Talk:lonelygirl15

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

Daxflame[edit]

How come Daxflame can't have a wikipedia page and lonelygirl can? Somebody please explain this to me.

Answer: Because you haven't made one yet? It's wikipedia. 24.10.118.175 21:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think either of them deserve Wikipedia pages, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia not a collection of Internet memes. --RucasHost 00:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WTF??[edit]

I'm the one mostly responsible for the big cleanups (I've been on several different computers), but every time I come back I find it either mysteriously reverted to a half-finished article, or with large sections randomly cut out, and yet with no new entries on the edit history log telling me how it came to be that way. 75.46.39.88 10:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

welcome to the joy of shepherding popular articles. See also the article on Yo yo. -- brain (talk) 13:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the Stalin-like regime of Wikinazi admins, who just make everything that does not fit into their world view vanish from reality. — 188.100.192.146 (talk) 08:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Massive Cleanup[edit]

Whew. I just orchestrated a massive cleanup and update of the LG15 page. I made it as relevant to the topic as I can, since LG15 is now a web series in its own right, and I trimmed the ginormous play-by-play of how it got discovered to be fake over 2 weeks in September.75.46.39.88 06:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I just came in to have a look after not visiting this article since the fake debacle discussions and I was so pleasantly surprised! Good job!. 80.202.101.103
Another cleanup seems in order. I look through this and so much information (especially about the hoax aspect) is just repeated over and over in different sections of the article. I understand that people feel strongly about this, but please read through the article before you post information that is already there! --64.9.61.201 01:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, perhaps I am missing something here, but this article seems to refer, time and again, to people BELIEVING this stuf? Looking at the plot description, I just cannot see how this could be. It is described as something notable for being realistic and believable enough to fool the public, yet it seems like only those with the mental maturity of kids that still believe in Santa Claus could possibly confuse this plot with reality. Thus, it just seems a tad too much like blatant advertising to me. Being from the field of market research and advertising, I am inclined to see this as a viral marketing ad, not a legitimate article. 128.195.186.29 13:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)Adieu[reply]

An explanation in brief: many people believed it was real until August-September of 2006. The early videos were just her and her friend Daniel in her room talking about their lives. The strange plot elements like the evil cult and all the murders didn't start happening until after it was revealed to be fictional. Perhaps the article needs to be improved to make this clearer, but you can verify this explanation in the sources pretty easily. --JayHenry 14:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other Notable YouTube Celebrities[edit]

Lonelygirl15 is not the only notable YouTube celeb. As a YouTube member myself the only reason I am subscribed to Lonelygirl15 only so as to boost YouTube itself. As a result of LG15, many people have discovered YouTube.

I therefore propose to give all YouTube celebs, equal coverage here on wikipedia. Or rather the all time top ten celebs. All ten of them boost YouTube, but are famous in their own right in that they became famous through YouTube.

At the moment we only have articles on the five below.

I inserted the five above into this article unde the title 'Notable YouTube Celebrities'. Why was it removed? LG15 is but one of these ten and these ten should be a series in the following category

'Category:Internet celebrities' 'Category:YouTube'

(Chavatshimshon 17:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Why should these other people get free promotion on lonelygirl's page? I see no reason for this. Also who determines who is a notable youtube user and who is not. While those all have high ratings (and geriatric's fame is not disputed by anyone), but others could start randomly adding their own to get free YT publicity. I request we do not have this "other notable youtube users" on LG's page. It should go on the page for YouTube. Being popular youtube users, they would belong on that page. On lonelygirl's page though it's just excessive and redundant. 71.224.243.78 23:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Promotion on lonelygirl's page'. This comment denotes that linking relevant information in an article of the same subject is merely a 'promotional' ploy. The lonelygirl15 article isn't here as an exalted promotional that others of her type must be seen to be seeking attention through her. She is here on Wiki so people can read up on her, and the phenomenon of which she is part of. When I came I was glad there was something on her since I wasn't schooled in the finer points of her show. Now, the following point is not a guideline, but it is in Wiki's own interest that links to relevant subjects and persons be present to keep readers browsing an to present an overall encyclopedic view.
I still say why can't "other famous youtubers" be linked from the article on youtube? Meanwhile the additions of "lonelygirl spin-offs", which are MUCH more relevent, keep getting deleted? How are "Tips from a gay man" more related to lonelygirl than cassieiswatching?!Edit- Never mind, I see they've just been pushed below the citation. If you add me, they are still more relevent than the "other famous youtubers" and therefore should also be above the citation line. 71.224.243.78 02:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, this list on "famous youtubers" including LG15 is on the YouTube article, thanks to me. Yet, I still see all articles on YouTube Personalities to be in a class of their own, thus not just should they all be in the same 'category' but they should also all interlink. The LG15 spin-offs are relevent and should stay in the article even though they are being seen as mere adverts. If someone wishes to keep the spin-offs paragraph out, he should title a new discussion here. Deleting it is otherwise Vandalism.
This list really needs to go; the lg15 article is definitely not the place for it and if people keep adding to it it will soon be huge. I don't see what this list adds to the encyclopedic knowledge of lg15. There are clearly better places to house such information, such as the YouTube category, or even create a new category of the same name as this section/discussion title. -Lemike 02:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The list already exists in the main YouTube article. I think it should stay there and be removed from all the other YouTube-related articles that it's being mirrored in. As they are, all the lists are frequent spam-magnets; it'd be much more managable to just have the one list in the main article. WarpstarRider 02:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So can we come to a consensus here? Is anyone going to dispute its removal? -Lemike 08:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced with Notable YouTube users. It's out of date, but it gives people a single place to argue about all of them rather than on every YouTube user's individual page. --Siradia 03:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cassiewatching and future section[edit]

I think this section needs to be cleaned up. It just seems like an advertising section for cassiewatching with no real future speculation 69.181.251.112 18:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the cassieiswatching information needs very much to be pruned and cleaned up. Despite the fan overlap and the craving of "canon" status among some segments of ciw's fandom, ciw is not an element of the lonelygirl15 canon world. Its inclusion here should be passing and should refer to a separate article.

AfD on Jessica Lee Rose article[edit]

Jessica Lee Rose has been nominated for AfD. Please discuss whether it should be kept, deleted, merged, etc. there so that the issue can be decided officially and put to rest. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well the conclusion reached was don't delete. But I wanted to raise the point that an issue such as this is unlikely to ever be put to rest. As with any article, whether or not the subject merits an aricle usually changes over time Nil Einne 17:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True that. At least now people have less authority to say "clearly so-and-so is true regarding merging/deleting/keeping" because it's actually been determined by process. (As in, it's not clear at all as there was no consensus to delete and no consensus on merging/not merging.) — Saxifrage ✎ 18:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, strike all that. Apparently a non-admin "closed" the AfD outside of proper process, so it's still open and undecided. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Current event?[edit]

How long is the current event tag going to stay on? The hype surrounding LG15 has died down now. If she keeps adding videos forever, will the tag stay up forever? --Tim1988 talk 17:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I threw it on there when there was still a lot of speculation and uncertainty. I haven't really had time to follow the "event" lately -- has the truth solidified somewhat? I'm all for pulling unneeded tags, but I can't claim to have enough knowledge currently to say if it should stay or not. /Blaxthos 13:52, 23 September 2006

There's a fairly good chance this thing will end in a few weeks time (around 10-12-06). Regardless, it's unlikely that it will go on for a long time in its present form, as both the Creators and young actors presumably have ambitions to move into more traditional, better paying media. Mortal Wombat 16:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

A quick look at Google news shows some articles being written as recently as September 25th. But it's certainly on its last legs. - RoyBoy 800 03:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No disrespect meant whatsoever....but as an original fan of the series I just feel the need to point out that the series will have been running for over two years when it ends so...bad guess. As for it being a current event, I think it STILL warrents such a tag, it is still viewed by the masses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.117.40.112 (talk) 06:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the characters location?[edit]

Is the character, Lonelygir15 located in the US or NZ? Or elsewhere (not David)? Hahaha, sorry about the lame joke but where is the series set?--HamedogTalk|@ 05:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


It's set in the US, however both the character and the actress have spent parts of their life in New Zealand - Eilidh.

Bravo[edit]

I would like to congratulate the editors for their work. This is the kind of articles that make wikipedia a trash bin for imbecilic sub-cultures. You should be proud. Miskin 12:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He is right. I'm glad, that the German Wikipedia is more serious. - Nachtmahr

You mean that it contains more Wikinazis, and “MOAR ‘THE ONE TRUE WAY (MINE)!’”? Yes, I agree on that. Wikipedia is fucked either way, because retards don’t get, that when you can’t even prove that anything except for yourself actually exists, then terms like “unbiased”, “facts”, “neutral” “truth” or “relevant” become bullshit weasel words with no basing in reality and no point other than manipulation and fights for power of competing mindsets. Watching “average users” (who haven’t thought about this), is like watching monkeys fight over a banana. In-fucking-credibly primitive. — 188.100.192.146 (talk) 08:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

heh[edit]

You know, its funny... some girl posts some stupid videos on YouTube and it gets a Wikipedia article... And yet, a mysterious website pops up with a map with red dots over major cities and a countdown timer saying "eon8 is coming" and people panic, and it's article here gets deleted. Funny, a punk girl does nothing and gets something, and a researcher does something and gets nothing. Pathetic.--24.175.171.91 01:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by | Nebo - I wouldn't delete this article. It's interesting, and this "girl who posted some stupid videos" has achieved enough popularity to grow and become a sort of phenomenon in late pop/internet culture. You may find it pathetic, but it's worth a wikipedia article. (and "its" it's spelled without apostrophe) End comment

Whether you engage in personal attacks over spelling ( in an international site, no less ), making videos seen by a small fraction of a percent of the globe is not the definition of notability. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DigitalEnthusiast (talk • contribs) 19:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
The problem with Eon8 was that there were no credible sources about it. Wikipedia has to be a trusted source, not a listing of fads and rumors about them. There is enough published material about Lonelygirl to validate this article, whereas the only source for an Eon8 article (back then) would be someone going to the website himself and writing conjecture based on what he sees, which is personal research and isn't allowed as a source. Remember, Wikipedia wants to be used as a research tool and allowed as a source for school reports. --Asriel 17:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bravo[edit]

I would like to congratulate the editors for their work. This is the kind of article that makes Wikipedia stand out from other reference works. I was searching for an article under the name Lonely Girl but then a friend told me the fictional character's full online name. It's a good article. You should be proud. — BrianSmithson 09:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I second that </sarcasm> — 188.100.192.146 (talk) 08:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Popularity[edit]

I don't get it. Why is it so popular? I've read the synopsis and it doesn't seem like anything special.

Why is Paris Hilton popular? Why are there more different soap operas on TV than you can count? There you go. — Ashmodai (talk · contribs) 16:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Popularity is not the same as notability. The most popular people in my high school aren't listed in Wikipedia - this is an encyclopedia, not a comprehensive list of people or alter egos. DigitalEnthusiast 20:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is LonelyGirl15 still popular? wasn't her whole shtick about how a real chick would have such an unusual life? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.150.36.30 (talk) 23:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Spinoffs[edit]

Please stop adding links to "Unofficial spinoff sites". Per WP:EL, links not directly related to the subject of this article should be removed. An entire section dedicated to fan videos is entirely unnecessary here. WarpstarRider 06:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

gemmers19[edit]

Shouldn't there be something about gemmers19?

I'd say no. As it is now, Gemma (and now "Jonas") are just characters in the Lonelygirl story. They could have their own sections within the LG article, but as accessory characters there's not much information about them to merit their own articles. --Asriel 17:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you freaking kidding me?[edit]

Real articles about valid topics are being removed left and right, and yet wikipedia is now a list of teenagers with chatroom nicknames??????? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DigitalEnthusiast (talk • contribs) 19:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Did you actually bother to read the article? This has nothing to do with chatrooms or a real teenager, and the lonelygirl15 phenomenon received a LOT of media coverage at one stage. Nil Einne 17:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What, exactly, defines a "valid topic?" I've never seen any of these videos, but I can tell you without question that they are notable. If a "real article" is about a non-notable topic, then it should be deleted; otherwise, there's no reason not to have a WP article on it. I doubt you'll find many people arguing that this is not a "real article." -- Kicking222 15:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I truly believe this article is a waste. If you looked at a real encyclopedia this would not be in it. I understand the web allows an unlimited amount of space but this is ridiculous. I have seen many other articles that have been deleted but this can stay?. I have read the article and have seen that it is a notable thing but it is an internet meme. I think this ruins the credibility of this website. I vote it should go. I am not going to make any changes though, just voicing my opinion.

^I agree!-xwestsidex —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.31.53.164 (talk) 05:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't exactly agree with a lot of the reasons wikipedia removes some of its articles. I don't see why anything of even minor note shouldn't have a mention somewhere. However, even following the rules, this definitely belongs here. As has been mentioned before, there has been a LOT of media coverage on this, and a lot of people are going to turn to wikipedia with questions. Other internet only projects a lot less visible in the public eye, and few people think it's a good idea to remove webcomics or Creative Commons. Linkskywalker 02:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Condiering the amount of poeple who still believe the lonelygirl15 story, whis wiki artcile is needed to give information of the hoax and its discoveries QuickSpark 21.24 10/5/2007

Odd and unnecessary use of slang[edit]

This doesn't sit right in the article:

"She was fucked when she was 12"

I'm not suggesting that Wikipedia should any way censor the use of vulgarity: more that it should be mindful of where it is used. And in this context it is entirely the wrong place. Ironically (and pejoratively) considering the subject matter, one could almost suggest that the level of expression is atypical of a Youtube "user". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.139.89.181 (talk) 01:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Use of the word Parody[edit]

I have not seen the episode of Law and Order in question, but is parody the right word to use? It implies humour; the L&O series are not noted for their satirical content. 60.241.2.91 12:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, they're just known for having no original ideas and pulling every plot line from popular current events. If the line is still there I'll change it. --Asriel 04:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

subj111[edit]

Hello he he he G'night —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.141.92.25 (talk) 14:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Synopsis/Original Research[edit]

At the risk of sounding like I care about this whole lonelygirl thing more than in passing, the removal of the synopsis as "original research" vexes me.

Almost every article here about a movie or book contains a synopsis. How else would those be compiled but by original research? Do you have to source an article about the film in order to say that the film Rocky is about a boxer? Most popular TV shows have a page here with a list of episodes and a page for each episode, with a full synopsis. Someone watched the episode and wrote a synopsis. This is original research and should be deleted?

It seems, considering the popularity of this LG15 thing, there could at least be a page that lists all of the "episodes"/videos with a brief synopsis of each and a trivia listing for any hidden easter eggs or what-not. That way an outsider could get caught up to speed on the story without having to watch all 30 videos or however-many there are.

I think there are just some stodgy admins or frequent editors here that just REFUSE to believe that there can or should ever be a Wikipedia entry about "just a youtube user" and aren't realizing the significance of the whole false-reality fiction-through-vblogging phenomenon.

Not to get on a soapbox or anything, and I must disclaim that I haven't done any digging into why exactly the synopsis was deleted, but it seems like this article has always been treated with a double standard; and if a synopsis truly must be deleted, then nearly every TV show and movie article needs to have its legs cut out as well.

-Asriel 01:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I now see that "plot summaries" is actually included in the big fat list of things wikipedia isn't, so I'm apparently fighting a brick wall on this one. I don't see why synopses can't be part of a wikipedia entry if they can be brought to a neutral consensus, but rules is rules I guess. --Asriel 02:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There was already a spunoff page concerning the plot that was deleted for original research and was soon blatantly readded, which violates WP:SPEEDY#General_criteria number 4. As the AfD admin stated, the plot is original research, and yes so are all other plots, but your conclusion here is basically because one Wikipedia article violates policy on plot summaries, another can too. -- Wikipedical 06:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, the usual interpretation of WP:NOT with respect to plot summaries is that they are allowed if the article includes real-world context (thus fulfilling the "aspect of a larger topic" requirement), the summary is not overly long, and it is merely descriptive and makes no interpretive statements. WP:NOR allows for the use of primary sources for uncontroversial descriptive claims. This is the long-held consensus interpretation of these policies at WP:FAC, where a lot of articles about fiction pass through. In fact, it is generally held that a reasonably succonct plot summary is necessary for comprehensiveness, and that primary sources are fine (for the plot only) unless the plot is ambiguous or controversial. You might disagree with this interpretation, but it's the one under which most editors who work to improve on articles about fiction and most FAC regulars operate, and one under which dozens of featured articles on fiction have been reviewed and promoted, so it seems to have strong consensus.
However, most plot summaries on Wikipedia, incluing the one previously here, do tend to sneak in interpretive or analytic claims, often through the use of adjectives or adverbs that are necessarily subjective, or go into too much detail. It was indeed a bad idea to split off the plot into its article, and the previous summary did have issues with original research, so I agree with that deletion. That said, a condensed version of the plot summary, stripped of anything that could be construed as subjective or interpretive (e.g., "very strict" parents; according to whom? This type of description must be attributed to a character, the creators, or a secondary source), would not, in my opinion, qualify as a CSD G4 re-creation because it would not be "substantially identical" to material that was previously deleted. — TKD::Talk 08:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Current developments[edit]

It seems a bit odd to have a "current developments" section when the show just started in July - the whole thing is quite current. Better to just integrate that section with the rest of the article, no? Biruitorul 08:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree "current developments" is no good -- although perhaps a simpler solution would be renaming current developments as "After the Reveal," because it appears to be intended for information about the show after it was discovered who Bree really was. And, as an aside, this article is still chock full of original research. That sort of analysis is fine at the incredibly excellent LGPedia, but it's not appropriate here. The recurring themes and motifs section is particularly bad.--JayHenry 08:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm cleaning up this article, which is still rife with Original Research. I'm an administrator of the LGPedia and a big fan of the series, but I think this article goes way overboard in terms of what's appropriate for Wikipedia and what isn't. Although I'm an admin at the LGPedia, I have to say, it's a fan wiki, and I myself don't really believe it's a legitimate source for Wikipedia. At the LGPedia, original research is encouraged, as are purely speculative pages. But that doesn't translate so well to Wikipedia.
Furthermore, I see pages for most of the crew members have been copied directly from the LGPedia. Because of the different standards of inclusion, not all the information satisfies Wikipedia's standards in these pages. --JayHenry 20:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


From Wixy[edit]

I just did some farting about with the 'wordage' and added a couple of sentences here and there. Nothing drastic, just made things a little more accurate.

I can't see any mention on this page about the TM being registered. I take it I have just missed that part of the article?

Missing?[edit]

Why is there no information on the plot of the vlog?

I agree. There should be some mention of the plot (naturally with spoilers tags). This is consistent with other Wikipedia articles about notable works of fiction.209.59.32.184 07:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OR tag[edit]

This article needs some serious pruning - the vast majority of the cited sources are either the lonelygirl15 website or related videos on YouTube. These are primary sources, and don't constitute reliable sources. A synthesis of primary sources constitutes original research, which is not allowed here. I'll stop short of taking this to AFD again, but if the OR isn't dealt with, it may end up there again in the future (and I will see to it that the AFD is semi-protected to prevent the problems in the second AFD). --Coredesat 01:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:68.17.183.78 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search

I changed your note about the YouTube awards because it's inaccurate. I'm not sure why you believe lonelygirl15 is "professionally produced" but "Ask a Ninja" or the other series aren't. In fact, their situation is almost exactly the same. All are produced by aspiring entertainers who were complete unknowns before their appearance in their respective YouTube series. All of the programs are self-financed or earn their money through Revver. All have received some degree of fame and mainstream media attention. But your assertion that lonelygirl15 is "professional" and the others "non-professional" just isn't particularly accurate.

I would argue that the vlogs were revealed to be a production. If "hoax" is the most accurate term then why did it continue? And how is it my POV when the article said "She was revealed to be a fictitious character" -- which, by the way, wasn't written by me in the first place. --JayHenry 22:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The LG15 backers, from the beginning, are the Creative Artists Agency in Hollywood, which is a 200 million dollar Professional agency. That is where the Professionals come from. Professional advice, professional recruiting of professional actors, etc, etc. NONE of the other award winners have ANY professional backing....yet.

The reason that the hoax continued is that the people perpetrating the hoax are attempting to leverage the publicity surrounding the hoax in order to make money. If HG Wells had continued to broadcast fake martian landing announcements, the original War of the Worlds would still be a hoax. Cyclists who get caught taking performance enhancing drugs, and continue to compete, are still cheating. The fact that they continue the hoax, and until *very* recently didn't even tag their videos as being a commercial endeavour, does not change the fact that it is a hoax. 68.17.183.78 13:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC) 68.17.183.78 03/28/2007[reply]

No, your assertions are just completely incorrect. CAA started to represent lonelygirl15's producers after the show became popular. They didn't provide professional casting or professional actors. (In fact, the lonelygirl15 guys put out the casting call on Craigslist.) And besides, CAA is an agency, not a production company. You can read about it in the Wired Story that's listed in the references -- it explains how they came to be represented by CAA and how the show is produced. And lg15 people aren't the only who are now represented either... for example: "Ask a Ninja" -- if you spend five seconds doing a little research you can find out that they're represented by the United Talent Agency. --JayHenry 16:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are several prominent lg15 fan-fics with major followings[edit]

Should they be mentioned? cassieiswating and Carmen Electra were. some of them are: lordgreystoke422 itscassie and valleygirl15 (hollishillis).


They all have a large fan base. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KingK327 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

No, they should not. --Coredesat 23:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

nature of soap operas and mingling of media?[edit]

i have a theory, not sure if it's backed up anywhere 'official' about lonelygirl attempting to (and arguably managing) to change the way we view soap operas, blogs, and the relationship of the internet to conventional media.

however, this is only my theory and i'm not an accredited source. can we include it? i think it's valid.

MadGoldfish 00:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Updated plot?[edit]

The current summaries in this article have nothing to do with what is going on in the series now. There is nothing about the new characters or recent important plot developments, including the Hymn of One. TV shows have almost a minute by minute plot summary, but LG15 is still stuck in...last December?

Unanimous Keep or Delete?[edit]

I have to ask... The first vote on this article passed with "delete". The second vote, later in that month, was "unanimous keep". ...why was there a second vote? Should this article not have been deleted after the first vote? And if this article exists, then where's the article for the Angry Video Game Nerd? Where's the article for Armake12? Where's the article for all those other YouTube bloggers? Sorry, but I just...this just angers me. What's so special about this "Lonelygirl15" chick that requires she have an article here on Wikipedia when so many other articles of higher importence have been instantly nuked? ~ Joseph Collins (U)(T)(C) 09:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joseph, a lot of people have asked this same question. There are several reasons lonelygirl15 has an article, and some other people on YouTube do not. 1) lonelygirl15 is one of the top channels on all of YouTube. She has over 90,000 subscribers. Other very popular channels, like, Smosh or Renetto or Brookers also have Wikipedia articles. 2) lonelygirl15 has been the subject of a lot of attention: The New York Times has written about her several times, as have The Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, and the story of lonelygirl15 has been on many TV shows as well. The lonelygirl15 series won an award from VH1 and the actress in lonelygirl15 won a Webby and was featured on the cover of Wired Magazine. 3) The article was first deleted in August of 2006, before any of these stories had been written about lonelygirl15. But once lonelygirl15 started showing up on Jay Leno it was important to have the article to cover this notable subject. Hope that makes sense! --JayHenry 15:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It does, and I thank you for your explaination. Doesn't necessarily mean I have to like it, but still. I was more or less just hoping for a valid explaination. Which I feel I've recieved. Heh. ~ Joseph Collins (U)(T)(C) 12:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ITs only fair to Smosh if u delete the details and just say its a channel on Youtube! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.47.134.10 (talk) 13:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW: Angry Video Game Nerd. Who's Armake12? Morfusmax (talk) 18:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bot help?[edit]

There are quite a few links to LGPedia in several articles to do with lonelygirl15. However, a lot of these take the old http://www.lonelygirl15.com domain name. These do not work any more and should be changed to the http://www.1g15.com domain. For example, a link to 

http://www.lonelygirl15.com/lgpedia/index.php/Yousef_Abu-Taleb

should be changed to 

http://www.lg15.com/lgpedia/index.php/Yousef_Abu-Taleb

Maybe a bot could help sort this out. We obviously don't want broken links on our site ;-). --Leon Byford 19:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spencer and Season 1 finale[edit]

I removed a line in the character's bio stating that no one knew what became of him after the finale. Technically, no one knows what became of anyone after the finale, as season 2 has not yet begun. In addition, Spencer filmed the last video in the finale, so it is known that he was still present at the very end of season 1. If it is necessary to reinsert this sentence at some point, please place it after the footnote at the end of the paragraph rather than before (as it was when I deleted it), since it is not mentioned in that reference). --H-ko (Talk) 22:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

fictive - fictional[edit]

Do we have to use such an obscure word. I'm well read and very literate, however I had to look up this word to make sure my educated guess was correct. Ozdaren 05:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You’re kidding, right? You’ve never ever heard the word “fiction” or its variations? Sorry, but in that case you don’t even know what literate means, and all you are is… delusional. — 188.100.192.146 (talk) 08:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So is this show anti-religious? As in all religions or just this "the order".[edit]

I watched about half an hours worth of videos and I can't figure it out. Is the show anti-religious? Is the show anti-religious? Or... anti-creepy shadowy religions? Or what? Is it anti-religions that don't try to explain why they believe in what they believe? Whats the deal/scoop/plot? Just want to know, kinda agnostic myself but I believe that all beliefs that don't involve killing, cannibalism, suicide, or sacrifice of life are okay. "The Order" seems to fall under the "killing+human sacrifice" territory.

In one episode they celebrated Christmas, leading me to believe that one or two of them were either Christian or agnostic. But I don't know, so anyone have the scoop?

The Order is not any real religion, as have stated the show's creators. The Order kills girls with high levels of ribozymes in their blood, so that they can transfuse the blood with that of an Elder (the leaders of the Order). Since most people wouldn't sign up for something like that, the Order has two branches: the Hymn of One and OpAPHID. The Hymn of One is the recruitment branch, and supposed "religion." The Order is the secret society behind the Hymn of One. OpAPHID (full name: Operation APHID, leader's name: OpAphid) is the enforcement branch where they kill members of the Resistance. The Resistance tries to defy the Order. Daniel, Jonas, Sarah, Taylor, Spencer, and LaRezisto are currently in the Resistance (LaRezisto being the leader of the Resistance). Hope that helped! :) *silver*► 18:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that something is anti-religious is like saying it is mentally healthy, but in a bad way.
Religion is the worst, nastiest and most widespread (mental) disease on this planet. It’s a type of schizophrenia. And it should be treated.
Which would already have happened, if most people in power weren’t infected too. And if humans weren’t hard-wired to believe everything, if it is said with enough confidence, and hence would not let delusionally overconfident people oppress their sense of reality.
— 188.100.192.146 (talk) 08:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lonelygirl15, face of Web 2.0, dies at 17[edit]

From http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20199343/

Lonelygirl15, a cyberspace superstar also know by the offline moniker “Bree Avery” died under mysterious circumstances in a nondescript medical facility Aug. 3 in or around Santa Monica, Calif. while participating (possibly against her will) in some vaguely explained cult ritual involving DNA or something. She was 17 … or there abouts.

What??? Latka 00:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in the season finale, Bree's character died because she ended up doing the Ceremony which caused her to die. *silver*► 22:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does this mean we will not see any lonelygirl15 anymore?! HURRAY! 84.108.89.102 15:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, the other characters are still living and Season 2 has already started. Note that I said SEASON finale, not SERIES finale. *silver*► 17:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Bree died in an act of self-sacrifice to let her friends live normal lives". I've read this sentence about a dozen times and I still don't have the slightest idea what it means. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.28.41.215 (talk) 11:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

plot?[edit]

Someone has gone to the trouble of adding pictures and descriptions of all of the characters in the series, but without a "plot" section there's no indication of what any of the terms used to describe them mean. Please add a plot section! Luvcraft (talk) 21:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I came to this article to know what the show is about, and instead it has a bunch of useless information, none of which tells what the show is about. Is this even an article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.213.218.242 (talk) 16:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see no-one has bothered to add anything on this topic, but I'm just going to make a similar post to the above two, here - what the hell is this thing actually ABOUT? Seriously! There's absolutely no description of the actual content! What are the videos actually about? Why was it unclear if they were real or fake? The article sure as heck uses a lot of words, but it neglects to actually what the subject of the entire thing is. - 86.147.48.10 (talk) 21:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Concur. There are references ("TAAG", "The Hymn of One", "trait positive") that are left entirely unexplained. If this article is to remain, someone familiar with the topic should flesh this stuff out. Further adding to the mess is that the LG15: The Resistance article has a plot summary that carries on from... nothing. Tevildoii (talk) 07:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

brought back?[edit]

Didn't they bring back Bree? I thought I had heard that they somehow "faked her death" or some crap like that.

wikipedia and lonelygirl15[edit]

Is Wikipedia a serious and credible place to search information?.

Uuum, no? By definition of the “one global unbiased truth” pseudo-philosophy (rather: doctrine), they can not and will never have a chance to be credible. — 188.100.192.146 (talk) 08:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or, exist a rule to disallow to put localisms or temporary affair (useless in mid and long term) in the wikipedia.

--200.73.30.108 (talk) 15:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)--200.73.30.108 (talk) 15:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's serious only in certain parts. --TylerDurdenn (talk) 21:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

THIS ARTICLE IS COMPLETE BULLSHIT AND HIHGLY BIASED[edit]

I've never read anything as pathetic as this piece of crap. Oh wait, actually I did: a lot of Wikipedia is just like that. This is the cancer that kills your project. Before I forget it, it's biased in favor of those responsible for the hoax.

Sincerely, Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.85.239.243 (talk) 16:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A valid point. Also, did a Japanese dub come out in 2009 or not?

It did not.--Milowent (talk) 02:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know: It was NOT entirely fictional![edit]

It only became “fictional” after she realized that that was her only way to get out of the mess, and not be seen as a total nutjob. (Which she still is, btw.) I know, because I know her personally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.100.192.146 (talk) 08:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Lonelygirl15. 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: 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:37, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Lonelygirl15. 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: 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:13, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Lonelygirl15. 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: 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:06, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is or was[edit]

Quote from the article: DO NO CHANGE IS TO WAS. FICTION CONTINUES TO EXIST, EVEN IF PRODUCTION OF NEW VIDEOS FOR A SERIES ENDS

The series has ended, so it should be in the past tense to suggest that the series isn't ongoing. This is in contrast to non-serialized works of art, where the present tense may be appropriate. Maikel (talk) 19:17, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trait positive[edit]

Was this an invention of the series? What did this term actually mean or encompass? Maikel (talk) 19:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lonelygirl15&oldid=1199944430"