:I'm afraid that you your tone is abrasive and you have come across quite rude. I can deal with that and do not mind trying to find a solution. However, these outlandish remarks, such as legal threats, alongside the latest are not a too appealing. I'm confused that you are claiming you have contacted the actress and talked to her. It suggests you are more involved with the subject than it was first thought. If it is any constellation, I have found Vasquez to be a believable and capable actress. But that does not really have anything do with it. I have edited subjects in the past that I may not have been particularly fond of. But that did not get in the way of neutrality. I strive to get it right, provide all the information - positive or negative - because we do not censor information on Wikipedia. We can write it in a manner that does not infringe or be seen as intentionally harmful to a living person. 

 :The reason some parts of the article read in present tense is because it is a work of fiction. When discussing the fictional element present tense is used because it is a work that currently exists. It can be watched again and it has not ceased to exist. I'd also like to point out that I acknowledged that Vasquez and George had worked closely together on the series. I pointed out that Vasquez and Fisher did not. 

 :I think you are taking this personally. Nowhere in this article does it imply that Vasquez is a "washedup, unprofessional, hussy". Vasquez and Bancks both discussed their own dynamic having an effect on their characters. The producers became concerned with the media attention to the characters and actors. When Vasquez had finished filming she said that her screen test was an accomplishment. She said it. We cannot rewrite history because she has changed her mind. If you have a source to prove that she has, then perhaps reword. There is no mention of anything untoward, anything sexual, defamatory, anything to suggest she is unprofessional, If anything, Bancks stating that they did not pursue a relationship because of the show - surely that is maintaining professionalism for the role. 

 : My conclusion is that I think you should focus more on this article. Not Vasquez. I'm not willing to endorse removal of content that in theory has a place in this article. I'm willing to see how the prose can be tightened and brought more into context with the character. I'm the first person to admit I'm not word perfect and I appreciate help if it means the article gains improvements. To finish, this certainly is not my article, I just added information to it. Any editor is free to edit it.