User talk:Vagenie1

Nomination of Angela Birney for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Angela Birney is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angela Birney (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

... discospinster _talk 16:48, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Vagenie1. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for article subjects for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Good day—RetroCosmos ^talk 17:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Susana Gibson

Hello, and thanks for your contributions to the article about Susanna Gibson. On October 10, 2024, I rearranged the content and added a few relevant facts. You reverted it back on October 19, 2024. I have started a discussion here: I hope you will come and give your perspective, and let's figure it out. Thanks. Pmcc3 (talk) 11:57, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Her notability, based on the volume of reliable sources discussing her, is not based on an NGO that is not even notable enough to have its own article. Vagenie1 (talk) 21:51, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that we discuss the article here rather than waste our time in a tit-for-tat series of revisions.

The introductory paragraph as you have reverted back today (10/27/24) is so poorly sourced, it will not meet Wiki's standards for Biographies_of_living_persons. Because of those standards (e.g. "must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion"), I have reverted it back to the version that I left when I invited you to discuss here; I don't think the version I left violates the rules for BLPs. If you revert it back without a good faith attempt to discuss, I will escalate to the Wiki gurus.

You have a point about notability, cf. e.g. Monica_Lewinsky. Note how M.L.'s wiki makes the notable point and then adds other relevant biographical information.

Here's some feedback on each sentence (S1, S2,...) of the version you reverted back to. In all cases the criticism is based on the sources cited. S1: 'sex worker' is inaccurate. (e.g. "tips" in one of the articles is in quotes indicating that they aren't real tips, I guess. The wiki article for sex worker does not describe anything like what the articles about S.G. describe.) S2: 'opponent leaked' is speculative and 'for money' is inaccurate. S3 and S4 are too much detail for an introductory paragraph. They should be further down in the article or excised entirely if redundant.

I hope we can discuss and come to some consensus of a mutually agreeable version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmcc3 (talk • contribs) 01:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not poorly sourced. If you have an issue with a specific fact, then please challenge it by opening a discussion in the talk page of the article. However, as far as I can tell, everything in the article is directly sourced meaning there is no biography of living persons issue.

Monica Lewinsky is a poor comparison - coverage about her since the scandal to write other biographical information exists. This subject does not have that kind of coverage. Vagenie1 (talk) 02:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

S1 - Business insider and a number of other sources have described what she did as sex work. If you wish to unlink the sex worker article, I suppose that could be fine. S2 - I've removed "opponent leaked" from the sentence; the "for money" portion is supported by multiple sources including the Washington Post. S3 - I think it is an ok summary of the incident but will not object to removing that specifically. S4 - It summarizes the content about the incident and speaks to its significance.

I think a four sentence introduction with each sentence summarizing one paragraph of the article body is appropriate. The introduction is supposed to be redundant with the article body. Vagenie1 (talk) 02:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. I wish you wouldn't continue to revert the page. I agree that this discussion is better located at the S.G. wiki than here. I'll carry on there and apologize for talking here. Pmcc3 (talk) 03:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Susanna Gibson for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Susanna Gibson, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susanna Gibson (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]