Talk:Jennifer Grey

message: Since Jennifer Grey had a botched nose-job that 1) completely changed her appearance and 2) significantly decreased her notoriety from its high in the 1980s, this article ought to have a non-free picture reflecting her appearance circa Ferris Bueller's Day Off.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Equaaldoors (talk • contribs) 22:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that getting a nose job wasn't a mistake for her career, but not sure that points 1 and 2 result from the nose job being "botched"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.66.32 (talk) 17:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article in need of a non-free picture 

message: Anyone know about this?
:Sure - it's very public knowledge - she admits herself that it was the worst thing she could have done for her career. 97.106.164.66 (talk) 04:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "I went in the operating theatre a celebrity - and come out anonymous. It was like being in a witness protection program or being invisible. I remember going to a restaurant where I had been going for years. I ran into people I knew and would say, 'Hey.' Nothing. I'll always be this once-famous actress nobody recognizes... because of a nose job." It's kinda sad...--87.148.233.212 (talk) 18:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: so, still a botched decision to have a nose job rather than a botched nose job?  2602:306:CF9E:B2C0:60C0:40E6:6163:21A9 (talk) 19:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Nose job? 

message: Cerenok, while you seem to see our point now about Reckless, you have nonetheless chosen to make further edits to that section of the article that, while they do not concern any statements of fact about the subject, are nevertheless borderline disruptive as they have compromised the effectiveness of the sentences.
You wrote, and repeatedly restored, this text
Nightscream has restored the original lede, every time, which remains thus:
It seems like you saw the existing lede as sort of a run-on sentence, perhaps because your English teacher in secondary school pointed such things out to you. I'd say it's arguable, since I've both seen and written worse, but if you want to be really strict about it it is. It doesn't, I admit, do any favors for the article's overall readability score.So it occurs to you to try to break it up. You picked the wrong place. There's no need to cut off the participle phrase in the secondary predicate, because doing so requires a needless repetition of the subject that disrupts the flow of the sentence (which you compounded by unnecessarily reusing her name. What other antecedent could "she" have had at that point)? The original version conveyed the same information in three less words.And we saved more by not being specific about the years of release of the two films. See summary style. We will go into specifics, if the reader wants them, in the article. We don't need that level of detail in the intro.Where the sentence could be not so much cut as repunctuated is in the last clause. It doesn't need to be a separate sentence actually. I think our old friend the semicolon can be used here as it's really a comma splice.So, the revised sentence, with some tightening:
That's 35 words, as opposed to 39 in your version and 38 in the existing lede. See how much fun editing can be? Daniel Case (talk) 04:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: In addition, there's more serious problem, Cerenok, that you are continuing to revert the portion of the article that has been disputed, and without making any attempt at discussion with me or anyone else, despite our attempts to do so with you, and without any edit summary or any word as to your rationale. One of your four sock puppets was already blocked previously. If you continue in behavior such as this, your username account will be blocked as well, as will any other account you attempt to use to disrupt Wikipedia. Nightscream (talk) 09:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Further issues with Cerenok edits to lede sentence

message: I've protected this page due to edit warring. Everyone reverting should please stop reverting each other and please discuss the proposed changes here on the talk page, in order to hopefully come to a consensus. I would like to remove protection as soon as possible. When that happens, if the edit warring continues, blocks will likely be handed out. - jc37 04:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jennifer Grey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060209143721/http://www.dvdfanatic.com/review.php?id=bueller to http://www.dvdfanatic.com/review.php?id=bueller
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jennifer Grey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101219065854/http://blog.zap2it.com/frominsidethebox/2010/10/dancing-with-the-stars-jennifer-grey-rules-again.html to http://blog.zap2it.com/frominsidethebox/2010/10/dancing-with-the-stars-jennifer-grey-rules-again.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:50, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified