User talk:Mbinebri/Archive 4

Rosie_Huntington-Whiteley

I noticed that you had been maintaining the Rosie Huntington-Whiteley article after your discussion that drug usage type information was appropriate if mentioned in published articles. Someone has sanitized the article since then. If the sanitization is reversed, please place in the change comments a mention about restoration of drug and/or drug paraphenalia usage info so that it can be easier to observe sanitation changes by reading the edit history to look for change patterns and timing. Sanitization is something to be checked as there are various firms that sell service contracts to companies and publicity managers to sanitize (and maintain that status) online information of all negative information such as drug usage and criminal convictions.AnimeJanai (talk) 19:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Roethlisberger

Hi there, Mbinebri.

I was just reading the article on Roethlisberger, and I noticed in the information that you added in the section about the most recent sexual assault charges, in the third paragraph, there is something a bit garbled or unfinished. I'm not sure what you intended to say, exactly, so I didn't want to touch it myself; but given the current interest in this story, it is probably worth fixing sooner rather than later. All the best, Craig. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Craig Walker (talk • contribs) 13:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, my talents as an analyst are failing me. Can you be more specific as to what you feel needs clarification?  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 14:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Drew Massey in Milledgeville, GA

I noticed your attempts to keep that vandal from adding the "famous rapper Drew Massey" bit to the Famous People section on the Milledgeville, Georgia article. Notice the user name of the editor is Drewm389. I will tell you that I live in Milledgeville and know of a Drew Massey who lives here as well. I do not know him personally, but I know who he is, and it would not surprise me one bit to know that he's pretending to be a rapper and adding his name to the article in some sort of immature joke. I'm just letting you know that you're right in your assumption that the rapper Drew Massey does not exist. Mellophonius (talk) 01:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the confirmation. Yeah, the editor's username was a dead giveaway that this is just silly, yet all too common, promotion... although I obviously would have removed his name regardless of the username. I see from your edit history that you've removed a link to a real estate site. I had to remove that too—from three places in the article. Sheesh!  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 01:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I try to keep an eye on the Milledgeville article as well as the Baldwin High School article for the high school there (which I actually created about four years ago). Thanks for taking out that vandalism. Mellophonius (talk) 14:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Angels or not

http://www.forbes.com/2010/05/12/top-earning-models-business-entertainment-models.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.212.253.80 (talk) 18:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Scott King (model)

Sorry, i'm italian and i dont speak english, check now Scott's page --Gabriele Deulofleu (talk) 13:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I was about to say welcome to Wikipedia, but judging from your Italian Wiki profile, I should be saying welcome to the English Wikipedia. As for King's article, keep in mind the WP:RS policy: blogs and most things published without editorial oversight aren't appropriate for Wikipedia. I left one of the refs, just so the article has something, but it in no way demonstrates King's notability (all it does is say his name), and I can find nothing online myself, which is problematic.

As for the Supermodel page, you're adding models with articles that do little to prove their notability, let alone their status as among the greatest male models of all time. What look like fan additions and exaggerations will always get reverted.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 21:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Scott King has been one of the first supermodels of years '90, on he does not find information because it has not never made the actor or the singer, but ago the fireman. On Tony Ward, Michael Bergin and the others it finds many more information because they have continued their career in the showbizz --Gabriele Deulofleu (talk) 23:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Supermodels are, by definition, the models that garner the most attention and press. If King did/does have a significant career, sources should be available. Him not becoming an actor or something does not make him an exemption from Wiki policies.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 14:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Chanel Iman's page

Hi, Mbinebri. I wanted to talk to you about Chanel Iman's fan page, specifically about information that I improperly sourced or failed to source over the last few weeks. You seem to be pretty good with the whole citation thing, and I was hoping you could help me out. Chanel recently contacted me about inaccurate information on the wikipedia site, most of it obtained from websites that had acquired the inaccurate information themselves from other websites. I would like to know if there is any way I can cite to Chanel directly, or have her publish something online that I can then cite too. Also, her mother has written a book that was published recently that contains some of the information. If I can cite to that, as well, please let me know. Finally, can I add a photo that is obtained from Chanel herself, and not copyrighted by anyone? If so, how would I go about doing this? I can get the photo easily, I just need to know how to post it without having it removed. There is currently no picture and the latest picture was about 3 years old. Please get back to me as soon as you can. Thanks a lot for your help!

Mike (Mikecrenshaw (talk) 05:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC))

You can't cite some directly, because there's no way of verifying it or even knowing whether the info truly comes from that person - and even if it did, it's a tricky issue because the person might not be truthful. For example, wouldn't it be convenient for an actress or model to "correct" some info by shaving a few years off their birth date? The point is that info presented through actual sources is reliable because it has theoretically gone through a fact-checking process to ensure it's correct before being published. You could just have her publish some stats on an official site to correct things like a birth date. Per policy, self-published sources aren't ideal, since they go through no fact-checking, but sometimes personal info is hard to find in other places so such sources are accepted as long as they aren't used to promote the subject. If her mother wrote a book and it's been published by a third party, you can cite it. But again, you have to be careful of promotional intent/content since it would be a book written by a likely biased person.

As for a photo, if Chanel or someone from her camp can provide one free of copyright (which means no magazine scans, advertisements, or candids taken from a site like Getty), there's a process where it can be uploaded with permission from Chanel (or whoever took the photo) via email to a specific account that handles this stuff. Do you have such a photo?  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 21:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I apologize for the delay, but I've been exceptionally busy lately. I do have a photo that meets that description, but I don't think it's appropriate for wikipedia. I will have her take another one, however, and make sure she gets permission from the photographer. What constitutes "permission"? Does she need a written letter permitting use, and if so, who does she get that too and what language would the photographer have to use? Also, who should the photo be sent to? Thank you so much for your help. I really appreciate it. (Mikecrenshaw (talk) 04:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC))

Oops, now it's me apologizing for the delay. I looked around for the procedure for emailing permission for photo use but I haven't come across it—maybe I'm looking in the wrong place? Either way, you could just upload your photo to your Flickr account under an appropriate license if the person you're getting the photo from doesn't care and get it onto Wikipedia that way. But I'll keep looking for the right instructions unless you don't need me to.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 03:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Category nominated for deletion.

Please be advised that Category:American beauty pageant winners has been nominated for deletion, please see the discussion here. I'd appreciate you refraining from adding the cat to bios until this is sorted out. Cheers. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 00:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Halestorm (album)'s bold period.

How on EARTH did you catch that one? lol I found the edit where it was added and can't for the life of me figure out A) why it was added and B) how nobody caught it when it WAS added. Maybe the editor wanted the period to say "So there!" loud and clear! lol Anyway, good catch and happy editing! ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 23:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Haha, yeah, it was definitely a what-the-fuck moment seeing that. I figured it was the result of an incomplete attempt at removing vandalism or something, but you proved that it was just a random edit - maybe the most random I've seen! At least it wasn't embedded in a longer article, because then it would probably be there for eternity.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 00:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Daniel Hayes (actor) advertisement tag

Hi Mbinebri, I see that you have tagged my article as sounding like an advertisement. I also notice you did not even take the time to notify me about it. I was wondering if you could clarify which parts you feel need to be changed. I was following instruction I found here on wikipedia regarding the lead section: wp:mosbio. "5. Why the person is significant." but I do appreciate you taking the time to rewrite it. After viewing several other featured actor articles I do not feel that the lead section of this article was any more advertising than those I have read, Jackie Chan, Eric Bana, Reese Witherspoon, Noël Coward etc.

also my thanks for removing him from the parent cat. I thought I had resolved that already but I guess I missed one.

any help would be much appreciated.
Designsbyd (talk • global contribs • email) 23:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:OWN. No article belongs to one editor and unless the article is being nominated for deletion, notification of changes is not required (even then, it's not actually required, only recommended). Yes, the lead requires an explanation of the subject's significance, but that doesn't mean flattery. In the case of many actors or other creative professionals, they become publicly respected enough for their work that certain positive attributes are widely held and can be expressed without bias. With a unique mixed Trinidadian and Venezuelan heritage, distinctively bold facial features, athletic physique, and diverse sports background, Hayes has enjoyed strong and early marketing appeal is simply promotional fluff. As for the advert tag... after enough time on Wikipedia it's easy to tell the difference between a proper encyclopedic article written because the level of coverage demands it and an article written by a conflict of interest editor with a few sources scraped together to justify its existence, and this article is very clearly in the latter category. Writing like "acting gigs started pouring in", "successfully accumulating numerous magazine spreads and billboard ads" (rather than giving specifics), and "The roles give Daniel the opportunity to show the emotional depth and intense quality of his acting ability" is what I'm talking about; numerous external links within the article body, a gallery of professional photos, and a lot of red links for his work certainly don't help either. In fact, after looking the article over again, I don't even know what the subject is notable for and I'm not sure the sources establish it. (Sorry if that all sounded unnecessarily harsh.)  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 16:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The pot calls the tea kettle black.

first, i appreciate your thorough response as i do plan to make the language more clinical per your suggestion. i never disagreed with the article sounding ambiguously complimentary, i was just curious which parts were the most offensive so that i can start there. my intention in the lead section was not to flatter the subject but to highlight the aspects of what makes him a sought after actor/model. it is merely an attempt to express some of the comments made in the media about why the subject is doing well and relatively early in his career. when dealing with famous people it seems important to state what they are famous for and it happens to be a highly aesthetic leaning dialogue in the entertainment business. perhaps i should have added a citation to it. at any rate, i thank you for taking the time to point out the most prominently offending lines. however, i find it funny that you refer me to WP:OWN because you don't seem to be very familiar with it's content. "Even though people can never 'own' an article, it is still important to respect the work and ideas of your fellow contributors." i do not feel like i own the article, i am simply it's sole contributor more or less so far. i have not made any statement asserting myself as an owner of the article, nor have i stopped or questioned any contributions from other editors. also, i did not mean to imply any obligation on your part to notify me. i only assumed common decency on your part would include due diligence. since i would not hesitate to include the creator of an article in any administrative discussions/processes, i just expect the same from other editors. my mistake. fyi, i am attempting to resurrect this article because i feel that the subject is relevant and i know that others will agree. i did not author this article and have never met the subject. so it's kind of ridiculous to suggest that there may be a conflict of interest. my only interest is to expand the encyclopedia with articles on interesting topics so that people can learn from others who know more about the topic. some people are just hesitant to start an article but would be willing to contribute to them. according to [time magazine], in 2007, "People suddenly became reluctant to create new articles..." and i would not be surprised if you and other deletionists are the reason why people have been hesitant to try. i believe that this article is well cited and contains a fair amount of content and this should not be discounted. even if it did only include "a few sources scraped together to justify its existence," they do justify it's existence. so it is inappropriate to attempt to insult me by implying that the article is not "a proper encyclopedic article written because the level of coverage demands it." besides, as previously stated, the article was written by someone else and i do plan to fix the questionably promotional sounding parts. i have just been hoping someone else might be inclined to do so. there are only four external links and five red ones in the body and they are only meant to be external/red until the corresponding wikipedia articles are written. which they undoubtedly will be. in fact, at least one of the red links belonged to an article which was previously existing. i may just go rescue that one too and dig up a few articles to justify it. in conclusion, if anyone here is guilty of COI, it is you. if you inhibit the growth of the project, you are in direct conflict of interest with it. i'm sorry if this comes off sounding "unnecessarily harsh" because it is not my intention to insult you, but merely to explain how you are being received, because i am afraid you do not see it. Please read: WP:EQ, WP:CIV, WP:AGF
Designsbyd (talk • global contribs • email) 09:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Leave the other's work ALONE!!!!

Hey... can you PLEASE mind your own business and stop trying to delete other people's pages with your narrow-minded vision of notability? I'm the person who created the Maddison Gabriel page you're trying to have deleted. I don't mind if anybody updates a page I created but I'm getting tired of self-appointed vigilantes who get a thrill from destroying other people's work! GO AWAY FROM MY PAGES, WON'T YOU? Terveetkadet (talk) 19:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow, ownership issues, have we?  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 20:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Click "show" for why the WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL policies exist.
_{And how to get blocked for violating them.}

I really don't care at all about WP:OWN... I just think trying to destroy other people's work is cheap and lame and have absolutely no respect for people who roam around Wikipedia looking for pages to delete Terveetkadet (talk) 00:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow, deletionist issues, have we? Wikipedia is not paper. You should seriously consider trying to write a few articles before you run a muck deleting them.
Designsbyd (talk • global contribs • email) 07:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Before you tell someone to consider writing a few articles, you should first check to see whether they have or not. As for vilifying me as a deletionist based on my one current AfD (for an article that's previously been deleted), I would say such comments do not cover up the serious policy issues you both have demonstrated, including WP:COI, WP:OWN, WP:CIVIL, and WP:AGF. And no, trying to accuse me of them in the previous section doesn't cover them up either. Designsbyd, I would also ask you to read WP:MINOR; it's a very simple policy to comply with.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 13:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey  Mbinebri  ... Wanna know something? I don't care about WP:COI, WP:OWN, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF or WP:MINOR... Why? Because I prefere CREATING pages to the best of my knowledge, having confidence that others will improve them through time than engulfing so-called "policies" and use them to destroy pages and to blame people who are angry about someone trying to destroy their work! Wanna know something else? I created the Bryce Harper page and someone tried to have it deleted too, saying Bryce Harper was "not notable". He as been the first pick on this years's MLB draft and just signed a 9.9 million $ contract with the Washington Nationals... But the deletionist schmoe who wanted that page deleted said he was not notable!! I repeat: I have absolutely no respect for deletionists like you Terveetkadet (talk) 20:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is nothing without its policies; by ignoring them, you only devalue yourself as an editor, and I would much rather comply with policies and continue being a good editor who will nominate an article here and there when discussion is warranted rather than be a self-righteous editor who attacks good faith contributors. And by the way, lol. It's from an admin too.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 21:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Ugg boots

I recommend participation by fashion editors on the Ugg boots article. This is fashion footwear worn by such celebrities as Sarah Jessica Parker, Kate Hudson, Jessica Simpson and Oprah Winfrey. In most of the world it's a well-recognized designer brand, but in Australia and New Zealand, it's considered a "generic term." Please help. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:45, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: American beauty queen categories

Oops. I'm so sorry. I didn't realize what I was doing was wrong. When pageantupdater told me that, I went back to fix my mistakes and then fixed ones added by others. I didn't realize that bios were allowed to be added there. Sorry about that, I thought I was helping! MissAmericaGirl (talk) 02:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry! I'm just glad to see someone actually trying to help! I felt like I was the only one trying to organize these articles for awhile there, haha. I've already gotten started putting the category back. Feel free to join the fun!  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 02:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure! I have started putting some back in! Sorry again for messing up all of your work. MissAmericaGirl (talk) 02:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Judging from your edit history, you've already done a lot of the work I was delaying getting to (adding nationality cats to a lot of non-American winners), so your editing is still all right to me. Good faith, remember? Anyway, I saw you created a category for local American pageant winners. What's the purpose of it? I'm not sure what you're going for there, as it looks a little non-defining.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 02:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I only created the local American pageant winners because I thought that their bios couldn't be placed in the American one (as you know) and there was no where else to put them. But now that I know they can go back where they were, I think I'll delete it. MissAmericaGirl (talk) 02:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Well, if anyone tries to tell you again the American beauty pageant winner cat doesn't belong in bios, a proper discussion should be started on it if need be. No sense in having to go through all this over again without a real consensus.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 03:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Please stop until we can reach consensus

I'd appreciate if you adding or removing Category:American beauty pageant winners from bios until we come to some conclusion on this.. I'm posting this on yours and on MissAmericaGirl (talk · contribs)'s page - not directed at anyone in particular, but to all of us. The edit war and lack of good faith on both my part and Mbinebri's needs to stop and we need to get a discussion going on this before further disruption happens. I've started a thread here Category talk:American beauty pageant winners#Please discuss and I think that somehow we need to come to a consensus before the category is added to or removed from articles. Unfortunately I'm busy and won't be able to comment further until this evening but I strongly believe it's time for discussion on this. Cheers. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 04:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll admit I wasn't assuming the best of faith on your part, but I think most people would agree that convincing another editor to remove categories by referencing a non-existent consensus is sketchy behavior, especially when the edits regard a category you unsuccessfully tried to have deleted.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 06:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Sisu

I agree with your comments at the above article, and have made some changes and additions in response. I will still look for a good citation for the origin of Before the Dawn's name. Bearian (talk) 21:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Bob Barker

Appreciate the addition of content, but a little concerned by a lack of refs. I didn't look at the full article to see whether you might have that covered, but I'd suggest adding refs or making it more clear what's being cited when, as at a glance it wasn't clear to me. Thanks. Doniago (talk) 18:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I added a source.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 03:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Very cool! Doniago (talk) 04:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Jessica Stam

I don't know if most models are referred to by their last name. Stam was a an effort on Jessica Stam's part to be called that. There are youtube videos out there that might corroborate this. Nevertheless I only see her referred to in the press as Jessica Stam. Some of her fans call her "Stammy". --Wlmg (talk) 23:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

That makes no sense to me. Why does someone need to make an effort to be referred to by their actual name? If it was a nickname, I would get it. What her fans call her isn't really relevant unless the press or fashion industry has picked up on it.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 00:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Links to external images

Hi Mbinebri, I've undone your removal of the external image link at Lana Coc-Kroft. You said in the edit summary it was against policy but didn't specify which one. WP:ELNEVER #1 says don't link to copyvios, but that is the own photo of Stuff.co.nz, as seen here. Other policies such as fair-use only apply to content hosted on Wikipedia. XLerate (talk) 02:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say it's against policy so much as I said using images in such a way shouldn't be done simply because a free image isn't available, and in that sense I guess my edit was based more on a Wiki philosophical point more than anything. Especially when the external image box is being placed where it is in the article (where the first free image would go), it feels to me like deliberately circumventing our image policies in order to offer copyrighted media for distribution. I think such use is very "anti-Wikipedia." If external images are going to be linked to *sigh*, I think they should at least be kept to the bottom of the page along with the proper external links, rather than putting them at the top as if we have some sort of policy that says if there's no free image, feel free to link to a copyrighted one.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 04:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Met Ball

I just created Met Ball, which you may be able to help out with given your fashion knowledge.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Katia Elizarova page

The edit as to discovery made was accurate as all girls were discovered by the late agent - Source: Russian obituary (offline)

I have re-inserted the text. Hope that's okay by you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carpefemme (talk • contribs) 10:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't particularly feel like the claim is that necessary for the article, but if you have a source, I won't dispute its inclusion. But you do have to offer some sort of citation—publication, date of publication, page number, title. Just saying on someone's talk page that this info was mentioned in a Russian obituary isn't enough to satisfy WP:V.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 14:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how Russian obits are provided, but in the USA, articles in the obituary (AKA remembrance) section must be paid for similar to advertising. Thus, the content in them is usually biased in terms of the person who paid for publication of the obituary text.AnimeJanai (talk) 19:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Unless you are doubting every source ever provided in any print publication I think we have to take it that Obits are fact-checked by editorial teams like any inclusion... that of course unless all news papers now aren't verifiable sources::: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.229.119 (talk) 23:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi There again. I'm getting confused by notifications of changes to this page. I'll look over the edits you and user 78.86.229.119 keep making. It seems a point of contention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carpefemme (talk • contribs) 23:48, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

There's no point in looking over 78.86.229.119's edits, as he/she has done little. I've made several more edits to the article in regards to NPOV and RS. The article still has issues IMO but I'm trying to compromise.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 00:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Helena Tepper

Pootweet (talk) 19:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)pootweet Hello Mbinebri...sorry for deleting template, wasn't my intention.

Couple of other points: - 23:57, 21 May 2011 Mbinebri (talk | contribs) (892 bytes) (Reference does not mention her) (undo) Article doesn't mention her, as is the style of Peter York columns quite often - but the article is about the Granary Bread campaign, which the model was in. She was the only subject in the campaign so if possible can we undo the deletion here please? I will try to source an image to verify this if required. -Notability: What points do you suggest we add here to avoid deletion? I an source other materials from her agent, etc, if required.

Thanks pootweet

A picture of her in a campaign might verify that she did the campaign, but the real point here is that a photo does not equal "coverage." We need examples of reliable media talking about her at length to establish notability. I would be careful with requesting things from an agent though, as an agent doesn't know Wikipedia policies and might care more about promoting a client than aiding an encyclopedic article. I've seen it happen before.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 20:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Have added citation from The Mirror newspaper to verify the Granary Bread link, and help with notability. Also on that point, the following articles reference her Bond role, Gamesmaster co-presenting and modeling career. Also cover her relationship with footballer Sol Campbell. Should I add these for notability, and if so as a new section? Would be grateful for some help on this point Mbinebri. Thank you. Other notability links which I hope will help count as "coverage" to assist with notability.

From the English newspaper The People http://www.thefreelibrary.com/MY+SOL-MATE%3b+'I'm+not+gay'+England+star's+secret+lover.-a094570554

From The Sunday Mirror http://www.thefreelibrary.com/MAD+ABOUT+HER%3b+England+hero's+love+for+designer+15+years+his+senior.-a0112289598

Only items requested from agent have been images that are copyright free - thank you for pointing out their obvious tendency towards bias. I'll keep in mind. Best pootweet (Pootweet (talk) 20:42, 28 May 2011 (UTC))

Sorry for the delay—someone must have used my computer to use Wikipedia after you left this note so I never got the yellow talk page message alert. Anywho... those links look good to me. At this point, I don't think there's so much info that separate sections are necessary. I would just divide the article into paragraphs based on topic. Good luck with getting copyright-free images from an agent. I've tried before and not had much luck.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 02:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Beauty pageant

I made some improvements on some of the articles that you redirected or tagged related to beauty pageant. I will continue editing for more improvements, but I'm unable to do so at once due to personal matters. Anyway, I sincerely thank you for the redirections of articles which alerted me to improve the articles.--Richie Campbell (talk) 01:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

If you have substantial, third-party, reliable coverage, then feel free to make those improvements, but I hope you don't start wholesale reverting my redirects simply because you disagree, which some editors might do. I redirected those articles for policy concerns, and I have noticed much of the time you created articles in "template" style—using the same overall text and simply plugging in the new name and country article after article, while using sources that don't mention the subject at all or merely list her name. That, to me, is very misleading. If that's all the coverage that can be offered (i.e., none) and the article's core content is basically just that the subject won X pageant, then the article should stay a redirect.

I do appreciate you leaving this note. Civility is always nice.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 02:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Noted.--Richie Campbell (talk) 02:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Budda Amplification: wattage

Hi, I exchanged "low-wattage" with "low-power" on the Budda Amplification page, and you reverted my edit. From your edit comment, it seems you are confusing two types of power: electrical and the power of a concept. The correct term for electrical power is just that: (electrical) power, not wattage. It is irrelevant that the power is measured in watts. I will put my edit back, and put "power" to be a link to Electric power. --Rspanton (talk) 13:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

You don't play electric guitar, do you? Look here. There are 15w amps and there are 100w amps, and there are a lot of amps in between. Wattage is how amps are rated, so to say it's irrelevant is absurd. The Twinmaster is 18w—it's a low wattage amplifier compared to most amps of the time, and the statement in the article is simply saying it inspired other companies to focus on amps in that range (under 30). The low wattage range. Not low power, but low wattage. You can debate all you want whether "wattage" or "electrical power" is correct, but wattage is the industry standard term and changing it to power in the article means claiming something about the amps that no one is claiming.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 15:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I do play electric guitar, and I'm also an electronic engineer. There is no false claim in stating that these are low-power amplifiers. They are low-power. The misleading part is driving people to believe that it is for some reason important to state the unit. One could also say that it is a low-kilowatt-hours-per-day amplifier (18w = 0.432 KWh/day) and it would have exactly the same meaning as saying it was low-wattage -- low-power, however, makes it quite clear that the unit is completely irrelevant. It is in comparison to other amplifiers that it is low-power, not the units one is using to compare. The site you linked to talks about "output power", not "output wattage". Cheers. Rspanton (talk) 14:21, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's silly to fight about it even this much. If you know what you're doing, I won't object to the change again for the sake of civility.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 13:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Who are you to judge appropriate content???

I have a celebrity site that focuses on the sex appeal of celebrities. The site also displays the latest news via zimbio from a feed reader but that doesn't matter because I want to know who you think you are to judge my external link. I read the EL section prior to submitting. Why do you think these celebrities have pages on Wikipedia? Is it because everyone wants to know about their early life? I doubt that although I think this is great information. I think they became famous because of their sex appeal and posting a link that shows this carries more weight than who their brother is married to. But you seem to be the judge, maybe you can enlighten me with your robotic response. Do not delete my content again. Ironically I am focusing on this site to bring in some income for my family of 5 with baby girl in the NICU since I am currently unemployed. I have tried other things but this seems to have the most potential. For all I know, your simple action could ruin my marriage but again, you are the judge so you must know the outcome of things. Do not reply with quotes from the guidelines because, 1. the guidelines were written by people like you and me, and 2. the guidelines can be interpreted in any number of ways. I change my mind. I do not want to know who you think you are. I don't really care. However, I advise you to stop worrying about my actions and make the world a better place by adding to it instead of thinking you are right to take away what someone someone else is trying to add.

--Hankjnsn (talk) 12:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

July 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Miss Alabama Teen USA. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Please stop removing the Results Summary from some of the Miss Teen USA state articles. There is no need to do that. Sure, you can find the info in the chart below but it is called a Results SUMMARY. It makes the info easier to find and is included on all state wiki pages. MissPageantNews (talk) 20:24, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Please do not leave inappropriate warning messages on my talk page. I gave a brief rationale for my removals in the edit summaries. Furthermore, I left a detailed explanation at "Results summary" sections. If you would like to discuss the issue, you can be civil and shoot me a question; warning an experienced editor over explained, good-faith edits simply because you don't like those edits is not the way to go.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 21:20, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

This was an automatic message made by Wikipedia that I used. It is not inappropriate, however some parts may not apply to you. So whatever offended you about it wasn't personal. First of all, before you remove information that is on every state pageant wiki page, perhaps you should discuss it on that page's talk page. I did not even see your post on "Results summary" sections. I did not add that information so there is no need for you to say that I only reverted your edits because I don't agree. I know that you stated that the information was in the chart below; however it is a Results SUMMARY. It makes the info easier to find. MissPageantNews (talk) 18:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

maybe he was referring to my post right above yours. my bad. it seems to me though, that mbinebri likes deleting content that other people feel is pertinent. maybe, just maybe mbinebri is wrong but if he/she is right then we shouldn't exist cause here we are just trying to add to wikipedia articles and mbinebri says no, delete it. back when i worked on the help desk, there was this guy named brad. we always joked cause it seemed his motto was if you don't need it, delete it. he deleted everything. I guess even my opinion should be deleted per mbinebri, cause it's inappropriate. isn't this talk page where we voice our opinions or is it inappropriate to do that. don't worry mbinebri, i'm onboard with you, delete it all. the thing is, i'm all about truth. if you want people to get the information then give it to them. like dude said, it's a summary. summaries repeat important info. I know you want wikipedia to be a better place, but seriously? if someone isn't trying to screw it up, then they are trying to make it better. Maybe you should realize the difference. or maybe i'm just ignant. are you calling me ignant? have a good day sir. --Hankjnsn (talk) 03:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Back again, huh? You can whine here all you want, but any experienced editor on this site would have reverted your edits as obvious spam.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 04:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

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

List of Victoria's Secret Model

Dude, you really need to stop thinking that a model isn't a VS model when the FMD doesn't list Victoria's Secret in their resumee. Did you ever notice what the initials "VS" in my user name might mean? It's Victoria's Secret for starters so if I add names to the list, it will always be true ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by VSfan88 (talk • contribs) 23:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I do not think FMD is a "holy source." Rather, FMD is the most common link in articles that would verify career information, including credits not specifically mentioned in a model's article. Having "VS" in your username is irrelevant. I judge based on the quality of edits and understanding of policy, not choice in username, and judging from simple mistakes you make (not signing the above edit, adding unsupported names to a list, then finally verifying them with sources that do not pass WP:RS) you have a long way to go before I add you to my very short list of editors I automatically give the benefit of the doubt to.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 12:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)