Talk:Louise Glover

Louise Glover Artical to be completly removed
Louise Glover Artical to be completly removed and never to have louise glover the model on here again. The whole artical need to be deleted, not re wored por re written the whole page is false info even the bbc has taken info from the daily sport and wrote wrong wording on her. this is braking louise in half. Can we please find a way to get this page deleted and never to waste so much time on her also.

The whole thing is written so negative with ridicules sources of information, who cares if you have links. why so many why repeat the same info more than 4 times...

You haven't even got her achievements on that page...

Does louise need to come on here to get this page deleted.

Can this be a legal matter to keep louise glover the glamour model completely off this site forever.

For example: Shes never had money from her family, she never lived in foster care, you added about a court case that article that court case was 2 years early then when they even wrote on it was just a hearing to change the order to London from st helens. And she has never been romantically involved with usher or rio ferdinand...

So it is liable, she is now a 34FF, not a 34c... she never been a 34c. she actually wasn't born in st helens. And you have missed out that shes now a professional published work photographer and all of herr 100 magazine covers and over 1000 magazine features. yyou missed all the tv shows shes been a big part of and you got a lot wrong that the ref's got wrong. she never been to israel, nor teached disadvantage children english. Everything on that page has so many problems with it I don't have the time any more to keep doing this. so the best solution is to delete her from here permanently.

You always throw the that shes been raped for all to see case on here which she dies when people say were they seen that. This place is the only place to see hat info on her as you keep saying anyone can write about her, which i think is very dangerous if you knew the half of whats shes been threw...

It's time to give louise glover a break, her break in her career that she needs. So please tell me how this can be complety deleted for good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lidia smith (talk • contribs) 01:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Have you got any sources to back up the assertions that are made? If the references have it all wrong, as you claim, somewhere there must be sources you can point to with the accurate information. —C.Fred (talk) 01:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Talk with louise glover herself, she is the living proof. She wants her name completely off this website for good, it's only harmed her career and her mental health. Plus it's ruining her life. This website has very poorly sourced and liable info its lost her loads of great modeling and TV jobs. I'm her manager and this is a fact, I get sent this link all the time saying that louise sounds like she's got too many dramas and quote what they don't like about her, they don't read the small print everything on here can be true or false, and thats what loses her the modeling work. I totally agree with the clients when they say that because I think that when I read the stories, but I totally disagree with the website because totally its inaccurate, the info is repeated and doesn't make sense every time I have been referred to this page.

It needs to defiantly asap be a deleted and ended debate for Louise's sake. Regards, Lidia. Thu 26th Feb 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lidia smith (talk • contribs) 02:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * As was pointed out to you on your talk page, if Glover has an issue with the article, WP:Autobiography has instructions for how to deal with it. —C.Fred (talk) 02:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

If she really has a problem with this stuff and what people are saying about her, then she should probably not act like such a stupid fool and commit all of these crimes! She seems to me to be a VERY dangerous person and the Judge at her February 15, 2010, sentencing hearing said that she has showed NO REMORSE for her criminal activities. I am willing to bet that she will soon be back before a court for violating her probation. Biggus Dickus OMG (talk) 05:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTAFORUM. We're here to improve the article and not comment on the subject, right? -- Neil N   talk to me  06:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Bisexual / Lesbian?
It's not referenced in the article, but it would seem to be of note. I just ran across some excerpts from a NOTW article citing comments from Glover about her romantic relationship with fellow model Leanne Carr. On a lesser note, there is also a claim elsewhere that she clearly appears in a same-sex adult photoshoot with other models. (talk) 21:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, Clublez isn't much of a source, I'd say, and please refrain from posting links to porn sites. Drmies (talk) 15:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

You can see I listed the other more reputable sources which that site quoted from above, and I did give warning about the latter (which you removed). --24.190.71.206 (talk) 13:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Style edits
I made a number of edits- all had to do with style issues- several citations were out of numerical order, others appeared mid--sentence (I moved them to the end). A couple of tweakings here and there, tense, etc. Nothing major.MStoke (talk) 21:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Husband?
The nightclub incident apparently happened because Louise accused the DJ of looking at her husband. There is no mention of Louise being married in the article. 81.158.175.57 (talk) 12:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you have any reliable sources that provide info about the marriage? -- Neil N   talk to me  16:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * She does state that she is married here. Does that count? -  thewolfchild   21:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Assault conviction
Errr ... I don't know from edit warring on it, but it's a solid fact reported by the BBC. Any reason why it shouldn't be included?  Ravenswing  15:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I would agree it's notable but care should be taken to avoid undue weight. I would include it. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I also agree that it should be included. Perhaps we can do without quotations from the judge's scolding -- generally scale it back a bit -- but I see no reason for total omission of this incident.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * This single item is a part of her personal life and belongs just there - under 'Personal Life'. It does not need it's very own section. -  thewolfchild   18:11, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I beg to differ. "personal life" is marriages, relationships and children. Criminal convictions are most definitely not "personal life".--ukexpat (talk) 18:38, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * No offence but, is that your opinion? Or are you quoting some wiki-policy? I'm sure you reverted in good faith but, I have reviewed some other celeb bios looking for this very issue and most of the ones I read had included any legal and/or criminal issues as part of 'Personal Life'. Some articles where the 'Personal Life' section was quite long and/or there were multiple legal issues, there would be a sub-section of 'Legal Issues' within the 'Personal Life' section. But even then that doesn't apply here as the 'Personal Life' section here is quite small and there is only one legal issue.


 * Further, having a section entitled "Assault Conviction" goes against WP:BIO section on Crime, as the more neutral  sub section of "Legal Issues" is more appropriate (in general, but not here as noted above). Your edit also goes against WP:BLP section on Writing Style, specifically Tone, as having such a section is an overstatement and Balance, as section headings must be neutral. So, due to all this, I feel my edit should stand.
 * Cheers! -  thewolfchild   19:38, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * i really don't care, have it your way.--ukexpat (talk) 00:43, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Um... ok. I hope you are not bitter about this (sometimes it's hard to judge emotion here). Anyways, this isn't about "having my way". I'm just trying to improve the article and have it conform to WP standards. No hard feelings. Have good day! -  thewolfchild   01:06, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request(s) from 94.236.137.135, 19 January 2011
Louise Glover

94.236.137.135 (talk) 17:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC) Louise Glover


 * Which edits do you want to make to the article? If you are trying to get auctoconfirmed, you must create an account. – ukexpat (talk) 17:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 94.236.137.135, 19 January 2011
User Fark Hi please unblock me

94.236.137.135 (talk) 17:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * That's not an edit request, it's a unblock request, which needs you to use the unblock template. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 94.236.132.42, 14 February 2011
Louise Glover

94.236.132.42 (talk) 11:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC) Louise Glover


 * What would you like changed? Dismas |(talk) 11:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Pls unblock me 94.236.132.42 (talk) 12:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Hi 94.236.132.42, from what I can see, you are not blocked, but rather this article is semi-protected due to high levels of vandalism. If there is a specific request for a change, then do explain it or use WP:RFPP to request the page be unprotected  Worm    TT   12:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Good article?
After making a minor edit (see 'Assault Conviction' above), I was considering making further edits (ie: adding subsection "Legal Troubles" to the "Personal Life" section and then adding the incident where she got in trouble for welfare fraud.) But, looking at the history of this article, I see there are a few contentious issues regarding content (items that shouldn't be there but are and vice versa). Further to that, I have found that many of the links in the ref list are dead (including a cite to support info about her "troubled childhood in foster care", the inclusion of which another editor has challenged). This article needs quite a bit of work to improve it and in the meantime, should it really be considered a 'good article'? Does anyone here (ie: ukexpat) have any opinion on this? -  thewolfchild  21:44, 24 July 2013 (UTC)