Talk:May Wright

message: Who said "What May wants, May gets!"? — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 10:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: May -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 10:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought so, just wanted to make sure. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 17:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quote 

message: I was the one who added in the note about May exhibiting behaviour consistent with a Superiority Complex but now that I think about it I think she might actually suffer from Acquired Situational Narcissism. What does anyone else think?
Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.241.201 (talk • contribs) 14:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both are original research so neither should be mentioned. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 21:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Superiority Complex

message: I think this section is well written, accurate and I like it. But it's  mostly unreferenced editor opinion, which is not suitable for wikipedia. Any thoughts? Gungadin 21:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personality section 

message: Haha, was just about to edit her return date when someone got there first...damn you!--80.4.6.146 (talk) 19:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing 

message: She no longer practices as a medical Dr, but she is still a Doctor. She would have trained for 7 years to get a doctoral degree, so is she not still entitled to be addressed as Dr? Gungadin 23:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is true. They struck her off, but that doesn't disregard her doctor qualification(s)... -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 20:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Previously Dr"? 

message: Frickative keeps reverting my edits which appear to my eyes to be perfectly harmless. He has stated that my edits are original research and that I made grammatical changes to quotes. In actuality I have made no assumptions. I merely changed the article to emphasise May's obvious insanity in greater detail. This is not original research as the media have in fact referred to her as "Mad May" while various characters in the show refer to her as insane. She even spent time in a psychiatric ward. Furthermore she is also in the category of Fictional characters with mental illness. Finally I made no grammatical changes to quotes I merely altered the speech marks. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 14:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, I am not the only one who has reverted your edits. Secondly, to call a character "deranged" you need to be able to cite a reliable secondary source who uses that terminology, because otherwise you're imposing your interpretation of the character on the article. We can call her "Mad May" because the media do so. If the media call her "deranged", we can say her personality is "deranged". If you can cite & quote an instance of characters in the show calling her "insane", we can refer to fellow characters perceiving her as insane. Adding things like "May [...] exhibits Machiavellian tendencies." is complete WP:OR, because that is your personal interpretation of the character. As for the editing of quotes - why do you feel the need to add in punctuation that doesn't exist in the text being cited? You cannot edit the contents of direct quotes just because you think it looks better than way. Frickative 14:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Alright, I'm sorry. There, I've apologised, that's something I rarely do. Might I point out that mad and deranged mean the same thing. Also May is shown to be Machiavellian in her manipulation of Dawn, Rob and later Jase. One doesn't need sources to prove that, one just needs to read the article for evidence of her Machiavellianism. With regards to characters calling her insane, might I point out that Keith at one point refers to her as "Doctor Nutter", Dawn calls her "sick", "nuts" and "crazy" among other similar honorifics on numerous occasions. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 14:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, I wasn't after an apology, I know how frustrating policy can be sometimes. Basically, I think a good rule of thumb is, if you can find a review that echoes your sentiments, then it's fine to include. Otherwise, WP:SYNTH comes into play... By watching the way May manipulates Rob, Dawn, and Jase, you're drawing the conclusion that she's acting in a Machiavellian fashion. But the act of drawing your own conclusion on something like that is synthesis, which is against policy. On the other hand, if there were a review in which, say, a Guardian editor referred to May as Machiavellian, or Amanda Drew commented in an interview that that was how the character was written, that would be fine for inclusion. That said, I've just done a quick Google search, and found a couple of reliable sources which do refer to May as "deranged", so I'll add that back into the article and cite it :) Frickative 15:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:Synthesis is a largely ignorable policy in my opinion. A certain amount of original research is unavoidable and necessary on Wikipedia, so long as it's in moderation. Wikipedia practically runs on original research and POV, the same way a human body needs a certain amount of healthy bacteria. If you want to take a broad view of things, for all you know, the world might be a figment of your imagination and to say it's real is original research. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 11:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent edits

message: Perhaps Frickative would be so kind as to provide an explanation as to why he is AGAIN reverting my edits with vague assertions that they are "unencyclopedic", "hyperbolous" and "fansitey"?/! --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 17:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder if you took any notice of the fact that it wasn't me that reverted you this time, but in fact Trampikey, a separate editor entirely. That two independent editors have reached the same conclusion might indicate to you that your reversions are unencyclopedic. If you honestly can't see the hyperbole in lines such as the defeated madwoman staggered downstairs then I'm honestly not sure what discussion there is to be had on the matter. We're writing an encyclopedia, not a fanfiction. Frickative 18:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Frickative, Trampikey, you'd both look the same with the flesh scorched off your skulls (though I hope that never happens). I personally thought my edits just gave a more dramatic, dynamic tone to the article, making it more fun to read though we can leave out the "defeated madwoman" part I suppose. That was a bit melodramatic. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 18:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: More reverts

message: casting etc. GunGagdinMoan 15:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  sources  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on May Wright. 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 http://www.webcitation.org/5vOscOXuK?url=http://www.radiotimes.com/blogs/810-soaps-bunny-boilers/ to http://www.radiotimes.com/blogs/810-soaps-bunny-boilers/
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) 17:47, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified