Jump to content

Talk:Megan Fox/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Error in article -- it's not "After departing the Transformers franchise"

What does it take to get an error fixed in this article? Under this IP, I asked four editors to revert this edit because Fox hadn't been fired from the franchise yet, as sources in the article show. All it takes is a checking of the sources. Like I told Mbinebri, with regard to being referred here, why should I [bring this here] to propose that this error be reverted when editors who watch and/or have reverted on the article won't correct this bit of information? Fox had not been fired from the Transformers franchise at the time that she was filming Jennifer's Body or during its release, so it's not like she departed from the Transfomers franchise first and then started working on Jennifer's Body. Fox was fired from the Transfomers franchise in 2010, one year after Jenniifer's Body.

Look at this line from the article: Bay similarly amended his previous statements of support of Fox, and told GQ in June that Fox was fired on orders of executive producer Steven Spielberg.

That may be where the editor who added "After departing the Transformers franchise" got confused; it even confused me. It needs to be clarified that this statement was made in the July 2011 issue of GQ, or should at least state "June, 2011," so that readers don't think we mean June 2009. And the source's accessdate needs to be corrected; not sure why it says "(2009-10-13)." I also corrected the date for the same reference at the Transformers: Dark of the Moon article.[1] 94.76.201.77 (talk) 17:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Lead Image

The current lead image on this article appears like she is choking on a baseball or something. I suppose that there should be a discussion on whether it should be changed or not, although the images in the Commons don't appear as good, where the only decent ones are from half a decade ago.

  • File:MeganFoxSept10TIFF.jpg, taken in 201,0 is a former lead image although the quality of the image is less than desirable but the expression is much better than the current lead image.

Any other suggestions and comments are welcome.

Thanks, --GouramiWatcher (Gulp) 22:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Gourami Watcher. Thanks for bringing this to the talk page after I reverted and suggested such a talk page discussion. As you know, I don't like the first image you have listed (which was the lead image before the current one). Too much makeup piled on, combined with the lighting, in a way that she looks older and not much like herself. As for the second image you have listed, it should be cropped so that it focuses on Fox only. The other two (excluding File:Megan Fox promoting Transformers in Paris 4.jpg) have been lead images at one point, but were replaced in light of a new image. Like I stated in my edit summary, we typically go with the most recent image for the infobox. If we use a 2008, 2009 or even a 2010 image, someone is likely to replace it with a newer image. The only reason we are even using the 2011 image is obviously because we don't have a free image of her from this year. That said, if we have WP:CONSENSUS for one of the older images, editors would need to defer to that consensus unless new consensus is formed. And you certainly are not the first to object to using the most recent image, upon feeling that it is not best. Back in 2010, I objected to a newer image as well. See Talk:Megan Fox/Archive 1#The new image. So since you don't like the current image and I don't like the one you chose to replace it with, I am more than willing to compromise with you by using one of the older images. Which of the older ones, obviously excluding the one I object to, do you prefer? Flyer22 (talk) 01:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
My favorite is "File:Megan Fox promoting Transformers in Paris.jpg" I suppose. Thanks for your reply! --GouramiWatcher (Gulp) 02:17, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
I've always liked that one as well. I'm fine with you going ahead and changing the main image to that. If anyone objects, they can of course make their case against it in this section. Flyer22 (talk) 17:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Alright! The image has been changed.--GouramiWatcher (Gulp) 02:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Note: A different editor changed the image to this. I like it and I think you'll be satisfied with it as well. Flyer22 (talk) 23:27, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Pregnant

The personal life section cites that while Fox and Green have not confirmed the pregnancy, they have been "photographed". Technically, Fox is indeed pregnant although no further details were available. I think the section should be rewritten to say that she was clearly photographed and is pregnant. Fox either is or isn't; it would appear from these sources 1 and 2 and 3 she is. Spelling Style (talk) 20:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The thing is...this is a WP:BLP article and such articles are edited with more care than our other articles when it comes to sourcing or otherwise. We shouldn't definitively state that Fox is pregnant unless Fox or Green or their "camps" have confirmed it. That section used to state that she is, but was rightly changed by an editor to make it clear that while photographs show that she is, it hasn't been confirmed by Fox or Green. Flyer22 (talk) 16:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

She finally had a son so there wasn't use in hiding anymore. Saw the news in this article. :) Spelling Style (talk) 16:37, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Dates Wrong

Robot Chicken DC Universial Special on the telivision soapbox needs to be stated to be in 2012 and not 2011 and Robot Chicken in the film soapbox needs to be placed between The Dictator and This Is 40. --120.151.106.44 (talk) 09:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

New links :

http://www.megan-fox.com/

http://www.megansafox.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.230.65.225 (talk) 19:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Re: that huge 15k edit

So, User:TherezaAmbrose insists on edit warring that massive 15k edit. I'll try to work it out here before bringing it to ANI. I would link the revisions in question, but since it was all done in massive chunks, I can't. My problems with the edits are:

  • There are several copyvios
  • There is an NFCC vio
  • The massive amount of images serves no function
  • Several sentences referencing past events are written in current tense
  • There is a lot of sentences referencing other persons, unrelated to Fox
  • A lot of edits are trivia
  • Unsourced edits

Anyone? Nymf hideliho! 21:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree with Nymf about this. I emailed Nymf during my recent block to state that I agree with the points he or she made on the article talk page about this issue, and to inform him or her that TherezaAmbrose is a sockpuppet of Dkjhbrewfhyjegfuygf and should thus be reported as such. TherezaAmbrose has been reverted yet again, and is indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet. Flyer22 (talk) 17:57, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Yep. Cheers for that mail :-) Usually these type of persons are socks, but for some reason it is often not picked up on. Nymf hideliho! 18:52, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

She is in music video

The Eminem part is mentioned in the article, IP. Flyer22 (talk) 20:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Reverted WP:BLP violation

I recently reverted all of Watevah3's recent edits because this edit is very likely a WP:BLP violation, and because the other edits were non-improvements or unnecessary improvements. Adding in "distant" in front "Native" so that it reads as "distant Native," when the source doesn't state that, for example? No, we are not supposed to do that. There's no doubt in my mind, actually, that the addition about plastic surgery is a WP:BLP violation. Adding information about a bunch of plastic surgery rumors when Fox has not confirmed those rumors is not something that we are supposed to do/are allowed to do. This would be different if she responded to the rumors. For example, Tom Cruise has responded to the gay rumors about him by suing people who have publicly accused him of being gay (suing for defamation). And going back to Fox... At least the "comparing Michael Bay to Adolf Hitler" incident, which is part of what led some crew members to speak negatively of Fox, gained a lot of prominent media attention and propelled Bay and other people who have worked with Fox to comment on it, and is something that Bay reports as having gotten her fired (not by him, but by Steven Spielberg). Regarding two of the pictures Watevah3 removed, I did remove one of them, however. Flyer22 (talk) 12:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Ancestry

Hi, this source (http://ethnicelebs.com/megan-fox) says Fox has Irish, French, English, Native American, Scottish, and German ancestry - but her article only states some of these - could this be corrected? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.61.197 (talk) 02:19, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

That's not a reliable source by Wikipedia standards, IP; see WP:Reliable sources. Flyer22 (talk) 02:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Be polite, and welcoming to new users

O' beloved one, Be polite, and welcoming to new users That's highly recommanded by wikipedia,(talk:Megan Fox) page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.116.138.40 (talk) 12:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Jennifer's Body

Just for the fun of it, I looked up the movie at YouTube (I don't want to link it here, as it's obviously a linkvio), and this is the way the credits are. Cheers. Nymf talk to me 15:44, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I see. Still, enough has been stated between us on the matter:[2][3][4]. And I still don't see the problem with listing the character's last name in the Filmography section any more than if we were to note the character's full name in the article's text, considering that various reliable sources note the character's full name. But this is hardly anything to have a significant debate about or WP:Edit war over. Flyer22 (talk) 16:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
I believe, in general, that we usually stick to the credits in the filmography table. That way people cannot roam free, inserting whatever name they may or may not have heard watching whatever movie. It happens more than one would think. Nymf talk to me 18:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for elaborating on your stance about this; I completely understand your rationale now and it does make sense. Flyer22 (talk) 18:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Bisexuality?

I found this paragraph on Fox very confusing. First, she states that she is bisexual and had this relationship with a stripper. Then, later in the paragraph she says she basically made it up to have a good story to tell the interviewer. It made me think that maybe it's just a trendy Hollywood thing, to call yourself "bisexual" when you've actually never had same sex relationships or encounters. But being bisexual is not just for a woman who sleeps with men to think another woman is attractive (every woman can appreciate another woman's attractiveness)...bisexuality is an orientation that is typically acted upon.

So, since the reliability of this fact is iffy as best, should the Bisexual categories be removed from this bio? 69.125.134.86 (talk) 20:08, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, IP. As shown in the article, Fox basically stated that she somewhat distorted her story about her interaction with the stripper. But whatever the truth is with regard to that matter, Fox identifies as bisexual. As also shown in the article (though the line currently needs a better source supporting it; using the Esquire source directly would be better), she has quite clearly stated, "I have no question in my mind about being bisexual." And, of course, one does not necessarily have to engage in any sexual activity to know what their sexual orientation is. Also, due to heteronormativity/heterosexism/homophobia, I wouldn't state that someone who is bisexual usually acts on bisexual feelings. Perhaps most gay and lesbian people don't act on their same-sex sexual feelings. We also don't know if Fox has ever engaged in sexual activity with a woman. When it comes to including someone in a sexual orientation category here at Wikipedia, WP:BLPCAT is what applies. It is not up to us to state, "Oh, I think she's bisexual. Therefore, I'm putting her in bisexual categories." Or "Oh, I don't think she's bisexual. Therefore, I'm not putting her in any bisexual categories." Also, because she has identified as bisexual, and has not backtracked on that, there is no way that we could legitimately keep anyone from adding her to bisexual categories if we were to remove them. Flyer22 (talk) 20:37, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
I went ahead and took care of these and these WP:Dead links in the Personal life section. Despite what I stated above about the "I have no question in my mind about being bisexual" line needing a better source to support it, and despite the fact that I added an additional source for it, the Pink News source backing it is a valid source for that information. I'd forgotten that Pink News can be an appropriate source (more so for LGBT information). Flyer22 (talk) 22:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Christianity

She should be added to the category "LGBT Christians", and I would also say she should be categorized as "American Protestants", because it is well known that no Catholic or Eastern Orthodox churches do "speaking in tongues" and she was raised Pentecostal as stated in the article. 71.191.95.5 (talk) 23:56, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Clean up the references

The references need an overhaul as they do not directly lead to the information they are supporting. This is a common problem as people use electronic sources that are temporary. You really should have more than one citation per point anyway. One citation for a point is pretty poor proof of anything but an opinion. Fan sites are hardly proof of anything anyway. 1.122.199.112 (talk) 09:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, IP. You are referring to the references that are dead? If so, there are means to restore those references; for example, Internet Archive. See WP:Dead link. And most information in this article is not simply opinion, but fact, which should be the case in a WP:BLP (biography of living person) article. A lot of that material (in this article) does not need two or more sources, though I usually add more than one source when citing something on Wikipedia, and usually three or four for contentious information. But see WP:Citation overkill as well. Flyer22 (talk) 15:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2013

name : megan fox santos

132.219.142.121 (talk) 17:10, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. And please do not repeat the same request three times - Arjayay (talk) 17:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Ocean Ave

Ocean Ave is not on her tv list. Someone add it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScarletBel123 (talk • contribs) 05:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2014

i need a request

Bobswearing (talk) 23:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 00:09, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Better picture

Put one up of her looking hot.Vagout (talk) 21:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Vagout (talk · contribs), I'm sure that many would state that she looks hot in the current picture. Anyway, we have to go with what is available on WP:Commons; the one currently up there is the best-looking, most-up-to date option, at least in my opinion. Flyer22 (talk) 22:02, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Could one not be put up where is looking at her absolute best?Vagout (talk), — Preceding undated comment added 22:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2014

Request for editing her 'early life', specifically her ancestry Megän Fox is also 1/256th Powhatan Native AMerican, as she herself claims (source: http://ethnicelebs.com/megan-fox). Sfentami (talk) 12:29, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Not done: Source, which is not reliable, says "possibly 1/256th Powhatan Native American". But even with some good sources I doubt there will be consensus to mention 0.4% of an individual's ancestry. Sam Sing! 09:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2014

Please have me edit Megan Fox. Eiji Mendoza And Megan Fox retired from modeling in 2009 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.49.156.179 (talk) 17:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Personal life section

SNUGGUMS, with this edit, you re-added the "overly detailed" tag to the Personal life section, stating, "it's looking better, but still is bloated- just about everything except for family affiliations and bisexuality is pure fluff." This is after I significantly cut the section down after you first placed the "overly detailed" tag on it; I'm clarifying here on the talk page that that's what you mean by "looking better." Currently, the Personal life section has five paragraphs, and includes the type of material that is commonly a part of Personal life sections, including in WP:Good articles and WP:Featured articles. Will you clarify what you feel is "pure fluff"? I don't consider Fox's statements on drugs (including that she's tried them), men and socializing to be pure fluff. The same goes for mentioning her brachydactyly (clubbed thumbs), that she has obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD), insecurities, low self-esteem and has engaged in self-harming. Also keep in mind that some of these comments, such as how she feels about men, have gotten significant press; part of Fox's WP:Notability is because of the "crazy things" she says. Religion is also very important to people, so I didn't cut her religious commentary. Flyer22 (talk) 19:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Point-by-point:
  • Not sure why drugs would be needed in a page unless the person has gotten into legal issues and/or had addiction problems (including death from drugs)
  • I don't know how in the world it would matter what age-range of men she dislikes, how non-social she is, or why she distrusts women (this also seems to be contradicted by the statement of bisexuality)
  • Clubbed thumbs, on the fence with this one
  • OCD is completely unnecessary- tons of people have it
  • Insecurities- many people also have these, not sure what value it adds to include this
  • Self-harm, no big problem with inclusion
  • Fear of flying and Britney Spears songs: pure trivia
  • It's not so much the religious affiliation as it is the idea of "keep[ing] from going the same route as Marilyn Monroe, Lindsay Lohan and Britney Spears" that is really unneeded (and doesn't have very good tone to begin with).
  • A big problem with "Personal life" sections is that they can become extremely bloated with unnecessary detail and gossip. In many cases, particularly for those who have only had few high-profile relationships and/or said partners were integrated into one's career, it's better to integrate such detail into a "life and career" section. This article does need work outside of that section, but those bits aren't helping it. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
I can agree to remove the drug aspect; the person who included it must have included it because Fox supports the legalization of marijuana, which, of course, got publicity.
I cannot agree with removing the bit about her general dislike of men (I'm not stating that I think we should include all of it, but rather a shorter version of it); this is because it has been emphasized not only by the media, but by her (including how easy she thinks it is to manipulate men, as noted by the bisexuality paragraph). Another reason I also object to removing it is because it is a contrast to the fact that the vast majority of her fans, as noted by WP:Reliable sources, are men. The "distrust and dislike of all men" aspect does not contradict her bisexuality at all, unless one argues the point that she is married to a man (but then again, that's why I used the word general); she tells us, as shown in the bisexuality paragraph, "I have no question in my mind about being bisexual. But I'm also a hypocrite: I would never date a girl who was bisexual, because that means they also sleep with men, and men are so dirty that I'd never want to sleep with a girl who had slept with a man." Her general dislike of men is very clear by that comment. If you mean the "distrust of women" part is contradicted by her bisexuality, I don't see how, and she is specifically speaking of women in the acting industry by commenting on that distrust; but I don't mind if we remove the "distrust of women" part. And as for the other social aspects... Noting that she is basically anti-social -- for example, that she generally does not go out and party and would rather avoid people -- and that she has only had sex with two people is very relevant; this is because, like Fox and the WP:Reliable sources on those matters state, people think that she is outgoing and has had sex with a lot of people; that is part of the public's perception of her. However, it seems like that material belongs in the Personal life section instead of in the Image section.
The only valid reason I can see for not mentioning her clubbed thumbs is that, despite WP:Reliable sources stating that she has them, and many people stating it from looking at photos showing her thumbs, it doesn't seem that she is on record as confirming this. That's why I had an issue with the clubbed thumbs aspect being added when it was added.
Stating that we shouldn't include mention of her OCD because a lot of people have it is similar to stating that we shouldn't include cancer material because a lot of people have it. Sure, cancer is deadly (OCD has been at times as well), but both of these are illnesses. Are you sure you are not confusing obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD) with obsessive–compulsive personality disorder (OCPD)? Maybe she is as well. But either way, both of these are disorders, and a person's disorders are usually mentioned in their Personal life section. OCD is not as common as you are making it out to be. For example, the Epidemiology section of the Obsessive–compulsive disorder article currently states, with a WP:MEDRS-compliant source, "OCD occurs in between 1 to 3% of children and adults."
Her insecurities are relevant as part of the self-harming and low self-esteem mentions. I don't see why the self-harming aspect, which is another major psychological issue, and has received significant discussion regarding her, should not be mentioned. We also note Angelina Jolie's self-harm issues, but that's in Jolie's Early life and family section, which also notes her depression and use of drugs. And it's there, instead of in her Personal life section, because it wouldn't fit in the Personal life section with the way that article is set up. And, of course, that article addresses Jolie's insecurities. Another thing to keep in mind is that people often don't think of beautiful women as having such issues, which the sources on these matters note.
I can agree to remove to the "fear of flying and Britney Spears" portion.
I can agree to remove the "keep[ing] from going the same route as Marilyn Monroe, Lindsay Lohan and Britney Spears" portion.
As for having a "life and career" section, as you likely know, we generally do that with articles about musical artists...not with articles about actors/actresses; I discussed that before; see Talk:Angelina Jolie/Archive 10#'Success' headings if you haven't already. I wouldn't prefer the "life and career" setup for the Megan Fox article. Flyer22 (talk) 20:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Update: As seen here, here, and here, I edited the section down, keeping our above comments in mind. For example, I tied the "[public thinks] that she is outgoing and has had sex with a lot of people" aspect into her thoughts on men and the fact that she is antisocial; in this The Daily Telegraph source, she uses the exact word antisocial. I also added a comment on her feelings about having OCD. People's feelings on relationships, whether or not they are social or antisocial (or something in between), and information about their psychological issues...especially mental disorders...are common additions to their Wikipedia articles. Whether in the Early life section and/or the Personal life section. And whether or not it is a WP:Good article, WP:Featured article or a lower-class article. I don't see why these aspects should not be included in the Megan Fox article, especially given the media attention these matters have received. If there is room for mention of people's vegetarian or vegan diets in their Personal life sections, as is commonly seen on Wikipedia, there is room for these matters as well. Flyer22 (talk) 14:41, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Hollywood Life a WP:Reliable source?

With this edit, I reverted GoldenBoy25 (talk · contribs)...in part because celebie.com is not a WP:Reliable source. And with this edit, Nymf reverted him because he used hollywoodlife.com (Hollywood Life) as a source. I would have reverted GoldenBoy25 again, before Nymf, but, since Hollywood Life redirects to the Movieline article (and is a part of that company) and Movieline is a WP:Reliable source, I'm confused as to whether Hollywood Life is a WP:Reliable source. Flyer22 (talk) 07:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I looked at the site in question (hollywoodlife.com), and I could find nothing about any sort of editorial oversight in their TOS. Maybe I missed it, but if you find anything, let me know and I might change my mind. Nymf (talk) 07:41, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, @Flyer22: and @Nymf:! I have a question. Maybe my first source was unreliable, but why my second? Even though she listed at 163 cm by multiple sites, her official website has her at 165 cm. Is her website reliable? Most models have their height stated in their article, so I'm wondering if her official website is okay. GoldenBoy25 (talk) 07:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

megan-fox.com is not her official website; see at the very bottom where it says "unofficial fansite and has no affiliation with Megan Fox herself". As for the other source, see the section above. Nymf (talk) 07:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I combined the discussion sections. I've seen Hollywood Life in Wikipedia articles lately. I might ask about that source at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard; perhaps people have already queried its reliability there. Flyer22 (talk) 07:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
@Flyer22: and @Nymf:! So, what's the stand on this discussion? Is (hollywoodlife.com) reliable or not? Also, would Mandatory website be okay? GoldenBoy25 (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2015‎ (UTC)
Note for this talk page: GoldenBoy25 added an additional source in addition to restoring the hollywoodlife.com source; seen here. GoldenBoy25, at some point, I'll look through the archives of the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard about that source and/or ask about it at that noticeboard. Flyer22 (talk) 07:28, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I saw that, but didn't feel like arguing with the editor at the time. I doubt the new Croatian source on an American actress has been fact checked, either. From what I could gather, using Google translate, their TOS pretty much says that they do not guarantee that anything printed on their website is true. Nymf (talk) 07:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I figured that you didn't feel like tackling the matter; I have those types of days often at Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 08:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2015

Newbie here... Megan Green is the 15th ward alderwoman for the city of St. Louis, Missouri. Why does clicking on Megan Green's name from this article - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Board_of_Aldermen_of_the_City_of_St._Louis - redirect to this page for Megan Fox?

Update: I fixed the issue with the bad redirect to this page. Sorry to bother. JimSinclairSTL (talk) 13:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for fixing the issue! --ElHef (Meep?) 13:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Megan Fox. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Megan Fox. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:05, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Megan Fox. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:57, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2016

The second paragraph of Personal Life describes Megan Fox as "antisocial". However, based on the context of the paragraph it really should be "asocial". The difference is significant. Antisocial describes someone who has antisocial personality disorder or antisocial traits, aka "psychopath" in layman terms - they are against society. Asocial describes a person who prefers to be without society or chooses to not socialize frequently. Unless the entry truly means that she is a "psychopath" it should be changed.

SOURCE: I'm a psychiatrist.

OR how about wikipedia? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial

OR is wikipedia not considered a reliable source? LOL, who runs this place? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.252.2.73 (talk) 03:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


Fox has been open about her feelings on men and socializing, stating that although she has more in common with men in their thirties, she has a general distrust and dislike of "all boys-slash-men,"[56] and that, despite the public perceiving her as a "wild and crazy sexpot," she is antisocial and has only been sexually intimate with two men her entire life – "My childhood sweetheart and Brian. I can never have sex with someone that I don't love, ever. The idea makes me sick. I've never even come close to having a one-night stand."[57][58] She would rather stay at home and play games instead of going out.[57][59] Fox commented, "My biggest regret is that I've assisted the media in making me into a cartoon character. I don't regret what has happened to me, but I regret the way I have dealt with it."


24.252.2.73 (talk) 16:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

We go by the WP:Reliable sources on Fox's life, per the WP:Verifiability policy. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:17, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. clpo13(talk) 23:30, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

why is she tagged as being native american on the bottom of the page

when the wikip age said she only had euorpean ancestry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.147.151.210 (talk • contribs)

In the External links section, I don't see where she is tagged as being Native American. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Unnecessary linking of words

In the introduction, the line "Fox is also considered one of the modern female sex symbols" has a link to "modern history" on the word "modern". Surely this is completely unnecessary? 62.205.76.149 (talk) 05:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

She says she was born in Oak Ridge in this video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cWY5jrhnrc She says so at 0:19 2.103.13.171 (talk) 03:06, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I'll make the necessary changes. Rusted AutoParts 22:24, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
And I added the actual citation.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2017

2601:842:C101:5B0:D079:217A:D4B4:FCA4 (talk) 04:40, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 05:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Cleaner internet

https://www.iwf.org.uk/

They remove unwanted internet content

FBI AND CIA ALSO EXIST!

86.155.64.100 (talk) 18:21, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Megan Fox. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2017

I would like to upload a photo to this page. Ffffdfernhnhf (talk) 23:56, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. In other words, please provide a link to the photo you'd like added (it needs to be hosted on either Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons) and specify exactly where you want it placed, along with wording for a caption. RivertorchFIREWATER 03:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Megan Fox. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:03, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2017

Category:LGBT Christians should be replaced with Category:LGBT Protestants as she is Pentecostal. Thanks, 142.160.131.202 (talk) 20:33, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Not done: Categories are supposed to be the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having. There are two sources about her denomination: in one (the Parade article) she states she was "raised Catholic" and in another (the Esquire article) there is about a paragraph about her speaking in tongues "since she was 8". Either way, there is no general sourcing for "commonly and consistently" calling her one or the other. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:38, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Megan_Fox/Archive_2&oldid=1142530225"