User talk:Mbinebri/Archive 3

Selita Ebanks

The claim at issue is sourced only to huliq.com, which does not appear to be a reliable source since its content is user-supplied and its claimed editorial process is entirely undocumented. I've added the appropriate tags regarding sourcing/sccuracy to the linked article you noted. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I've added a source to the Ebanks article. For future reference, when you dispute something that's not a BLP violation, the "citation needed" tag is the appropriate way to go in order to give time for a source to be found. Also, if you are going to dispute something, you should probably attempt to do a legit search. Sources for the Apprentice cast are very very easy to find.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 15:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Laetitia Casta's true height

Hi. I'm the person who keeps changing her height back to 1.69 meters. I have a link to an article where she states this as her true height:

quote

Roughly translated: "1.69 meters, that's my size. Sometimes people I meet in the street tell me 'Oh, I imagined you bigger!' And it's often the little ones who say it. It makes me laugh." This editorial is from Elle France, May 2004. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.218.145 (talk) 13:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see. You should have brought this up a lot earlier!  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 18:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about that. I didn't have the pic at the time and I thought it would be a pain to get, but it wasn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.218.145 (talk) 00:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Terri Lynn Doss

Hello. I see you put a tag for sources. I put a reference to the Playboy site. Hope that's good enough for you. Did you just not have the time to do it yourself?Openskye (talk) 20:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Mbinebri. You have new messages at Piano non troppo's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

January 2010

Welcome and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test on the page Marigona Dragusha worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox instead. Thank you. Please, dont remove Kosovo note from the articles. Kosovo note is used by this consensus (Talk:Šar_Mountains#Footnote_workshop) in all Kosovo related articles on wiki, due to Kosovo disputed status. All best, --Tadija (talk) 17:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC) Tadija (talk) 17:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the note, but next time please do not leave it as an automated warning; my edits were obviously not "test edits" and I'm not new to Wikipedia. That said, I looked at the discussion you linked to, and it seems to me that it's a discussion on wording of the note rather than a discussion demonstrating a consensus that the note should be used for all mentions of Kosovo. I would like to see that discussion, because I fail to see how such a history lesson is necessary in an article such as Dragusha's, and a quick search of similar articles reveals a majority of instances in which Kosovo is mentioned and no such note is present.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 19:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, first, sorry for automated notice, it was a bit of mistake from my side! :) It is not a history lesson, it was agreed that instead of writing Kosovo/Serbia, Serbia/Kosovo, disputed province of Kosovo, we just place kosovo note after word Kosovo. There is articles with no kosovo note, but majority of important articles have kosovo note. Also, i am inviting you to add kosovo note in ALL kosovo related articles, as that will be future of this note. Thank you very much, all best! --Tadija (talk) 19:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the barnstar - my very first! Oscroft (talk) 03:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome!  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 17:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

CFD page

Careful when you make comments at CFD! You accidentally removed content when you made a comment, which I've undone. Erik (talk) 15:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Oops! Right before I made those edits, my browser crashed and must have restored the page without all the text, without me realizing it. Thanks for catching that!  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 15:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Model image

As a model, image is an essential part of what makes Marisa Miller notable. Any interest in crafting a fair use justification to get one or both of the removed images back in the article?
It annoys me that an image already being used to show the notability of the photographer cannot also be used without further justification, reuse and recycle. I think there are probably reasons to justify keeping it. Being a Sports Illustrated model is a big part of what Marisa is famous for, I think it is fair to say appearing on the cover is a career highlight for her and other models. Also the cover image was not just any cover but one made into a massive billboard in New York. Flickr album showing the [Marisa Miller billboard]. I recall you went to some length to include notes about the iPod photo, also by the same photographer, so perhaps tweaking the caption to mention the photographer would again show its relevance. Part of why I went to the effort to find a picture of that billboard is that I'm thinking about asking the Flickr photographer if he might license it for use, but I recall a picture of another copyright picture has some complications of it's own, but perhaps the public display as a billboard gives us better justification to use the cover itself.
The Victoria's Secret image strikes me again as another career highpoint, she is not just part of an elite group of models but selected from among them for special recognition. The strongest point though is probably the Victoria's Secret Press Room itself. Their terms and conditions for use of the image:

Usage Rights

The images available for download on this website are provided for editorial use online in newspapers, news magazines, trade publications and broadcast media. Under no circumstances may these images be used for any personal or commercial purpose. Images may not be altered or modified except for sizing purposes. All images remain the property of Victoria's Secret and/or its affiliates.

All rights not expressly granted are reserved.

Am I being overly optimistic to say that sounds like Attribution required, non-commercial use allowed? Am I slightly misreading the legalese distracted by wishful thinking? It still amazes me how difficult it seems to be to get permission to redistribute what is essentialy advertising. I'll add this page to my watchlist again, let me know if you think we can get either of those images back into the article. Later. -- Horkana (talk) 03:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering how long it would take you to contact me about this, haha. Well, there are a lot of points to be made here. First, my planned solution to the photos being removed is/was simply to wait another day or so and put them back. Lol. "Drive-by" editors like this usually check back after a day or two to make sure there have been no hasty reversions and then it's a long time before you see them again—if ever. I've also dealt with this editor before, and he/she is very prone to going overboard in interpreting policies. This seems to be another example, considering that by strictly applying WP:NFCC#8 like this every fair use image on Wikipedia can be removed per it, so there are clearly limits, or else the criteria wouldn't exist. As for the Fantasy Bra photo, I do believe it's a valuable visual aid and if you agree, then that's the start of a consensus for meeting the criteria and keeping it. And yes, the fact that it comes directly from VS's press room site for the purpose of free distribution says a lot for allowing it, which is why I uploaded it. If it hadn't come from where it did, I wouldn't have bothered. I do have my limits in agreeing with what fair-use images should be used.

That said, I'm not crazy about using magazine covers or having two fair-use images in one article, so if the person who took that billboard photo is willing to modify the license to "Attribution 2.0 Generic" (the photographer would be credited in all uses), that would be fantastic. I can't imagine why the photog would object. It's not like he's making money off it. That said, the SI cover already has a fair-use rationale. You just have to go back a few revisions to find it.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 04:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I was also waiting to see what you would do but I'm less patient. The deletionists are running the place, this is to be expected but I've taken to reverting poorly explained deletions (i.e. no summary). There is an implicit consensus of editors who left well enough alone and others who made iterative improvements that the deletionists just shamelessly ignore. It is also nice to work with someone who has in interest in preserving and expanding an article, it is almost like how this is supposed to work.

I resisted the temptation to revert his edit for failing to explain NFCC#8 and just assuming we'd know what those nonsense acronyms mean. It isn't a huge difference to put WP:NFCC#8 which does make it seem like bad faith admin throwing his weight around and pedantically enforcing rules. I'm less concerned about the cover, it's a good image but a great iconic image (like the iPod photo) but it does seem a bit mad that each reuse has to be individually rejustified from scratch. I'll follow your lead on the revert and try to expand the fair use justification a bit when you do revert the change. -- Horkana (talk) 17:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I actually consider myself a deletionsist—a "moderate" deletionist, though, if there is such a thing. But I apply the concept to overall subject notability rather than content. I'd prefer to see stricter guidelines for what articles are allowed and who should be allowed to edit BLPs. But I digress. The editor we're speaking of is not an admin; just another editor trying to improve Wikipedia (this is WP:AGF working at its hardest). I'll restore the Fantasy Bra photo for the moment and just explain that it is a valuable visual aid, thus meeting NFCC#8, or at least warranting discussion on the talk page. Have you emailed the photog of the billboard? I have a Flickr account, so I'll contact him right now and do a little groveling to see if that works!  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 21:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Deleting although sometimes necessary it is a lot easier than, making the effort to ask for a citation and wait a bit, or actively rephrasing or hunting for alternative sources. Despite old information being available from the History, deleting is very severe and out of sight is out of mind, where's content marked with a citation stands at least a small chance of being improved. Some some editors are very good at summarizing verbose articles while retaining important details, turning lists into meaningful prose with an overall flow but I wouldn't consider that deletionism just top quality editing.

Haven't asked the Flicker photographer now, will do soon. Will try and bulk up the fair use descriptions. -- Horkana (talk) 21:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It's true that tagging info with {{Fact}} takes a bit more effort, but yeah, I would agree that people need to make that little bit of effort more often, especially when the info is not libelous. I've seen editors who vehemently defend their right to remove immediately whatever they feel like removing, and I don't find that to be in the spirit of Wikipedia. As for the photog, no need to ask. I already did.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 21:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Didn't want to say it at the time and tempt fate but the provenance of the Hurricane Katrina Fashion relief picture seems far more dubious to me than either of the two images the killjoys removed from the article. I'm dismayed by the whole process, but might try again with another image from the Victoria Secret Pressroom if something suitable comes available.
By adding the Perfect 10 cover image I probably risk another deletion happy editor removing it from both articles but so be it, in modelling being on the cover is supposed to be pretty notable.
Going to make more edits, read in some articles about Marisa's family being nurses and it mentioned in passing as a career she might have done. I'm undecided about adding it in under personal life (where a possible career goal of being a sportscaster is mentioned) but I'm leaning to include it with early life. There are other things I want to try to finish and improve in the article and others before I give up editing Wikipedia entirely and focus on other interests but I'm glad to know you'll be about keeping the Marisa Miller article in good condition. -- Horkana (talk) 05:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

A lot of model photos are dubious as far as I'm concerned, especially the photo in Bar Rafaeli. It wouldn't surprise me if that Fashion for Relief photo wasn't really free either. Oh well... it's not like it's harming anyone. But then again, neither was the Fantasy Bra photo. I can't say I support the Perfect 10 cover's inclusion too much; something like SI is truly notable whereas her Perfect 10 work in the end is an extremely small part of her notability—it's pretty much never mentioned in interviews or bios, although that might be by design.

I remember reading about Marisa and nursing before. I can't remember where though. Why are you leaving Wikipedia?  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 13:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh damn, it looks like I'm being the deletion-happy editor this time! I feel bad about it, but after some thought and a few emails from friends involved in running an old Marisa fansite, I just think using the photo emphasizes her career as an amateur model too much when it's basically irrelevant to her notability. The SI cover or the FB shot are defining moments, which is why I supported their inclusion; I can't say the same for Perfect 10.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 14:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I bookmarked an article somewhere, think it might have been Complex magazine, but there are plenty of articles on her mentioning nursing. I'll get to it over the next few days.

As for leaving Wikipedia the idea of having to patrol every small edit to try and get it to stick, the prevailing attitude of delete first would be the main thing. The lack of automation would be another systemic problem I have with Wikipedia. Trying to fix things on wikipedia feels a lot like a subtle version of arguing with people on the internet. It is just not fun for me.

My notion of Wikipedia as a place where you'd add something and others would help improve it (mark it with a citation first and try to help find references and then delete after efforts have been made to improve things) does not at all match my experience of it. A million monkeys on a million typewriters would be much better off if they had spell checking, grammar checking, basic style checks. Wikipedia has so many rules and they are so narrowly enforced it does not feel like consensus at all, more automation to widely enforce the supposed consensus would be good.

I really should be focusing on work and other aspects of my life, and and I've concluded that the the little creative expressive needs satisfied by editing Wikipedia would be better served by programming or even writing a blog (and there's always public speaking or debating if I feel like I need to have a good argument). I aim to give it a month, clear out a backlog of things I've linked and then restrict myself to rare anonymous edits or none at all after that. -- Horkana (talk) 14:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I might take another shot at rephrasing the article to be a bit more like it was before, in the way that it noted her "atypical career path", not overly hung up on that image, would ideally like the article to have two images which effectively summarized both Sports Illustrated and Victoria Secret, I think her SI cover/billboard and the Fantasy Bra picture would have done that nicely.

If the cover image was better described and tagged readers should be able to find it easily without my having to add it directly to the article, might do some work to improve that instead. Shame the idea of a properly tagged semantic web hasn't gotten more popular.

I might repeat this comment on the article talk page. -- Horkana (talk) 14:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Finally got around to adding those details I wanted about Marisa Miller and her family all being nurses. That will probably be the last of my edits to the article for the forseeable future. I had vaguely considered creating a Wikiquote page for Miller, I probably won't but if I do give in and start even a short page I'll add the wikiquote template to the article.
Oh and it seems like Template:External media might be the appropriate way to get around some of the draconian unfair use bullshit, or at least a way to make one last effort to salvage something out of the work put into the earlier image files and their descriptions. -- Horkana (talk) 04:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Unnecessary movement of pages

Hi Mbinebri, just to inform you that the article Shaariibuugiin Altantuyaa which you moved to Murder of Shaariibuugiin Altantuyaa[1] last year since the subject was not notable beyond the murder trial has recently had the move reverted back to Shaariibuugiin Altantuyaa again [2], apparently the editor/mover claims that having "Murder of" makes the heading NPOV even though all the news article refers to it as a murder. I wouldn't mind that as much if the information from the talk page was transferred as well (which is wasn't). I'm starting a subtopic on the talk page [3] questioning the move as well as nailing down how the article should be named, would appreciate if you can leave some comments since you initiated the move originally. Trying to avoid what I think was the 2nd purpose you made the move, since both these articles used to co-exist in the past, and at this rate a 2nd page may emerge again. Zhanzhao (talk) 03:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The move was clearly inappropriate based on the stated rationale, although the editor surely meant no harm. I responded on the article's talk page.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 04:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Do please see Wikipedia:ASF#Article naming. We can proceed on from there with discussions on the article's page itself. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 08:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Mbinebri. You have new messages at Wifione's talk page.
Message added 21:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 21:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi :)

Hi Mbinebri :) I posted a new proposal for discussion here at the Village Pump. Would appreciate it if you could leave your comments. Thanks ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 04:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Because of a few situations in dealing with "suspect" admin behavior in article disputes, I think I know where you're coming from. That said, I think your proposal was doomed from the start. There's no way admins are going to approve the restriction of their editing powers in articles where they've taken administrative action when it's likely they'll have to make additional edits to comply with various policies as well. Articles that demand admin attention usually demand simple editing attention too, you know?  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 15:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have to agree with you. One could be the devil's advocate and therefore work towards cleaning out the grey area in WP:UNINVOLVED instead. Irrespective of that, thanks for your comments :) Regards ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 19:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Supermodel

Hi,

I'm not obsessing over Adriana Karembeu being or not being a supermodel, but the fact is that, at least in Europe (France, Italy, eastern Europe), she is widely accepted as being one. I guess that might example of the fact that the "supermodel" (or, in some countries, "top-model", which is the same thing) term is loosely applied, and is not as restrictive than the "big six" concept would lead to think. I figured that Getty images, as a professional source, would be acceptable, though I'll admit that I did not search for long and used the first source which looked acceptable to me. I'll add a quote from a magazine ("Stratégies" is a professional magazine about economics, business and marketing), which I guess will be better. cheers, JJ Georges (talk) 08:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Please clean this up if possible

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tahmena_Bokhari

I dont know how else to write this.. so if you could help clean it up... thanks --Sonisona 06:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonisona (talk • contribs)

It took me forever to get around to it, but I cleaned up the article. If you have any questions about why I did this or that, feel free to ask.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 03:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Marisa Miller Fantasy Bra.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Marisa Miller Fantasy Bra.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. ÷seresin 01:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

So much for "fair use" policies...  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 16:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi - Please help needed for clean up

Hi Mbinebri,

You have marked this article - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayesha_Gilani

as needed to be cleaned up, I dont know what else to add or clean up.

Please would you help me. Thanks --Sonisona 14:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonisona (talk • contribs)

I tagged the article for inconsistent citation style. That's something you can easily do yourself. The article already has a references section, so all you need to do is convert the bare links within the article to proper references using a basic format like this:

<ref>[URL Name-of-article]</ref>

In other words, between those brackets, just insert the web address followed by a blank space, then the name of the article. This will automatically add the citation as a footnote. Give it a shot! Also make sure the source is reliable per WP:RS.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 17:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Insults

Why are you calling my legitimate information vandalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Graytoday (talk • contribs) 20:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

First off, please assume good faith. Tagging edits as vandalism or unconstructive should not be taken as an insult. Second, an editor before you made a highly inappropriate edit to Kylie Bisutti. Rather than revert it, you contributed to it and the only other addition you made was sourced to another Wiki article. I simply reverted the entire thing as vandalism because that's what it mostly was. No offense meant. You might find it helpful to read WP:BLP and WP:RS.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 21:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Grace Sharington

Dear Mbinerbri;

Just wanted to know that this information actually comes from a very good source, and I will add source materials (references, on line info) within the next few days. I will also ask Ms. Sharington to authenticate the info (if that would help?). I hope I did this correct? Jeteye (talk) 03:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Be careful of WP:COI and WP:V policies. When an editor is involved with the subject, it often leads to POV writing, unsourced info, and unencyclopedic material. I feel the article is suffering from these problems. As for what Sharington herself can authenticate, it's kind of moot. The article requires third-party sources for verification, not the subject's input. If material can't be verified in such a way, it shouldn't be included.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 00:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Mbinerbri. Yes, I concur, I would like to post a non-biased edition that is NOT from my POV. I concur that 3rd part reference materials need to be sourced and have asked the subject to provide reference materials (magazine titles, dates, articles, videos, 3rd party review, etc.) that she may have knowledge of or in her possession. I do not want to slant this in any way, but do want to list facts and facts with corresponding backup materials where available. Thank you for your advice and guidance. Jeteye (talk) 18:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

If you feel subject is not worthy to be in Wiki due to not having high enough celebrity status, it is OK to remove. Jeteye (talk) 13:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't lose heart. Even if the article goes to AfD (Articles for Deletion), which looks likely, you have the opportunity to argue for the article being kept.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 16:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Linking and overlinking

I happened to see a discussion you were in about Wikilinking. As a former webmaster for a large online knowledgebase, I regularly encourage linking as infrequently as possible, for reasons of utility. Quite apart from WP:LINKING, there are pragmatic issues.[4] Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 13:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to your essay. It never occured to me that linking frequently only decreases the likelihood that people pay attention to the links, and that linking less frequently can put a greater emphasis on the terms that are linked. They're good points, although even in light of your argument, I would still say ten links per page seems rather small. My linking in Munn's article was only meant to link terms that define the subject, which I always found appropriate to do.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 00:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Unfortunately the two online knowledgebases for which I did webmastering were about product-specific troubleshooting, and so are not necessarily completely, directly applicable to general subject matter such as Wikipedia. More than ten links per page might have strong utility in some situations ... for example where a reader is likely to be in unfamiliar intellectual territory. The example that comes to mind is an ancient city, where there was a recent flurry of headline news, due to its association with Atlantis. Updating the article, I read many of the links, and I suspect other readers did the same, because there were several obscure aspects to it. That all said? Lacking statistical reports on Wiki clickthroughs (which I have asked for, in a number of settings), and being — within reason — a betting person, I'd wager that there vanishingly few Wiki articles where 30 links increase the number of clickthroughs over 20 links. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 14:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Please clean this up if possible

Hi Mbinebri, Can you please check if teh references we put according to what you wanted them to be. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonia_Ahmed Can you then remove the statement you add. --67.204.3.201 (talk) 08:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mbinebri, Would you please help clean this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonia_Ahmed Please advise. Thanks --Sonisona 10:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonisona (talk • contribs)

Help with disagreement on the Bradley Nowell article

HI there, I'd like to request your help and mediation. I feel I'm not able to deal with http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bradley_Nowell&action=history. Regards, --Robby.is.on (talk) 12:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Is the issue just the way the songs are being described? Maybe I didn't go back far enough in the page's history, but it seemed that's what the issue was, so I simply removed the descriptions. They're unsourced anyway, as I said in the edit summary, and not vital to the article.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 16:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that was it. Thanks, I hope that settles it. --Robby.is.on (talk) 20:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Please take a look at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Victoria%27s_Secret#Christensen.2C_Mulder.2C_Seymour.2C_Pestova.2C_North.2C_Casta.2C_Lima.2C_Pestova.2C_Ellingson.2C_Iman_.26_Heatherton —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.194.35.225 (talk) 15:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

What do you want me to comment on specifically?  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 18:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

The reliability of the fashion show credits as well as the other source given. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.194.35.225 (talk) 11:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I literally spent the last ten minutes on the VS talk page and couldn't think of anything to say. I feel I'd just be beating a dead horse. I'm not thrilled about using Facebook or VSAA alone as sources. We need secondary sources.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 01:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Grace Sharington

An article that you have been involved in editing, Grace Sharington, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grace Sharington. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -- WikHead (talk) 20:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for helping this article attain and retain its WP:GA status.

This user helped promote Victoria's Secret Fashion Show to good article status.

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

doutzen

why did you redo my edit on the doutzen page? ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.121.23.20 (talk) 18:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Was your edit the one that inserted "a guy who thinks he's Dutch" into the article? That's a rather unconstructive edit. If he's not Dutch, then feel free to remove the claim with an explanation in the edit summary for the change.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 19:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

BLP unreferenced vs. BLP refimprove tags

Hi, when working on BLP unreferenced articles, i came across your edit adding BLP unreferenced tag to Jennifer Lawrence article. There is a reference in the article, the IMDB external link, and general references in the form of external links are acceptable according to some policy (i think it is wp:CITE). So the BLP unreferenced tag is technically incorrect. Could you please use {{BLP refimprove}} (or equivalently {{BLP sources}}) and/or {{nofootnotes}} in situations like this, going forward? Otherwise you and i and others will be working at cross-purposes somewhat. We are all trying in general to improve referencing of BLPs, but i and some others are trying to correctly label whether articles are completely unreferenced vs. inadequately referenced. Thanks! --doncram (talk) 15:38, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the note, but I'm afraid we have opposing views in this specific instance. Call me a "literalist," if you will: to me, in such a case, an external link is an external link and a reference is a reference. IMDb provides no reliable coverage, which a proper reference would, demonstrates no notability simply by existing, and is accepted (and used almost universally) as an external link. In other words, the article is literally unsourced in terms of what sources are largely meant to achieve. If there were multiple links in the EL section that were clearly being used as references in the absence of knowing how to format them, I would have of course used the nofootnotes tag. But in light of the new the BLP PROD process, I'll put a little more effort into finding a source or two to make sure the appropriate/inappropriate use of the unreferenced tag is a moot point.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 16:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)