It's like I always insist.

I think the writers and the actors have different perspectives about the characters than we do. They maybe go in deeper about the characters' motivations to do something, but that unfortunately doesn't translate well for anyone looking for some consistency with what the characters say, and what they actually do.

"She isn't manipulating everybody and she isn't manipulating everybody all the time."

And the superficial stuff (conflicts and sub-plots like the table thing) doesn't even begin to cover it.

Well the way the say she is lovely makes me think they are not talking about her mannerisms or the way she acts but the view she has on things and thus her personality(considerate, nice, unassuming, not pretentious). I don't see how that can go along with manipulative. I don't know how to explain myself.

Every episode is from a different show and from what I've seen both here and in other places, all episodes are judged by themselves and not by some coherent, non contradictory continuity.

Just a few episodes ago people were mentioning how manipulative Amy was and now she is lovely?

This is really late but the average viewer has, on average, identified themselves more with the character of Penny (the "normal" one, with "average" intelligence and "common" desires) and look where she is now?

Really late but no. He became that iconic character because of earlier seasons, and he was certainly not insufferable there. That the casual viewer doesn't care enough to notice the change of intent in his actions is a whole different thing. His awards aren't even based on the quality of his character but the quality…

Well this is late but not exactly? Both have the character 机 though, and it's used for stuff that fly, though if we think about it, fly denotes movement or change and both crisis and opportunity denote a possible change so there is that.