In reference to this and an earlier edit, Muppet Wiki is a community project, and historically, a majority of decisions have been made based on a group consensus. Changing something just because one person doesn't like it isn't exactly a good reason for change, but it helps if it's grammatically incorrect or doesn't follow our policies.
Red links are an indicator that an article doesn't exist yet, but may soon be created, or needs to be created. Not every red link will get an article, it's usually up to the discretion of the community. The handful of cases that led me to leave a note here were situations where an article was forthcoming, and a few of them had literally just been added minutes before you removed them (indicating that you observed their addition). If you're not sure, you're always welcome to ask.
Also, on occasions when redlinks are removed (most often by admins), an explanation is left in the edit summary, usually for one of the following reasons:
1. The link is leftover from a clean-up or deletion.
2. The person isn't relevant to Muppet Wiki (no connection at all or tangential like crew of a talk show the Muppets were on).
3. The field isn't one we really cover (i.e. we narrowed the field on dubbing actors to those with identifiable roles and not "additional voices" and don't usually make pages if someone only dubbed a human cameo either).
4. Absolutely no info on that person can be found online and in reference books beyond a single credit (not enough to build a page; either obscure or sometimes child actors and such whose only credit that was), decision usually made either after a discussion or an editor has taken the time to do the research and can't find enough material for a page (or it's one sentence on a co-writer or spouse's page or somesuch).
Hi, when proofreading transcripts, they should reflect actual dialogue. Some of your changes don't match what's spoken, or the punctuation doesn't fit the actual delivery of sentences. So whenever possible, please check the actual episode first (nearly every episode is on Daily Motion or elsewhere). Thanks!
Hi Thomas! Thanks again for all your excellent proofreading.
I'm not sure edit summaries like this are really necessary though, are they? As per your instruction, I did look the word up, and I think either/or works there. Jonathan might have clicked a quick rollback on the edit as part of a quality sweep admins often make through Special:Recentchanges, I don't think he meant anything malicious by it.
Also, as the one who wrote the passage, goony was the word I chose (both Fontaine's Silvoney and Crazy Guggenheim fell into that category, with heavy implications of mental oddness which goofy doesn't always have). It's a choice of a different adjective, not a typographical error or lack of knowing definitions.