Talk:Work Out

Objectivity and redundancy
The middle section of this article is not only non-objective but also contains the exact same large body of stuff that's in the middle of Jackie Warner and makes it irrelevant. This should be trimmed down and the section should probably be deleted from the Jackie Warner page as the information more concerns the show than Jackie. -User: Cwilli201


 * I went ahead and deleted the bulk of the Work Out section in the Jackie Warner article and placed a referrer to this article. There are still some huge problems with this article, including (but not limited to):
 * We need Mimi's last name.
 * The writing is full of run-on sentences and bad grammar.
 * It is not NPOV.
 * --C-squared 06:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It's by no means irrelevant, and attempts to divert it to a page on Jackie Warner (who only has an article because of this show) ignores the fact that the whole scenario occured on and around the show Work Out. I have restored the info, as it is (A) relevant, (B) important (people come to this article to find out the facts about the controversy concerning the show and that episode and its full fall-out, rather than trusting online rumors, and (C) sourced with references. If it's neccessary to have it on the Warner article as well, so be it; there is overlap in all X-refed articles. Softlavender (talk) 09:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Mimi is never addressed on the show as anything other than Mimi (which is in fact a nick name and not her given name). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.248.208 (talk • contribs)
 * Surely, though, someone can find her given name, at least for a first reference in the article. Also, please sign and date your comments to this Talk page. --C-squared 08:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The one part in the beginning says, "such as her relationship with her girlfriend Mimi, an artist." Didn't they break up in the season finale when Mimi threw a glass at Jackie at a party? Also, the italics look incredibly... childish.-Babylon pride 16:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Obviously this article needs to be worked on, + Death of a former Work Out trainer
http://www.tv.com/work-out/show/59087/story/8329.html?tag=recent;featured;more;1&om_act=convert&om_clk=tabbedpod

I found this article stating that Doug Blasdell, one of the trainers from Workout, suddenly and unexpectedly passed away. And obviously this article needs worked on. I didn't watch the show much, so I can't help it out much. Is there anyone that watched the show that can help rewrite this? Tinkleheimer 02:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Doug Blasdell from list of trainers?
Just because Doug is dead doesn't mean that he is not part of the cast. He is still on the whole first and second season - so far.--Zeke72791 20:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Work Out As Seen Through Pop Culture Theories
This really does not belong in Wikipedia. It is original research and not at all encyclopedic (is that word?) in nature. OwenSaunders (talk) 02:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

How to block the users that repeatedly vandalize the article with lengthy term-paper / Original Research?
How does one block a user? These users repeatedly place their massive term paper on "Pop Culture" onto this article. Please tell me how to block them, or block them yourselves. Thanks! Softlavender (talk) 02:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not simple vandalism so it's best to just revert it and ignore. If its a single user doing extensive vandalism then you can give them warnings each time (using uw-vandalism) and after the fourth warning report them to Administrator intervention against vandalism where an adminstrator can review it and block if appropriate. Stardust8212 03:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Adding information to Wikipedia has never been vandalism. Instead of suggesting to block a user, how about suggesting a different place to put the information, Softlavender. Also, it is not a term paper nor original research.  Multiple sources were cited and give background for all of the information added.--150.135.66.36 (talk) 00:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It's definitely vandalism if it is irrelevant, doesn't belong, and has been deleted over and over with warnings six times only to reappear immediately. If you are one of the perpetrators (which I see you are), consider yourself on notice. Do not vandalize this article with that term paper anymore. Softlavender (talk) 11:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Vandalism is constituted as deliberate attempts to compromise Wikipedia's integrity. 150.135.92.25 (talk) 20:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)