Talk:Vanessa Fox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography / Arts and Entertainment (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group.


If you, Vanessa, find this page, please help us by answering the questions below. (Other editors, feel free to add to the list.) Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 11:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

  1. What is your year of birth?
  2. Can you a provide a list of news appearances or references to reliable sources? We've got primary sources. We are looking for secondary sources.

Hi there,

I was born in the fantastic year of 1972. I'm not sure what types of sources you'd like, but here are a few things about me and stuff I've done:

Vanessafox 20:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC) vanessafox

Thanks, and good work finding this page so quickly. The sources are very helpful. We don't know who owns your userid, so could you possibly publish your year of birth on your blog so we have it in the public record? Jehochman (talk/contrib) 20:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

whatever happened to the concept of WP:NOR How on earth can a google employee possibly merit inclusion in an encyclopedia? How is she notable? (talk) 23:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC) sorry i meant ex-google employee!!!! (talk) 23:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Verifying a 'Fact' by Having The Subject Post Said Fact in Their Blog!?!?!?![edit]

Are you kidding? The notability of some of these bio stubs are so unbelievably questionable. Why does this person have an entry? And how is asking them to post something in their blog verifiable? Where is the third party in that equation? Pathetic. And people wonder why Wikipedia is regarded as such a disreputable source of information. Because the admins are self-serving and self-congratulatory, and generally believe that they are more important than anyone else. So infuriating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


Why do these Google employees keep getting their own 'articles'? Why are you allowing that? i agree with the previous poster, you admins are way too [REDACTED] and pretentious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I think [REDACTED] and pretentious editing would be an improvement to the article. As it is now, no one's enjoying it. Flowanda | Talk 03:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Administrators do not "allow" or "disallow" things in articles. We have no special powers over content. Admins have a few extra tools to help maintain order and promote collegial editing. This article is very disjointed because multiple editors have worked on it without much coordination. Flowanda seems to be working on some of the glaring problems. That's great. Jehochman Talk 04:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
There are plenty of articles that establish Fox' notability, titles and expertise:
I included them here because I don't think they're needed in the main article as Fox is usually being quoted as a spokesperson.Flowanda | Talk 17:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
The question was about the editor, not the edits. Flowanda | Talk 05:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

July 2008 editing[edit]

The edits I'm making to this article may seem messy, but rather than overhauling the article in one big edit (which I don't have time to do), I've tried to do one thing at a time and stay within the current content for now. So far, I'm removed duplicate information and nn content, reorganized some of the info and rewrote the intro, but tried not to disturb content that wasn't being edited. Probably not the typical wiki editing process, but even in this messy state, the article is probably in better shape than it was and the changes easier to see and discuss. Flowanda | Talk 19:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

August 2008 editing[edit]

I have made a couple of edits at the request of the subject that I think were non-controversial.[1] She is concerned that the article should be accurate because readers are copying the info (as Wikipedia hopes they will!). Jehochman Talk 07:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)