempt to hack into Lynn's COM to send the warning themselves. Lynn discovered their plan and attempted to have them placed into custody. It was at this time that Curtis Manning invoked Section 112, had Lynn removed from his position and sent to Holding Room 4.

The para could be shortened to: after increasing eratic beheaviour Curtis manning had McGIll removed as director of CTU.

"however, thanks to Lynn's heroic efforts and his sacrifice." This line is not necessary as it adds to much emotion to the section which is in contrary to NPOV.

This is just a couple of examples of the nature of the ongoing problems, I have with the "revised" version. It is too in depth, uses too much emotional language and contains a lot of unecessarry information. There should also be a removal of what other characters did, as it turns the section form an acount of the character on to a plot summary, which I am afarid this reads like. Also a minor point his surname should be the principle referncing point when talking about him not his first name. The same is true for other characters such as Chloe. She should be referred to by her full name in the first instance, then by her surname through out the rest of the section. This is for all characters except where two characters with the same surname appear in the same section eg Jack and Phillip Bauer.

You say mine is too in-depth, but you fail to see how yours lacks needed depth but does contain a fair amount of significant grammatical errors. Shall I go up to your proposed revision and correct all of your mistakes? Show me an example of my "emotional" language. In my opinion, you leave out too many important details. It was through his interactions with the other characters that we are shown exactly WHY he was removed from his leadership position. As far as there being "too much emotion" in the section regarding his death, those are FACTS. What Lynn did WAS heroic, and it WAS a sacrifice. Therefore, it was important to include.

The section about his wallet being stolen also included important information about his stolen keycard as well as the fact that it was the murder of his sister and her boyfriend that led Lynn to realize what happened to his keycard. Angelriver (talk) 17:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

My version:

TunaSushi (talk) 17:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I actually like your version. It has too much emotion in it, however, and Lucy will never approve it. Angelriver (talk) 17:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The latest version is fine it just need a few tweeks and then it will be perfcet in my opinion.

"The remaining CTU staffers watched McGill's death throes in horror, owing their lives to his valiant effort" is not needed in my opinion. This is because it does not relate to McGill at all and only serves as a plot summary of the time after his death.

The word perished needs to be replaced with died and the word "lethal" with nerve. "and the rest of the team." I cannot see the importance of this statement, it seems to be unecessary. one final thing is the statement "in a puddle of his own vomit" needed? That is about it apart form in some areas changing him to McGill. I can accept that version with those changes.--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Why does "perished" need to be replaced with "died"? Are you forcing a writing style on me? The same with "nerve" for "lethal". Why do you shy away from expressive words to banal and repetitive ones? As far as vomit, I said this before in the full page before it was unnecessarily merged: the puddle of vomit sums up the utter horror and unkempt nature of violent death. It needs to stay. --TunaSushi (talk) 18:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Angelriver, why does Lucy need to approve anything? Is she the 24 arbiter on Wikipedia? Also, Buchanan is removed from his post later that day, so "the rest of the team" seems appropriate. --TunaSushi (talk) 18:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not forcing my style upon you. I am simply giving my opinion of my preferred version. The replacemnt of those words is to remove any unecessary emotion form the article in acordance WP:POV. I am also sure tha any one with half an imagination can work out how bad it was, making the sentnces redundant.--Lucy-marie (talk) 18:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

This about constructive concensus building and I think that we are close to a version we can all agree on. The rest of the team sentence seems to be a weasle wordish. If it was tightened up to say "To supervise Bill Buchanan and oversee the rest of CTU". I think that wording removes ambigutiy in "the rest if the team" statement.--Lucy-marie (talk) 18:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Well TunaSushi, Lucy is the one who had the page locked so that it couldn't be edited, and it's been obvious from the time this entire fiasco began that if she doesn't approve an entry, she will revert it to her version. I think that she has appointed herself the official arbiter on Wikipedia. Personally, your version has my vote as long as it remains untouched by the very unemotional hand of Ms. Lucy-marie. Angelriver (talk) 19:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

And to you Lucy, you seem to be finding emotion where there is none. You seem to be unwilling--or unable--to tell the difference between fact and emotion. Did the rest of the team look on in horror as Lynn died on the floor in his holding room? YES, they did. It's a fact as evidenced from the horrified looks on their faces. Was Lynn heroic? Did he make the ultimate sacrifice? YES, on both counts, unless you consider someone who voluntarily gives up his or her life to save others unheroic. Those are simple facts which add NECESSARY depth to this character's article. My vote is to use TunaSushi's revision but without your questionable contributions.

Also, Lucy, you said that this entry "The remaining CTU staffers watched McGill's death throes in horror, owing their lives to his valiant effort" was not needed because it does not relate to McGill at all. How can you say that it doesn't relate to Lynn McGill when it was Lynn McGill's very death scene that was being discussed? You make no sense to me. Angelriver (talk) 19:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Lucy-marie, I disagree. You are forcing your preference over mine. Firstly, you say certain words "need to be replaced". Secondly you state, "I am simply giving my opinion of my preferred version." That's a contradiction. The WP:POV doesn't give you any criteria for these changes. There is nothing in the prose that is overtly emotional. While I welcome improvements over my selection of words, your attempts come across as meddlesome and impervious to critique. TunaSushi (talk) 19:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I apologies if I cam accross as medddlesome, but I was just staing what I tought neeed to be changed to improve the section. I think we both have a difrent intrpretation of POV and that is fine. I also think we have reached a middle ground concensus. If you think we havn't go ahead and make the changes you feel are necesarry and if I disagre I shall raise it here rather then just revert. I may also ammend your ammendments, but i will not blanket revert. Please note you are allready aware of the reasoning I have given for certian sections. For these sections could you justiy on here why you think they should be added, if you are going to add them, to avoid unecessary disputes.--Lucy-marie (talk) 20:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

TunaSushi, what this statement means "I may also ammend your ammendments" is that if Lucy doesn't like what you write, she'll change it to what she prefers. Angelriver (talk) 20:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

That will be after I have talked about them here fisrt. Please Angelriver stop trying to stir the pot.--Lucy-marie (talk) 20:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not stirring the pot. I'm stating a fact as I have witnessed this entire thing unfold. I say we use TunaSushi's version WITH NO EDITS. Just because you don't care for some of her language, doesn't mean that her entry should be changed. You're not the sole, deciding voice here. Angelriver (talk) 20:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I dont understand why you are being so beligerant Angelriver in your language, but i have given reasoning as to why the ammended version I have proposed, is in my opinion a better worded version. If you would like to discuss why you think the version originally placed there by Tuna is better please do so just stay on content and yes you were trying to stir the pot.--Lucy-marie (talk) 20:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Why are you calling me belligerent? Because I disagree with you? Your version is NOT a better-worded version. It is in YOUR opinion, but not in mine. As far as TunaSushi's version goes, I've already stated why hers is a better version. Maybe you should go back and read the comments again.Angelriver (talk) 21:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

All you have said is "I actually like your version. It has too much emotion in it, however, and Lucy will never approve it." You havn't given any reasoning as to why you like it. You have also said "you make no sence to me." Which I have to interpret that, I am clearly never going to get a debate out of you over the content, so it dosen't seem worth trying any more. I am trying to be constructive and ammend the version with reason and debate. It seems though that debate is being steam rollered beause sombody has a diffreing opinion.--Lucy-marie (talk) 21:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, Lucy, let me repost my entry where I addressed this issue since you don't seem to be able to find it. [And to you Lucy, you seem to be finding emotion where there is none. You seem to be unwilling--or unable--to tell the difference between fact and emotion. Did the rest of the team look on in horror as Lynn died on the floor in his holding room? YES, they did. It's a fact as evidenced from the horrified looks on their faces. Was Lynn heroic? Did he make the ultimate sacrifice? YES, on both counts, unless you consider someone who voluntarily gives up his or her life to save others unheroic. Those are simple facts which add NECESSARY depth to this character's article.] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelriver (talk • contribs) 21:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, the only reason you don't want to debate the issue, is that you can't get me to bow down to your version. The only "steamrollering" is coming from you, because Tuna and I are in complete agreement on this issue. Angelriver (talk) 21:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I like your version because it isn't much diferent from mine and is slightly more concise. It does not need to be edited at all.Lynn McGill (talk) 21:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh just calm down will you I suggest you read WP:OWNERSHIP as you clearly think the article is owned by you. The comments may be fact but unecessarily emotional facts. Also you cannot put in the article about heroism and being heric etc, becasue that is for a fan forum and not a factual, Neutral Point of View and emotive free encyclopedia. It seems you are hammering on about points of very little relevance.

You calm down and take your own advice. Yous seem to think that YOU own the article. The one in place is perfectly fine. Lynn McGill (talk) 21:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not consider it heroic or non-heroic, either way for the purposes of this account in this article. I try to step back from being a fan and try as far as possible to remove all emotive langauge from what I write.--Lucy-marie (talk) 21:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

So do I, and it's still heroic. Heroic is not subjective. Someone dying to save others is heroism. Consult Webster's. Lynn McGill (talk) 21:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not care what the dictionary says it can be quoted however you like, it still dosen't back up any argument.I could argue that he did it out of guilt and it was not heroic at all, it was just to make him feel better. This could be argued because he let in people with his stolen keycard, and he did it to releive his guilt and there was no heroism inolved at all. This is the problem with having such emotive language it is open to being ripped to shredds by interpretation.--Lucy-marie (talk) 21:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I would not kill myself out of selfishness...anyway, what makes you more right than me? More right than three people? How do you have more of a right to amend it than us? Lynn McGill (talk) 21:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Nothing and just because you have more people on one side dosent make you more or less right. The nazis had thousands on their side but that didn't make them any more right and people use to believe the world was flat, but it stil didn't make them mroe right. Debates should be based on opinions backed by, facts, reason and policy. Not on who is more or less right and who has more people saying the same as them.--Lucy-marie (talk) 21:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Lucy-marie, how can you say that I think the article belongs to me? I've never edited it, nor have I amended it. I even put my vote in for someone else's version of the article. I just want there to be quality write-ups. Is there a problem with that? I also strongly disagree with your assessment that a heroic act belongs only on a fan site, especially in this case where it's a fact that the character was heroic. I maintain that the article stand as it it with no amendments or edits. Angelriver (talk) 21:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

You are not willing to debate an issue with someone who has a difrent opinion, will only accept your prefeered version and will not listen to reasoned debate. It is not a fact the caharcter was heroic as I have given reasoning that he may have done it out of guilt. We do not know he was genuinly being heroic. Your final comment backs up why it appears as if you own the article "I maintain that the article stand as it it with no amendments or edits" you are not willing to debate any other version, or give a full reasoning as to why you prefer your version, so that can easily be interpreted as ownership.--Lucy-marie (talk) 21:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

We do know he was being heroic -- while he was plenty guilty for what he did, he could have been selfish and said 'no'. However, he did not, and that is what makes the action heroic regardless of motivation. Lynn McGill (talk) 21:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Lucy, I've done nothing BUT debate this issue with you. You said, "You are not willing to debate an issue with someone who has a difrent opinion, will only accept your prefeered version and will not listen to reasoned debate", but that is exactly what you've done and what you continue to do. You're trying to force your opinions and your writing style on everyone else. I've stated time and time and time again why I believe the current article should stand. I've given reasoning why I prefer Tuna's version. It's not my fault if you don't understand, but let me try to clear it up for you.

In the first place, Tuna's article is concise while still detailed enough to give insight into the character. Secondly, there are no typos, grammar or punctuation errors. It flows well and reads nicely. Is that good enough reasoning or do you need further explanation? Angelriver (talk) 21:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Question: why are we even arguing heroism? The word choice is 'valiant', meaning 'brave'. It was brave to face death, without question.Lynn McGill (talk) 21:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

There we go we are now getting into opinion and conjecture which is not allowed, as it Original Research. We just simply do not know what was motivating him so that is an interpretation and is original research, whihc is not allowed under wiki policy. That is unless of couse you can find a neutral source.--Lucy-marie (talk) 22:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Lucy, I've done nothing BUT debate this issue with you. You said, "You are not willing to debate an issue with someone who has a difrent opinion, will only accept your prefeered version and will not listen to reasoned debate", but that is exactly what you've done and what you continue to do. You're trying to force your opinions and your writing style on everyone else. I've stated time and time and time again why I believe the current article should stand. I've given reasoning why I prefer Tuna's version. It's not my fault if you don't understand, but let me try to clear it up for you.

In the first place, Tuna's article is concise while still detailed enough to give insight into the character. Secondly, there are no typos, grammar or punctuation errors. It flows well and reads nicely. Is that good enough reasoning or do you need further explanation? Angelriver (talk) 21:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

No you haven't you have shut debate out because you believe you have won. Ok that is your opinion but I still believe it is far too emotive in its laguage. Which you are unwilling to debate with me. I have no problem with the main bulk just a few minor things I stated befor.--Lucy-marie (talk) 22:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Question: why are we even arguing heroism? The word choice is 'valiant', meaning 'brave'. It was brave to face death, without question.Lynn McGill (talk) 21:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed Lynn. Angelriver (talk) 22:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

There we go a word which satisifies you and me and removes the word heroic.--Lucy-marie (talk) 22:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you seriously agreeing with 'brave' but not 'valiant'? It means the same thing...Lynn McGill (talk) 03:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear Lord! What do I believe I've won Lucy? You seem to be such an expert on me and what I believe, why don't you tell me more about myself? You keep saying that I'm unwilling to debate you on this, but all we've done is debate this entire issue to death. What we have here is not a lack of debate--it's a stalemate. You think the language is too emotive, and I do not. And obviously Lynn does not and Tuna does not. In other words Lucy, everyone discussing this issue disagrees with you--not just myself.Angelriver (talk) 22:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone else think this is insane? I didn't mention the word "heroic" in my revision. TunaSushi (talk) 22:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. That's what I said in bold. There is no point to argue about heroism when you said 'valiant', i.e. brave. But doubtless she can argue with 'brave'. Lynn McGill (talk) 03:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's insane. Lucy was still complaining about my use of the word "heroic" even though that's not the version being used for the article. But, as I've shut out all debate in her opinion, she wasn't able to get her point across. Angelriver (talk) 22:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

By the way Lucy, I went and read the Wikipedia page on POV that you suggested above and for which you provided a link. Want to know what jumped right out at me when I read the page? This statement: "This is an essay, not a policy or guideline. This page may contain advice or opinions, but editors are not obliged to follow any suggestions it may contain." So, may I suggest you stop throwing POV information around like it's law? Because it clearly is not. Angelriver (talk) 16:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Please read this OFFICIAL WIKIPEDIA POLICY on a NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW.Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Please explain to me, Lucy, how the article in question violates that rule, because in my opinion, it does not. And please, just for future reference, try to avoid posting links to Wiki rules that aren't rules at all. That first link you posted contained merely suggestions and opinions that editors are not required to follow. Angelriver (talk) 18:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

To be well rounded in the use of wikipedia, it helps if as many of the guides, gudlines and all of the policy is followed as far as possible.--Lucy-marie (talk) 21:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Not if the guidelines and opinions are irrelevant and, as far as I'm concerned, meaningless. If the editors are under no obligation to follow them, why even post the link and tell people to read them? It's pointless. Posting true Wiki policy and guidelines is one thing, but I have no interest in other people's "opinions" of Wiki policy. Angelriver (talk) 22:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Portrayed / Played by

Lucy-Marie, why are you changing this? What difference does it make when every entry has a different style? And if you're going to change it, why don't you see that you're not adding a necessary space at the same time? This is indeed meddlesome. TunaSushi (talk) 20:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Every other character on the page says played by. I am just trying to keep consistancy through out the article.--Lucy-marie (talk) 20:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

No, Teddy Hanlin, Ted Paulson, and Sean Walker aren't "played". With the two I modified, that would have been 4 portrayed, 1 voiced, and the rest played. What's up with the space? Do you proofread your edits? TunaSushi (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The edits have been proof read now and all but Sean Walker say played by. It makes it simpler if all say one or the other where possible. Sean Walker it is not posible, due to character being computer generated only.--Lucy-marie (talk) 21:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

You needn't have bothered. The entire page has irked me enough where I've decided to rewrite most of it later. TunaSushi (talk) 21:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, please be aware it seems highly likely that more characters will be merged into this one.--Lucy-marie (talk) 21:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Let me guess; Jack, Bill and Chloe are next on the chopping block. This merging "situation" has gotten completely out of hand. Angelriver (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Removal of pronouns

Lucy-marie, why on earth are you removing "he" and "his" and replacing it with surnames? Do you know what a pronoun is? TunaSushi (talk) 22:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Surnames should be used where possible to indicate the character being talked about, it also expresses a greater level of NPOV. Surnames should be used over him, his or her etc. at the beginning of sentences but not in the miidle of sentences.--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I just scrutinized the entire NPOV for some justification of pronoun removal. It's not there. Where did you get those ideas? Did somebody tell you that? I've been writing exposition for over 20 years, so I have a bit of experience in this matter. The only reasons I've encountered to remove a pronoun are (1) to avoid ambiguity when there are multiple subjects or objects or (2) to eliminate gender bias - neither of these applies here. This is a clear instance of where you're forcing your preference of style over a completely competent entry. TunaSushi (talk) 23:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Merger Tags

Would someone please explain why the rational of trying to put every single CTU character into this article as Lucy-marie is trying to do? “24” is not the Jack Bauer Power Hour. There are other main characters on the show, some who were on for 3 or more seasons. Merging over a dozen articles into this one would make it unreadable in the extreme. --MiB-24 (talk) 23:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I wish I had an answer for you. To the best of my knowledge, it seems that Lucy and an associate feel that there are too many Wiki articles regarding television and they need to be cleaned up. Don't ask me why they feel they have the right to do this, because I've been asking the same question.Angelriver (talk) 23:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I’ve seen too many good articles ruined by these people who appoint themselves some kind of WikiGuardian. Sure a few characters could be merged but ones like Tony Almeida, Michelle Dessler, Kim Bauer, and Audrey Raines are main characters on the show for 2, 3, even 4+ seasons. I’ve backed off and let a lot of good articles get nuked, not this time. --MiB-24 (talk) 23:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I was virtualy forced to add the latest tags over a talk on the Kate Warner page.--Lucy-marie (talk) 23:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Please explain that. Had you not been "virtually forced", what would have happened? TunaSushi (talk) 00:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Agai ni agree with MIB, people have put hard work into those pages —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.208.9.102 (talk) 02:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It was as the comments said to be by-the-book could you provide evidence of policy (or words to that effect). This could not be done so to remain by-the book, these pages had to be tagged. Had i not be "virtually forced" I would not have added the tags.--Lucy-marie (talk) 01:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you MiB. I don't believe that Edgar and George should have been merged either, but I'm guessing that we don't really get a say in the matter since Lucy has done this even with growing opposition. And Lynn's article was merged with virtually no discussion and absolutely NO consensus despite what Lucy says. Angelriver (talk) 00:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

No policy was given that showed why the article should remian unmerged and without that the article had no grounds not to be merged.--Lucy-marie (talk) 01:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Lucy is not an admin and her decisions are not final. She is not going to get away with ruining pages that people have put huge amounts of time into because she thinks there are too many. It looks like she is the only one who really wants to do it. If you notice, she thinks that except for Jack Bauer and Chloe O’Brian, no one on the show is/was important. If people would stand up to these self appointed Wiki*censored*, then they would not get away with destroying page after page. --MiB-24 (talk) 00:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with MIB she shouldn't get rid of pages people ahve worked hard on —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.208.9.102 (talk) 00:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Nobodies decisons are final not even admins. admins only have certian perks such as deleting pages and protecting pages etc and are no diffrent to non admins, see [[WP:ADMIN |Administrators]]. The only person who is there with any real final decision is Jimbo Wales. Also please be aware that ownership of articles clearly states that "If you don't want your material to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it" and good faith should allways be asumed see allways assume good faith. Are you saying I have contributed in bad faith to these articles? if you are please provide evience to support this claims. Please also be aware of policy regarding civility.--Lucy-marie (talk) 01:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Lucy, in thinking you are the sole arbiter of what pages should be deleted and which ones should not, you are the one not being very civil. So far it seems you’ve managed to ram your positions through without any real opposition and now that people have taken notice, you don’t seem to really know what to do. It is you and you alone who wants to delete all of these pages for no other reason than they think that only Jack Bauer and Chloe O’Brian are what “24” is all about. --MiB-24 (talk) 01:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It has simply been that no policy has been provided against the mergers and I have also not been the only editor merging 24 articles. I have also never wanted to delete these pages, I have simply wanted to consolidate informaion which was up for the posibility of deletion. Syed Ali and Michael Amador we both nominated for deletion as non notable tv characters before being merged. Please be aware that I have not been uncivil in proposing megers, it is well within the scope of wikipdia accepted policy and I have provied policy evidence to back up this claim.--Lucy-marie (talk) 01:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC) Okay Lucy, let’s see you explain why the pages on characters that were on the show for 3-5 seasons should be deleted. (And yes, that is what merging really is.) Let’s hear your rational behind it. --MiB-24 (talk) 01:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Merging is not deletion it is consoliation of information. Step back a second and try an provide reasoning as to why they should not be merged, with out bein a fan or using emotion. My posiion on the mergers is clear on the Kate Warner talk page.--Lucy-marie (talk) 01:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

So because they are not on the show, they should be relegated into nothingness? Come on Lucy, you can’t be that naïve. A show is more than just its current cast. Without the characters that led up to the current incarnation, it never would have existed at all. It really seems to me you just want to see how many of these pages you can nuke in order to make a point. --MiB-24 (talk) 01:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

What gives Lucy the authority to do these mergers anyway? Just because something CAN be done doesn't mean it SHOULD be done. Stop the madness Lucy. You're not a Wiki employee, and you're not in charge. And one more thing. Please, I'm begging you, for the love of all that's holy, PLEASE filter your posts through a spell checker before clicking the "save page" button. If I have to read the nonsense you're constantly spewing, I'd at least like to read it without having to slog through so many typos. I'm sorry to be so blunt, but since this is electronic media, this is the first, and perhaps the only, impression people will get of you. How do you expect to be able to write up Wiki pages if you can't even spell correctly? Angelriver (talk) 02:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, she’s appointed herself some kind of arbiter of what should be allowed and what isn’t. There are already five people against merging her current hit list, but she’s determined to spite everyone who opposes her. She’s made that clear on the Kate Warner talk page. I want her to give a rational explanation, not the “if they’re not on the show, they’re not important” excuse. I guess that means Dr. Greene or Dr. Carter on “ER” are not important since they left the show despite the fact those characters ensured the show's survival for 14 seasons even though they left years ago. --MiB-24 (talk) 02:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I know exactly what you're saying, and I agree. Why George Mason was merged is beyond me. I mean, George is the one who took the fall for Jack. He's the one who convinced Jack that he still had a life. He was a major character who had a major impact on the show. Are you reading this Lucy??? You keep asking for reasons why these characters should not be merged, and that's only one of the reasons. But I'm sure this will have as much success in educating you as all of my other arguments. Angelriver (talk) 02:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It’s clear she’s never watched “24” or else she would not be using such a flimsy argument. She’s admitted on the Kate Warner talk page this is all about spiting her detractors. Why the admins put up with her behavior when it is clearly done for no legitimate reason is beyond me. I see people banned here all the time for far less. --MiB-24 (talk) 02:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment I happen to own seasons 1-5 of 24. I have not acted ilegitametly, the argument was put: If you have tagged X, Y and Z for not fulfilling criteria X, Y and Z. Why havn't you tagged charatcer X, Y and Z for not fullfilling critera X, Y and Z.--Lucy-marie (talk) 11:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a case of someone who's on a power or ego trip. I would suggest, however, that it's time for Lucy to come back down to planet Earth and to realize that the world does NOT revolve around her or her wishes. At least not any more. Angelriver (talk) 02:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I have never suggested the world does. I think this could be a case of group ownership of an article or articles.--Lucy-marie (talk) 11:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with MIB, people work hard on those pages because they love the characters you shouldn't go merging them —Preceding Crazylove06 (talk • contribs) 02:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

That argument is moot and clearly covered by the following "If you don't want your material to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." this can be found at ownership of articles.--Lucy-marie (talk) 11:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Uh oh, Crazylove! Now you've done it! You've said the "L" word. You've shown emotion and will now be flamed by Locutus of the Borg. Emotions are not allowed on this site, nor are any opinions other than those of Lucy-marie. Sorry. Angelriver (talk) 03:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to say that I do not reject other opinions. I simply point our where thier argumens fall down in relation to wikipedia policy.--Lucy-marie (talk) 11:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The sad thing is Lucy said she doesn’t have any “intention” of merging these characters, but was “forced” to add the tags. That says to me she is abusing the tagging system by putting these tags in place for no other reason than to retaliate against someone who pointed out all of her merging was irrational. Such behavior alone is should be enough to have the admins tell her to knock it off. --MiB-24 (talk) 04:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

As I have said to continue to be consistant and to comply with a perfely valid argument, which I could not dispute the tags had to be aded. The person also had not pointed out that it was all "Irattional" they were simply trying to get my opinion. "could you tell me where it says certain criteria weighs out other criteria?" That question asked me to produce policy which dosen't exist so to remain "by-the-book" the tags had to be added.--Lucy-marie (talk) 11:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

And I believe this is a case, Lucy, where you believe that you own the Wikipedia site. Perhaps you are the one who needs to take a step back and consider how all this merging has been a huge mistake. Just because you don't believe that a character is major doesn't mean that it's true or that everyone else feels the way you do. As I've stated before, just because you CAN do something doesn't mean that you SHOULD.

Also, Lucy, you said this above: "No policy was given that showed why the article should remian unmerged and without that the article had no grounds not to be merged." I'd like to see the Wiki policy, or criteria, upon which you based your decision to merge the article. Angelriver 16:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe that Lucy is just trying to use "Wikipedia Policy" as an excuse to remove articles on all "24" characters and actors/actresses she doesn't like. I've read the character pages she wants to get rid of and haven't seen any emotion,bias or personal opinion included in the articles. They just provided some excellent in depth information on the characters and actors, so that others can learn more about them. I don't see any of the articles has having had the contributor's own personal opinions included so I doubt that they are violating that rule as Lucy claims they are. For example, if the article on Michelle Dessler had personal opinions of the contributor's included, I'm sure there would be comments on how attractive she is, or how her death in Season 5 was lame and pointless etc. However, there are no such statements included, so it's doubtful that the article is in any way "emotional" as Lucy claims it is.

To that end, I think that Lucy is just going round and deciding which articles she believes should be permitted to stay on the site. She can not stop people from liking a certain actor/actress and or character so probably believes that the next best thing is to go round eradicating any references to those individuals on wikipedia.

Just ask yourselves this question, if the articles in question truly do violate "wikipedia policy" then why haven't they been edited or deleted by admins and other users in the several years than many of them have been online for? Nick-Stone22 17:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

“Wikipedia policy” is often abused by individuals who want to impose their will on others. It tends to be a bit vague at times which allows this kind of thing to happen. It’s becoming obvious that only Lucy thinks every article on the “24” characters (save Jack) should be merged. --MiB-24 18:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Not if I can help it. Angelriver 19:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I know I show up as an anonymous IP address, but I have to agree with the majority here. Wanting to merge pages on the most important characters of 24 is just insane. All of you who are trying to put a stop to this have my support although I am often not where I can access the Internet.--208.180.22.12 21:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Have any of you heard of this site [24.wikia.com] you would all fit in very well. There is a page on every single character and you can write however you like.--Lucy-marie 15:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going anywhere, but thanks for the helpful suggestion. Angelriver 15:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Lucy, but none of us are going to hide out there and let you get what you want here unopposed. I also stand by my original belief that you simply want to eradicate references on Wikipedia of characters and actresses/actors that you do not personally like. And that you are using Wikipedia policy as an excuse to do so.

The fact that you are trying to send those individuals that have disagreed with your opinions that Michelle Dessler, Tony Almeida, George Mason etc were minor and irrelevant characters, to another site says a great deal. It would seem, you want us somewhere where we can not stop you from enforcing your own personal interpretation of a character's importance or lack thereof on everyone else. Sorry to burst your bubble, but it's not going to happen. Nick-Stone22 17:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I've already proposed that series regulars, and the handful of recurring characters who appeared in multiple seasons (Novick, Aaron, Chappelle, Mandy, Keeler, Cheng, etc.) merit articles. Characters who were significant players throughout a single season (i.e. Habib Marwan) might be addressed on a case-by-case basis. I think that's pretty reasonable.

In the meantime, may I suggest restoring the articles for George, Edgar, and Chase at least, but also try to find some links for sources to appease those who claim a lack of notability?--T smitts 16:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite

Okay, everything's rewritten. I think I got all the typos, grammar errors, and mangled English. Style's much better. TunaSushi (talk) 07:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! The previous versions were atrocious. 65.191.65.64 22:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

This can be a nice reversion point in case a certain arbiter goes off. TunaSushi (talk) 07:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow! Nice job! It looks and reads much better now. Thanks! :D Angelriver (talk) 07:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Much better, much more consice and better wored. Stil too much emotion in some but the curent version is much better.--Lucy-marie (talk) 11:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Lucy, would you mind pointing out which articles contain too much emotion in your opinion? Because I read them and didn't see any. And you still have not answered the question: Why do you, and others like you, feel such a strong need to be the self-appointed content managers for this site? Angelriver (talk) 15:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Definition of Minor / Proposal for Better Classification

Maybe this would go easier if the definition of "minor" was fleshed out more fully. For instance, I don't believe that Lynn McGill is minor. His article should have remained unmerged. McGill impacted the day in very significant ways, altering the course of events with very dire repercussions for many hours to follow. That he appeared in only one season isn't necessarily criteria for "minor" relegation.

However, McGill's guard Harry Swinton (not even on this list yet) most definitely is minor. He had some key dialog and a poignant moment, but his actions and presence are far less substantial and barely impact the series.

Perhaps a three-tier system of a character's importance could be implemented:

Primary characters 

This category would include series stars with multiple-season story arcs (e.g., Jack Bauer, Tony Almedia, and Chloe O'Brian), or characters featured with significant impact on current events (e.g. Bill Buchanan, Nadia Yassir, and Morris O'Brien). These characters have their own articles.

Secondary characters 

Listed in this class would be characters with significant impact or importance, but are now deceased, or have limited or no role in current events. These characters may or may not have their own page with significantly more detail than allowed in the merged page (e.g., Chase Edmunds, Lynn McGill, George Mason, and Paula Schaeffer). Their presence here is more of a summary so the reader can choose to click a link for more information.

Minor characters 

Characters of minor importance are listed here (e.g., Harry Swinton, Tom Baker, and Eric Richards). These people would not have their own article as their impact and significance are insubstantial.

The nomenclature of the categories can be improved, if anyone has ideas. This may lead to further nutty Wiki policing, but at least it would leave standalone articles intact. 70.22.154.184 17:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't be adverse to this system at all. Unfortunately, the self-appointed Wiki police will simply say that it's not Wiki policy and therefore will refuse to "allow" it. They've already merged several top tier characters like George Mason and Edgar Stiles, and have tagged Tony Almeida and Michelle Dessler for merging as well. It's completely irrational and insane, and I would like to see the official Wiki policy they're using to justify such action. Angelriver (talk)18:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

A system like this would work just fine, but it is unlikely to satisfy people like Lucy who are determined to classify everyone but Jack as a “minor character.” Sure, characters who were only in an episode or two do not need their own page, but ones such as Tony Almeida, Michelle Dessler, Kim Bauer, Sherry Palmer, and Audrey rains are NOT minor characters no matter what Lucy might think. --MiB-24 18:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Kim and Audrey too!?!?! Sherry Palmer?! *weeps* This is madness. What gives her the right to do this???? I DEMAND to see the official policy upon which she is basing her ridiculous assertions that these are minor characters!! I'm confident that she will respond to this request with her usual rhetoric and direct me to an irrelevant link that has no bearing on the matter whatsoever. Angelriver 18:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Lucy-marie's opinion here isn't relevant. She can't take constructive criticism even though she admits that she can't see errors in grammar or spelling. It's obvious she's in the minority for this useless merger, and she's cloaking her arguments in policy veils. Each time I've researched her rebuttals, there are no real policy statements supporting her stance. Maybe she's well-intentioned, but she's just ramming her opinions through. If I see consent from more editors, I'll investigate this project ASAP to undo a big chunk this unnecessary merge and to restore the original pages if they're significant. TunaSushi 21:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The all of the character which have been merged are minor so far the only characters not merged are the non minor ones at the moment and at the moment there are still some minor characters out ther eot be merged.--Lucy-marie 13:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The preceding comment illustrates perfectly the frustration of the other editors here. Lucy-marie, I had to read that thing three times to see if I understood your intent, and I'm sure I can't reply without being refuted for accuracy. We shouldn't have to decipher your comments to understand you. Having said that, your selection of major/minor characters is highly subjective. Your opinions are welcome and considered, but they are by no means definitive. If consensus means that you can disregard any other point of view, then you're doing a bang-up job. TunaSushi 19:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment: TunaSushi, you've got my support, and I'm willing to help in whatever way I can. Angelriver 21:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

You've also got my support, but I expect Lucy-Marie to cite 'WIKI IS NOT A DEMOCRACY" before the end of this. Lynn McGill 22:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment: That's true, but neither is it the dictatorship that she seems to think it is. Angelriver 22:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Notability (fiction), "a topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." I am not opposed to the above system but I don't think it would work as well as Wikipedia's guidelines. Moreover, classifying the importance of these characters is fairly objective. Perhaps you could base the character's importance on the amount of media coverage it had and has. For example, Kim Bauer may not be an important character at the moment but in the overall series' perspective, I think she is because of the amount of reliable media sources that has covered her character and the actress portraying her while she was a cast member. Ladida 23:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The first part of the final senence is fine but why should the actor/actress them self have a bearing on a fictional charatcer. The character should be inculded in the actor/actress page. The actor/actress should not (ammended insert) be used as justification for a fiction charcters notability.--Lucy-marie 13:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

That paragraph makes no sense. In the first sentence, you ask why an actor/actress should have bearing on a fictional character. Then, in the last sentence, you say that the actor/actress should be used to justify notability of the fictional character. Please clarify what you are trying to say. Angelriver 14:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting what i am saying. The question there is rhetorical. I have then proceeded to set out my point on the question. Please try and read the context of each sentence rather than oooh you asked a question to start with then contradicted your self by giving an answer. It is clear that a genuine typing mistake was made in the reply.--Lucy-marie 14:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not misrepresenting anything, Lucy. I quoted you verbatim and asked you for clarification. And might I point out, that every post you make has typing mistakes. If you didn't make so many typing errors, then maybe your comments wouldn't be taken out of context. Your comments didn't make sense to me then, and your latest one doesn't do anything to help clarify what point you were trying to make. Angelriver 15:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

What I meant when I said that information on the actor should be included was a section on the portrayal of the character, not just some random information on the actor. It adds a real-world perspective to the article. Regards, Ladida 22:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Too short sections

Someone has been going through this article and considerably shortening the merged sections. Edgar, Milo, Chase, and George, among others, all need to have longer sections. Many important bits of information are getting erased here. I've tried to expand some but it reverts back to even worse then before. Whoever's doing this (and I have a very good idea who) stop please. If the articles must be merged then at least allow them to have more than the skin and bones it is now.--Phoenixfan 18:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Yesterday, I rewrote all of the sections based on the existing content, clearing up the typos, grammatical errors, and disparate styles. The text from the original articles wasn't intact in these merged summaries, so I did the best I could.

The history tab tells you exactly who made which changes. TunaSushi 08:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Restoration of Major Characters

Now that all of those ridiculous, unsupported mergers have been halted, what do you all think of restoring some of the more notable characters and undoing some of the heavy-handed--and unnecessary--merging that has taken place recently? I would like to see Lynn McGill, Chase Edmunds, George Mason and Edgar Stiles returned to their rightful place as major characters, and will personally research links to prove that these characters were notable and had an impact on the show.

Let's discuss this and see if we can reach a consensus on which characters should be restored.Angelriver 20:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Please be aware that similar characters which were "major", such as Michael Amador and Syed Ali had there own page. Had to be merged or they would have ben deleted under the criteria that they were not notable t.v characters.--Lucy-marie 21:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

For one thing, I doubt that anyone here would classify George Mason as being in the same league as a couple of terrorists. I see no problem with the fact that those two characters were merged. But all of these other characters like George and Edgar, Chase and Lynn, ARE notable and DID have impact on the show. Your opinion of notable is different from mine, and that's fine, but you should stop trying to force your preference on everyone else. The characters whom I've requested to have reinstated were NOT minor characters in everyone's estimation. That is why I'm trying to see if consensus, and community support, can be reached rather than just trying to ram my preference down everyone's throat as you tried to do with this entire merging spree you were on. And once again, Lucy, please remember to sign your posts. Angelriver 00:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I would support unmerging Chase Edmunds, George Mason, and Edgar Stiles. I really can’t agree on Lynn McGill. Yes he was important for a few episodes of Season 5, but not really that many. The rest of the characters all contributed for at least an entire season if not more and their deaths/departures had a lasting affect on the show. --MiB-24 00:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand your point. The reason I thought Lynn deserved to be un-merged was due to the fact that his character had such a huge and far reaching impact on CTU as well as the other characters. In fact, had it not been for Lynn's sacrifice, all of the other major characters would be dead; Jack, Chloe, Bill, Kim and Audrey. But I understand that not everyone sees this issue the same way. The other characters, though, really do need to have their independent pages restored. Angelriver 00:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

McGill falls right at the boundary between deserving his own page and being listed here. I can see your point on it, but I just can’t come out to support this specific character. The others should have never been merged to begin with. --MiB-24 02:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

My problem with the movement of Lynn McGill was that the article wasn't moved until I argued against the proposal, and I doubt it would have been if I hadn't said anything. I don't think he should be put here. 65.191.65.64 (talk) 22:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Completely agree with you on the other three characters, and from what I can tell, Lucy didn't have community agreement when she merged those articles either. I think that alone makes them a likely candidate for restoration. Angelriver 03:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I support the restoration of Lynn McGill, Chase Edmunds, and George Mason. I'm a little iffy on Edgar Stiles. His death was horrible and poignant, but his character didn't really seem all that important to me. On the other hand, I like what was said earlier about Lynn McGill - "McGill impacted the day in very significant ways, altering the course of events with very dire repercussions for many hours to follow." I think that speaks to notability and merits restoration of his own article. TunaSushi 14:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd stay Edgar deserves to be restored. For one thing, he was a regular cast member. Secondly, he played a prominent role in season 4, exposing Marianne and helping to stop the nuclear meltdowns. He had less to do in season 5 (which is rather ironic, considering that's when he was promoted from recurring to regular) but I don't think that undermines his contribution to season 4. If we're supporting Lynn for resoration, then Edgar deserves it as well. (There are a couple of other characters I'd recommend for restoration, but I'd like to settle these before we get to them.)--T smitts (talk) 06:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's also not forget that it was Edgar, along with Chloe, who stopped Marwan's nuclear tipped missile from going off by supplying the coordinates to the pilot who blew it out of the sky. I still support the restoration of all four characters, but I don't expect everyone to agree with me. Angelriver 06:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I think there's a fairly good concensus on restoring Edgar, George, and Chase (and many people want to see Lynn restored as well). I'd also like to take this opportunity to add Milo to the list. He was a series regular. He actually appeared is as many episodes as the other four (or more). He also helped out on more than one occasion, saving the lives of Marilyn Bauer and Nadia Yassir. --T smitts (talk) 17:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)