Talk:Louise Glover

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

text: WP:NOTAFORUM. We're here to improve the article and not comment on the subject, right? --NeilN talk to me 06:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Louise Glover Artical to be completly removed

message: 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)
thread_title: Bisexual / Lesbian?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Style edits 

message: 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)
replies: text: Do you have any reliable sources that provide info about the marriage? --NeilN talk to me 16:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: She does state that she is married here. Does that count?  - thewolfchild  21:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Husband? 

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

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

text: What would you like changed?  Dismas|(talk) 11:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  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 WormTT 12:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request(s) from 94.236.137.135, 19 January 2011 

message: User Fark Hi please unblock me 
94.236.137.135 (talk) 17:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not an edit request, it's a unblock request, which needs you to use the  template. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from 94.236.137.135, 19 January 2011 

message: Louise Glover
94.236.132.42 (talk) 11:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: What would you like changed?  Dismas|(talk) 11:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  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 WormTT 12:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from 94.236.132.42, 14 February 2011 

message: 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)
thread_title: Good article?