Talk:Jillian Lauren

Untitled
http://wtfpod.libsyn.com/webpage/episode-234-jillian-lauren if someone like to include this she also has a pretty interesting memoir(so i've heard) http://www.amazon.com/Some-Girls-My-Life-Harem/dp/0452296315/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1323363849&sr=8-1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paranoid Android1208 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Work as Prostitute
Seems to be a brigade set on removing information about Lauren's work as a prostitute. Perhaps they would care to bare their motives here so that we can avoid an edit war. As it stands I will be restoring the information that has been the target of malicious reversions. 122.148.227.2 (talk) 02:07, 6 May 2020 (UTC) - Really, I mean the article already calls Lauren a "call girl" and places her in the category "American prostitutes". It's her occupation. Instead you are going to obsessively revert my edits without engaging on the talk page here or on my user page. 122.148.227.2 (talk) 02:14, 6 May 2020 (UTC) Requesting that "prostitute" be added to occupation section in sidebar to align with information elsewhere in article; please change "Novelist" to "Novelist; prostitute". 122.148.227.2 (talk) 02:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * ❌ You already made this edit four times, all of which were reverted. Per the three-revert rule you appear to be engaged in an edit war. You should not continue to seek this change without consensus. This is clearly a controversial thing to add to the infobox of a biography of living persons article. I suggest responding to the numerous vandalism warnings on your talk page to learn how to edit more constructively. Further vandalism will result in your being indefinitely blocked from editing. —  Tartan357  (Talk) 03:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * - This is NOT vandalism because it is a good faith edit. It's also NOT controversial content because it's already featured and prominent in the article. I already have responded to the edits made to my user page and sought consensus or at least engagement, but the other users are behaving like bots, not providing content-relevant (only generic policy) reasons for their destructive reversions, not responding to my objections to their bot-like reversions, and, I would hazard a guess, hiding behind opaque policy to help them evade substantive discussion and retard any improvement to articles. 122.148.227.2 (talk) 04:06, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * - This is obviously not a good faith edit, as you know the other editors disagree and want you to stop. It’s controversial if it’s reverted. As the one making the addition to the page, you alone are fully responsible for ensuring a consensus is reached and the material is properly sourced. The other editors are well within their rights to remove unsourced material with minimal explanation. Even if it is sourced, you must first obtain a consensus here once you know that others disagree. Do not open this edit request again. — Tartan357  (Talk) 04:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * - I am doing my part to seek consensus by responding to talk page edits and providing reasons for my edits. As soon as I do? *poof*, bad-faith auto-reverters disappear and don't engage. I'm only "fully responsible" on my own for ensuring consensus when it's a consensus of one; if I need to get consensus from reverters then I need them to engage. But is it my responsibility to somehow mandate engagement from them with the content and content-relevant reasoning for the edits? This they have mysteriously declined to do. Also, provide a content-relevant reason why I am not to re-open the edit request or I will be seeking a third opinion. 122.148.227.2 (talk) 04:32, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * A consensus is only reached upon successful conversation with the community. For that, you often must be patient. See Consensus to learn how to achieve that. From what I’ve seen, you haven’t had any conversations with editors on this page, your talk page, or the editors’ talk pages. As for the edit request, you’ve provided no sources and are in a content dispute. Therefore, you must resolve your dispute with the other editors directly, and should be prepared to cite sources and be civil. I am a “third opinion” - I just came along because I saw there was an edit request and I have not been involved in the editing of this article. Anyone else responding to this request will tell you the same. — Tartan357  (Talk) 04:39, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * - Ah, I see, I "must "be patient", but users who revert on reflex don't need to take their time to consider and engage with the issue. Gotcha. Standards only apply to me, not to users with usernames and participation medals. Here is the skinny: I don't need to provide additional sources because the substantive content in the article is already sufficiently sourced. All I am doing is ensuring that the infobox accurately reflects the content of the article. It's NOT a content dispute. 122.148.227.2 (talk) 05:08, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Mention Occupation as a Prostitute in Infobox
This would be consistent with the body text and with the existing category tag, and is already justified by the same sources. It makes sense to mention that she is a prostitute alongside listing her occupation as 'Novelist' because the main substance of her most prominent work is an autobiographical account of her life as a prostitute. Given previous controversy relating to the matter I have elected to raise this on the talk page before editing. 122.148.227.2 (talk) 13:30, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * As in May, you still do not have consensus to add that to the infobox. It's not her current occupation, and the rest of the article adequately describes her background and the context of the writing. OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:48, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Given how eager other users always are to revert changes, it seems to me that a month without objections is at least indicative that there's no consensus against the change. While there are no sources suggesting that the subject of the article continues to engage in prostitution, past occupations (or past marriages, or past citizenship status) are not for that reason alone generally excluded from infoboxes, and given that prostitution is the primary reason for notability as a writer, it seems strange to specifically exclude this information. That it should be excluded because the information is presented elsewhere in the article is a line of argument that seems appropriate grounds for removing any or all information from infoboxes given that they are not to contain information not present in the article proper; surely the question is not whether the information can be found elsewhere but whether it is sufficiently important as to be included in such a summary. I have already explained why this is the case. I would appreciate assistance in forming consensus since I do not want a repeat of my last attempt to improve this article, when process and policy were allowed to get in the way of constructive editing.120.20.214.118 (talk) 23:16, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * So far, you have at least three editors (including myself) objecting to your proposed change to the infobox. I'm not sure what kind of "assistance" you are looking for. WP:DR outlines Wikipedia's dispute resolution policies and process. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 23:26, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Prostitution
I note that details relating to Lauren's history in prostitution are conspicuously lacking in light of this page's inclusion in prostitution-related categories. Perhaps it would benefit the article for more information to be provided. 122.148.227.2 (talk) 03:39, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * "Call girl" is mentioned in the first sentence. If you're interested in the details, you could read our article about the book, or better yet, read the actual book. OhNo itsJamie Talk 03:43, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

hello from Jillian
Hello. This is the prostitute herself saying thank you to the editors here, who refused multiple times to allow an entire life, and body of work, to be reduced to a single word. I stumbled upon this talk- I didn't even know they happened- and was truly touched. Also- MOM, stop calling me a hooker. JK, my mother has better grammar. Thank you for your diligence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jillylauren (talk • contribs) 00:15, 7 February 2022 (UTC)