Talk:Mackenzie Rosman

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Loss of Virginity[edit]

That is horrible that you would post something as personal as when she lost her virginity on an ENCYCLOPEDIA!! 205.188.116.72 22:22, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • It wasn't really appropriate to the article, but the comment did talk about Ruthie, as opposed to Mackenzie, suggesting that the anonymous author was not talking about the actress. I'm not condoning what the anon did by any means, just commenting. Also, I have seen alot worse put into and later removed from articles here on Wikipedia.--Azathar 01:16, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ahh, when I replied, there was no date stamp on it. Either way, it isn't appropriate to the article.--Azathar 01:59, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The topic of whether or not Mackenzie is a virgin is not relevant to the article, and should NOT be included here, whether it is verifiable or not.--Azathar 03:41, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


yea that is nasty..the person who edited prob faked her info

Azathar,here where talking about sex, and you say that you have put much more worse, why do you need to tell us that, we have already THIS to talk about.(Trampton 04:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)).[reply]

That is really sick that someone would put that on this article. One, it is about a 17-year-old CHILD (not an adult) and two, it is not relevant to an encyclopedia. Not to mention that it's nobody's business anyway. Stephe1987
If she's having sex, has secondary sex characteristics like breasts, and is capable of reproduction of babies, then she's NOT a "child". She's a young adult. A "minor" in legal parlance (unless she's located in a different jurisdiction where the age cutoff is 16 or 17). ------ Biologically-speaking, she is a fully-functioning adult capable of giving birth to the next generation. No longer a child. Please use the correct terminology. Thanks. - Theaveng (talk) 17:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From the childhood article: "Age definition of a child. In many countries there is an age of majority when childhood ends and a person legally becomes an adult. The age can range anywhere from 12 to 21, with 18 being the most common"
Sorry, but girls as young as 8 or 9 are "capable of reproduction of babies," some are having sex (in most cases it's from sexual abuse at that age, but it's still sex), some girls develop early (a full chest by age 11, not just anthills or whatever), and they're not by any means adults. They're children, in elementary school. Adolescence ends around age 20, and 17 is not an adult anyway. 18 is legally an adult. Sick people in this world like to write about teenage girls (or younger) loss of virginity on an encyclopedia. It's inappropriate, private, personal, and doesn't belong here. Even if Mackenzie was 30 when the article was written, it wouldn't belong here. I suggest whoever wrote this takes their perversions elsewhere. Stephe1987 (talk) 07:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MySpace[edit]

I removed the link to "Mackenzie's" myspace, as it was clearly not hers but someone pretending to be her. The pics on the site were pics of her in episodes of 7th Heaven, which I doubt she'd put on there (there was one that was quite inappropriate). The information that was on there was general information that anyone could gather simply by using Google. -- Crys —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.12.116.65 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Protected[edit]

...for a bit. Hopefully the vandals will get tired of not being able to vandalize. · Katefan0(scribble) 23:12, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • thank you for getting it protected. I was going to do so if I came home tonight from work and found it vandalized again.--Azathar 04:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Portrait position[edit]

Wikipedia's style convention is to display such images on the right-hand side of the page. No, this isn't an official "rule," but it's a widely agreed upon practice. There are no "rules" against displaying images upside-down, sideways, or at absurdly large/small sizes, but that doesn't mean any of these are good ideas. Please stop messing up the article, Kyla. Thank you. 66 dot 201 dot 174 dot 92 15:16, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have to respectfully disagree here. I don't think it looks that bad on the left-side of the page. Perhaps we all need to come to some sort of consensus for this particular article...?--Azathar 16:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well I agree with 66 dot 201 dot 174 dot 92. We have a consensus for the whole damn site, and that's for these pictures to go on the right (which is why this is the default). This is an encyclopedia, not a series of independent fan pages for Mackenzie Rosman and others.
I must say that both Kyla and 66 dot 201 dot 174 dot 92 should have done more discussing and less reverting. I share 201 dot 174 dot 92's position, but he/she was edit warring right along with Kyla. But at least 66 dot 201 dot 174 dot 92 consistently used edit summaries and didn't pretend that the reverts were minor.
I already had made my position clear, so I saw no value in "discussing" the issue further. I know that revert warring is discouraged, but I strongly believe that I'm right and Kyla is wrong. (And to be fair, I'm sure that Kyla believes the same thing.) 66 dot 201 dot 174 dot 92 17:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And now Azathar and I are reverting too, but we're also here discussing it from the get-go, and hopefully won't be warring. (I'll assume that Azathar is a separate individual, despite Kyla's apparent tendency to use sock puppets. But really, the whole "minor" thing and Azathar's lack of an edit summary when he/she actually moved the picture is quite suspicious.) 4.250.3.48 17:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Kyla is not using sock puppets, she isa clueless newbie and doesnt know how to change user names.
When I visit Kyla's user page, I'm redirected to that of Jessica Liao — an account that remains active. If she's currently using two different accounts to edit, how is that not sockpuppetry? 66 dot 201 dot 174 dot 92 17:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Also there has never been consenus to have all pictures ont he right. This is personal preference and not a consensus among the comunity. JobE6 17:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I never said that all images should be on the right, and I don't think that the anon meant that either; I said that "such images" (meaning those that accompany their respective articles' lead paragraphs) should be on the right. The lead (introduction) always should be on the far-left, and a left-hand image prevents this. Of course it's okay to place other images on the left. 66 dot 201 dot 174 dot 92 17:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not anyone's sockpuppet. The minor was an accident, as I was having a few hick-ups with my computer earlier, but I moved the image on purpose, to be able to make a comment and get some consensus for this specific article. So, I apologize for the minor edit summary. I like it (the image) on the left, just like Kyla, but I will follow the consensus if everyone else besides us thinks it should be on the right. Also, there is no official consensus for images, if there was, don't you think there would be an official policy listed somewhere? And it's he, not he/she, and not she, it's he. Lastly, if I was a sockpuppet, I would say I am a pretty elaborate one then; go and look at my userinfo. I am involved on multiple Wikis, all using the same name.--Azathar 05:35, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's nothing official per se, but it is the de facto standard that pictures at the top of articles are right justified. · Katefan0(scribble) 05:38, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but there is no official policy. a standard isn't the same as a policy. Again, I'm not going to change it, as it's a minor point, and not worth an edit war over. Perhaps a formal policy should be written up then, though not by me, since I don't agree with the right-align "standard."--Azathar 04:19, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Katelyn etc.[edit]

Probably not necessary to mention this, but just so my edit isn't taken the wrong way. I changed this "Her stepsister, Katelyn, who suffers from CF, recently underwent a completely successful double lung transplant." to this "Her stepsister Katelyn, who has CF, recently underwent a successful double lung transplant." I have never heard of a completely successful double lung transplant. Ever. Every tx I have heard of has some kind of complication, no matter how small. Because of that I think the 'completely' is misleading, so I deleted it. I tried to keep the edit from being POVish, while taking out the misleading info. --ImmortalGoddezz 04:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I heard that from somewhere too. It was probably a news source that said "completely successful", though there are always risks involved, and things don't always go as planned. Stephe1987 03:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Katelyn passed away on Christmas morning. I'm going to edit the article to reflect that. Stephe1987 (talk) 07:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You need a more reliable source than a fansite, MySpace, or what you "heard". Please read WP:BLP, WP:RS, and WP:V. Ward3001 (talk) 16:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dating Relationships[edit]

Okay folks, important decision here now that this young lady is officially "dating." Do you want the name(s) of her purported boyfriends in this article? Is someone going to keep watch to make sure it remains accurate? How will this be sourced?

I am going to delete the current report of a boyfriend under the aegis of WP:BIO and WP:V as it is an unsourced statement. Should someone wish to add it in again, please ensure it is from a reputable source - Perez Hilton doesn't count. Risker 05:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's an encyclopedia. My opinion is that her relationships shouldn't be on here unless she is engaged to be married. Or "domestic partner" or whatever (some people don't believe in marriage). Stephe1987 (talk) 07:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Child????[edit]

she is now 18 and is not a child. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.56.197 (talk) 04:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take the time to read the link to child actress in the same sentence, which states that the term applies to "an adult who began his or her acting career as a child". Ward3001 (talk) 04:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Religion[edit]

Should there be something about her Jewish backround? 122.104.144.50 (talk) 03:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mackenzie Rosman is not Jewish. See her family background here. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 15:22, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mackenzie Rosman. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 15:18, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mackenzie_Rosman&oldid=1202574681"