Talk:Eve Plumb

message: Can this article be semi-protected rather than fully protected?  That way registered users can edit the article.  Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done that now. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 02:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I had it at full protection because the (now banned) user created an account and was able to get around the protection. Zach (Smack Back) 02:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Because we had seen on this article, for about 2 days, a user trying to add information about the subject's home address and phone number. And, we had a lot of clean-up to do to get the information purged from the history, so that is why the protection is in place. We did the earlier methods of revert and or rollbacking, but that was not working at all, plus, we had to purge the history. Protection should be lifted tomorrow morning (my time, US PST, unless someone wants to lift it now). Zach (Smack Back) 06:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, Harro5, you can edit it still. It is only "read only" for new accounts or IP addresses. Zach (Smack Back) 06:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I'm aware I can edit, I was just wondering why semi-protection was introduced with what looked to be no discussion and also no great need. I know an article like George W. Bush requires this protection, as everyone vandalises that page, but thought there were better ways to combat vandals here. Has the user you mention been blocked? If so, what's the reason for keeping this protection going? I'm only asking as I feel protection, in any form, is a rather serious measure to use. Harro5 06:37, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Zoe blocked the user, but I am not sure about his IP address. Fine, i'll unlock it. Zach (Smack Back) 06:37, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just noticed all the deleted edits. Sorry, I should have thought of that. But just be vigilant, and use protection if it's the best step to take (not the first one). Harro5 06:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Where do you get the idea that protection was the first step?  What would you suggest?  This idiot has been adding the same information over and over again for months, has been reverted, has been blocked, admins have to go in manually to remove the information from the edit history (a time consuming process) over and over again.  Might I suggest a little less accusatory tone?  User:Zoe|(talk) 21:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I mainly used protection as the first step so we can, at least, stop the editing so the admin clean-up can begin. And once the clean-up is over, usually protection will be good for a short while, and unlock. But every time we have, it was pretty much the same story all over again. Personaly, I am getting tired of having to do this cleanup, so an extended protection will be good. Zach (Smack Back) 21:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article protection 

message: Frankly, I am getting tired of deleting and restoring this page because of one person who faps all of the time over this person. I am not sure what other options that I can use right now, but I am going to lock this page until something is worked out. Zach (Smack Back) 20:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My suggestion would be to run a sock check on the vandal accounts, block the offending IP address(es) and then try re-semi-protecting this article, if possible.  Can't sleep, clown will eat me 12:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I remember that I blocked the IP for about a week, and this new one for a day. I am still not sure if they are static or not, so that is why the blocks have been short. I can ask for a sockcheck, but the first IP I blocked was used by the first vandal for a good amount of time. Zach (Smack Back) 12:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: All of the edits are being done by anons, there's no sock check to look for.  User:Zoe|(talk) 22:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm...but is there a possbility they could have been used by the same person, since the attitude and editing habbits are similar, FWIW. Zach (Smack Back) 22:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but we can just assume they're the same person.  User:Zoe|(talk) 23:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Anyone else agree with Mac? Zach (Smack Back) 05:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't. Mike H. That's hot 08:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now I do, with review of other edits from an IP and User:Northerner, who look to be related. Mike H. That's hot 06:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy  06:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  V protect again 

message: I don't think that first picture is from The Brady Bunch, because quite frankly, Plumb was not that pretty on the series. I think it was from a different project, or quite possibly from after the series ended. Mike H. That's hot 08:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture

message: When I last bumped into them together sometime around 1981; The two acted like very close sisters and not lesbians. I suspect someone is pulling someone else's leg. -Sparky (talk) 02:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Eve and Maureen

message: That catchphrase was parodied by Saturday Night Live LONG before the movie. MMetro (talk) 16:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Marcia, Marcia, Marcia

message: (From the List of Brady Bunch Characters Article)
The Covingtons briefly separate in A Very Brady Christmas, but reconcile. However, they are unable to conceive their own children and in The Bradys adopt a Korean girl named Patty.
(From this Article)
Plumb's character Jan had marital problems in A Very Brady Christmas, and fertility problems in The Bradys which led to her and her husband Phillip Covington III to adopt a Chinese girl named Patty.
~Also posted in the "List of Brady Bunch Characters" Discussion  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.194.127.36 (talk) 16:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Chinese of Korean?

message: Though Sherwood Schwartz   would state years after the series went off the air that he had wanted to have Carol Brady be a divorcee, and that the network wouldn't stand for it and insisted that she be made a widow, but settled for leaving it vague, descriptions of the shows premise universally had her being widowed.
Most fans of the show, then and now, have always assumed that she was widowed, and the arguments for her being a widow based on the content of the show, especially the pilot, are stronger than the arguments for her being divorced.  
Carol Brady's marital status was never actually clarified one way or the other but the fact that she was still going by "Mrs. Martin" that there was no hint of contact between the girls and their (still living?) father and that their father was never mentioned, as well as the fact that Mike is said to have "adopted" the girls and that their last names were changed to Brady, all point toward widowhood rather than divorce.
It may well be that Shwartz had originally intended to make Carol a divorcee, but that isn't how it panned out in the series. So when you say "presumably divorced", presumed by whom?   By you?  John Elson★3Dham★ WF6I A.P.O.I. 15:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Carol Brady divorced or widowed?

message: http://www.latimes.com/business/realestate/hot-property/la-fi-hp-hotprop-20160813-snap-story.html
• Sbmeirow • Talk • 23:54, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eve sold her house in Malibu that she bought when she was age 11 

message: I have reverted an edit that added April 29, 1958, as Plumb's date of birth. The article cited in the lead gives her age as 18, which is sufficient for using the "Birth based on age as of date" template that was already in place. A reliable published source will be needed to add a specific date of birth. Eddie Blick (talk) 20:42, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of birth