User talk:Mbinebri/Archive 5

Merge discussion for Carina Dahl

An article that you have been involved in editing, Carina Dahl , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Hasteur (talk) 14:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC) Hasteur (talk) 14:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Zara Durrani

I have removed the prod on this article because an Indian user I've worked with said that he was going to improve it. Should nothing happen, I'll be the first to comment one way or the other at its AfD, but I'd like to give him some time to try - he has access to stuff we don't. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 21:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Hopefully this user comes up with better sources than what the article currently has, and can make a more convincing case for the subject's significance.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 02:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Brooklyn Decker

I was the photographer Brooklyn Shot with for the Mauri Simone Shoot. I would like my name in the article, obviously, but I don't see how that is any worse than Mauri Simone being mentioned and being promoted? Just thought I would ask. Hanphoto1 (talk) 22:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC) Hanphoto

It's worse because Mauri Simone in all likelihood did not insert her own name into the article. There are conflict of interest policies to deter people from using a Wiki article as a way of promoting themselves. Plus, even if you had a 3rd-party reliable source, I'm not sure knowing who photographed a particular campaign is all that important to the article.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 03:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Cameron Russell

Why you always remove the name of Cameron Russell from the "list of Victoria's Secret fashion models"? It's very annoying -.-' — Preceding unsigned comment added by VSfan88 (talk • contribs) 11:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:NLIST makes it very clear.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 13:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

tzz... if it comes to notability, then the article "List of Victoria's Secret models" should only include the Angels and some models and that's it (note: This is not a suggestion). --VSfan88 (talk) 13:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Dino Andrade

I noticed you've flagged Dino Andrade's article based on his late wife's death being the primary Gnews result. Ms. Bergstrom was significantly more well known than Dino at the time of her death and it makes sense for her to have a higher visibility on a casual search but his voice work in the past decade(WoW and Batman specifically), his outreach in the LA area with suicide prevention providers and the LAPD, along with running the dating website SoulGeek all serve to make him a notable celebrity in his own right.

Removing his article would be in the same vein as removing Kathryn Bigelow's entry due to her prior marriage to James Cameron and thus his tendency to overshadow her in most searches and news coverage.

conor (talk) 02:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Kathryn Bigelow is an indisputably notable person in her own right, and her article has the sources to prove it. If you want to establish Andrade's notability, you need appropriate 3rd party significant coverage.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 02:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Felixgenius (talk) Mninebri, first off, I applaud your body of wiki work. I hope to have the time to really make wiki an all around better place like it seems you're working towards. Secondly, your animated gif made my brian trip out, heh. Down to business, I am a huge Dino Andrade fan and listen to most of the interviews he does etc. What exactly are you looking for in terms of proving his notability? Most likely I can find references for what it is you expect to see there. I just think it is a massive shame to delete his page because to me, he is a very notable person. So please let me know what I need to do to provide this info. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Felixgenius (talk • contribs) 12:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

To put it simply, you just need to find sources that meet WP:RS and demonstrate "significant coverage" (meaning the article - or whatever it is - is either primarily about Andrade or at least discusses him at length). That's really the only non-subjective way of establishing his notability.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 17:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Monikangana Dutta

Please stop pointing to Gossips and stay on topic. Stop removing Facts. If you want to discuss, drop the Editor/Brother a line. I will get back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monidutta (talk • contribs) 19:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

My edits are all on topic, while yours are unsourced and promotional. Plus, your username points to a conflict of interest on your part.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 22:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

katia elizarova

Looked over your edits and checked citations removed. A limited search online revealed that they were valid so put all your edits back in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.128.46 (talk) 18:35, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

All my removals were based on the policies WP:RS and WP:NPOV. As I said in my latest edit summary, this is not a fanpage to promote the subject with unencyclopedic material, unreliable sources, and promotional language. And please do not try claiming my edits were "malicious" in order to justify undoing them.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 19:43, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Removals based on policy? I'm pretty sure that national print newspapers are considered reliable sources. You have messed around with this and other pages before that I have seen, it seems like over zealous edits without analysing sources. I can see the same information you removed in five of the sources quoted throughout the article. Please look at the relevent information available and add sources if you disagree, but do not remove factual relevent content. I agree some phraseology may be poor in the article, but from your deletions much factual content was culled. Please revise your edits instead of simply reapplying them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.128.46 (talk) 20:24, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

This response represents some puzzling hypocrisy. You ask me to revise my edits instead of simply reapplying them while you "simply reapply" your own edits despite admitting that they're flawed and doing little analysis yourself. For example, please demonstrate to me how "fashionsummers.com" is a legitimate source. Because in my analysis I see that it's a personally-published site (using free software for websites and blogs) without a hint to suggest there is any editorial oversight at all. Nothing states that Elizarova has been famously described as "a radiant young woman who embodies modern femininity and style to perfection." The quote is both pointless flattery from an employer and "puffery"—as is calling IMG a "Celebrity Model management firm" and listing its most famous clients. Nothing says she was a "celebrated new signing" or in "international demand." I could keep demonstrating how promotional this article is, but I don't like beating dead horses. Every edit I made was legit. If you want to make a real argument and some legit edits, I'll wait for it, or you can just continue making the edits that have landed you a talk page full of warnings.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 21:26, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

If there are individual edits you aren't happy with please make them individually, not enmasse. I see from other peoples conversations you have done this a few times. Individual edits that can then be substantiated or not are appropriate. Also, removal of puffery not everything makes sense. As for IMG, they have been the top celebrity agency for some time and are referred to as such. If you feel a citation necessary just Google and add one. Jeez, no wonder other complaints are here about your technique. Have you actually cross referenced the other citations on the page? Some of them even quote the commentary you remove. Suggest removal of puffery is okay, but check facts before deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.229.119 (talk) 22:00, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not required to make edits individually. All my edits were warranted. However, undoing my mass edit because of a disagreement with some of the changes is disruptive. If the previous IP only disputes some of my edits, then he/she can individually return what's disputed and we can go from there. As for proper sourcing... the burden is on the ones adding or returning information, so it's silly to tell me to source what you want added. And the people who complain about my "technique" are usually inexperienced editors who don't know the rules and then get angry when they realize the rules don't let them do whatever they want.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 22:18, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Mbinebri. You have new messages at Cyberpower678's talk page.
Message added 22:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 22:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Zara Durrani

Hi,Mbinebri,I have removed the tag again,because I do not think it is needed when you are already placing the cn templetes to the contents.? There are enough reliable sources to establish the wp: notability and wp:verifiability.I do not know what more additional sources you want to see.? If you are still not satisfied then please try to search sources rather than unconstructive style of tagging the articles.I will try to search some more reliable sources to remove templete cn.Thanks for your editings.Cheers.Ehsan Sehgal (talk) 05:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The {{cn}} templates aren't always a substitute for an article tag - rather, I sometimes use them to highlight claims that especially need sources - but I see your point. That said, tagging an article is in no way "unconstructive."

I see your addition of this "leaderpost.com" article. Unlike most of the other sources used, this one does appear to be 3rd party and fairly significant, which is what I was looking for.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 22:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for making copy-paste contents in own language,I should have done.I appreciate your kind help.Cheers.Ehsan Sehgal (talk) 04:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Brakeman

Hi Mb. Please would you point me to the policy that says "See also" sections should not repeat links in the article text. --Bermicourt (talk) 18:56, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:ALSO: As a general rule the "See also" section should not repeat links which appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes. I'd say it's also a bit common sense. "See also" obviously implies the section is providing links in addition to what the article already has.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 20:15, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: Category

I apologize. I didn't realize that you removed the National Sweetheart delegate category from those pages because there was no mention of it in their article. Thank you for clarifying that! If I re-add the category, I will make sure that I add sourced information to their article first. MissPageantNews (talk) 22:18, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Steven Zaillian, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Armenian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Irina Shayk

Who says ethnicity is not relevent to notability? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.234.95.36 (talk) 23:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

What reason is there to think her ethnicity is relevant to her notability in this case?  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 01:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Ieva Lagūna, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Carolina Herrera and Nina Ricci (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Stephany Ortega, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Uruguayan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

hi models plz read

'im 25 years old i love fashion from my childhood im engenier from iran but im living in sweden i want to become a model plz do care about this message from who that he never had hope like this tnx soroush chr ''' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.58.72.166 (talk) 23:55, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Huh?  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 19:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Ashley Ann Vickers

Thank you for the insight. I will not continue to edit that page. For future instances, please keep insults out of the situation. As I stated to you,you do not know who I am so stating that my experience was "hilarious" is inflammatory. Regardless, I cannot verify my personal experience to those standards without harming her. Therefore, consider this closed.

Watch what you write, because it could have unintended consequences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.7.116.70 (talk) 19:00, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I do watch what I write and I accept all potential consequences. You were trying to claim a model has implants and using yourself as a source. I considered your edits vandalism when I first saw them and I still do. Such silly edits are not uncommon and, as far as I'm concerned, worth a bit of ridicule.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 19:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Fuzzylizzie

Just to set the record straight, "Fuzzylizzie", aka Lizzie Bramlett, is one of the main (acknowledged) contributors of designer biographies to the Label Resource for the Vintage Fashion Guild, as here 1 so is a bit more than just a "fashion fan" (which is a dismissive term and suggests disdain and lack of interest in historic designers - I see your specialism appears to be modern models, which I know nothing about, so guess it's horses for courses ;)). However, the information in the so-called "fan page" is supported by other reliable sources. Mabalu (talk) 11:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I can't say I find the Vintage Fashion Guild website all that convincing either, reliability-wise, but I do have high standards in that regard. That said, the Fuzzylizzie site does appear to be a self-published site, and I think it takes more than Bramlett being a contributor to the VFG to establish her as an acknowledged expert in her field. If you have reliable sources that verify the info on the site, you'd be better off just using those in the article.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 14:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, the VFG IS one of the few online sources (other than blogs) out there that actually makes an effort to give online coverage to the 'forgotten' (but incredibly influential) designers of the mid-20th century. Most info is in the specialist books on the subject, so it's nice to have an online source that at least backs up some of the info. At least the VFG has a number of participants who should, one hopes, pick up on other people's mistakes, and it is not fashionenyclopaedia.com, which I wouldn't trust to tell me Chanel made 'quite nice suits'... just WAY too many mistakes on that site! Mabalu (talk) 15:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Mabalu (talk) 15:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Budda Amplification

A tag has been placed on Budda Amplification, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia for multiple reasons. Please see the page to see the reasons. If the page has since been deleted, you can ask me the reasons by leaving a message on my user talk page.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Tinpisa (talk) 12:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

RHW

Hi - Mbinerbri. I rep Rosie Huntington-Whiteley. Can you please contact me via email regarding her Wikipedia page. Megan@slate-pr.com. Thank you. 208.179.224.90 (talk) 21:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

There is no need for email. Your recent edits were fine, although using such a large quote was excessive and against policy per WP:UNDUE, as minority viewpoints should not be overemphasized.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 14:22, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Emi Suzuki

Since you helped me out on the Kerr article awhile back, I was wondering what you'd think of Emi Suzuki? Her article looks fine with the content, except that her personal life is extremely long. I had discussed this on Suzuki's talk page, but it didn't help matters much. Basically, only one editor wrote to me some time back. She stated that such information was necessary to explain Suzuki's nickname. I suppose the rest could be snipped? I'm just curious as to what a more experienced editor would think. ★Dasani★ 21:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh God... articles on Japanese models are something I tend to avoid(!) because of how obnoxious the frequent editors tend to be. I remember trying to clean up several "gravure" model articles awhile back and every edit I made would get reverted because I'm not Japanese and therefore I have no right to make even obvious policy-based edits.

Well, I took a look at the article and yeah, the "Personal life" section is rather bloated and could use a good purge per WP:FANCRUFT. But I'm more alarmed by how woefully under-sourced the controversy sections are. You would be within your rights to cut everything not followed by a footnote. In fact, large cuts to all these sections could be justified by WP:WEIGHT, as her career info is getting overshadowed by arguably trivial information and gossip.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 17:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Um, I might of taken it too personally, but there is one fairly new editor who keeps trying to revert the page. We are now in an edit war. See comments at his or her talk page (User_talk:GMTnishi). What should be done? Page protection? This is a perfectly valid stance, if I were trying to add an inappropriate source or remove images then I understand. But the other user continues to readd stuff that violates NPOV, and they think they can clean up the article. ★Dasani★ 17:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Recent editings

Hello Mbinebri,
On April 28, 2012 01:20 PM, you cancelled my major update of the Laetitia Casta's English Wikipedia page with the following reason:
"Reverted good faith edits by Nimmzo (talk): With all due respect, the last edit was a massive disaster of fansite writing. (TW)".

I am the main contributor of this page. I created and maintained the sections "Awards and recognition", "Filmography" new format, "Theatre", "DVD and Blu-ray", and "Books".

To avoid useless regular disputes about her "height", I suggested changing the "Infobox model" to "Infobox person" like for other actresses in Wikipedia. I published her correct Agencies that are not available or not updated in other languages of this Wikipedia page in order that the English page is the reference.

As asked by the tag Refimprove February 2012, I searched and solved each "[citation needed]" from reliable sources improving the number of References from 12 to 67! You could compare the level of References with the French version of this page that could quote gossip magazines. I filtered and selected only official video providers. I solved several Wikipedia internal links when they are not available in English finding the French or Italian version with the corresponding icon language in order that the reader does not have an empty page.

The current section As Marianne was not created from a neutral point of view. I investigated the subject to add reliable sources that restore the NPOV and deal with facts.

I suggested the new sections "Showreel", "Fashion movie", "Video Clip", " Song", "Exhibition", " Political involvement" and "Humanitarian action". Each item in these sections is referenced with verifiable sources.

I suggested in the section "Film career" an original review of her main movies.

About my new content, could you explain why it is a "massive disaster" considering the few seconds needed to cancel my work comparing to the hours I needed to collect the information and polish the result to improve the references of this page? To motivate or not the editor of this page, is there something to be saved in this global "disaster"? Would you indicate positive directions to improve my work?

About the process, do I need to progressively update the page section by section as I did previously instead of globally?

Thanks for your suggestions.
Nimmzo (talk) 20:00, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I went into further detail on the article's talk page. As you'll see there, I take issue with the promotional tone of your writing and the validity of much of the content. And no, you don't have to make your edits individually, but when you make massive changes in one edit you run the risk of having the whole thing reverted in a "Back to last good version" edit. I've always found it helpful to make non-controversial edits first, as it makes things easier for anyone reviewing (and potentially disputing) my changes.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 20:11, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Reusing images from WP in WP

18:44, 14 May 2012‎ "Removed posters—decorative use of non-free images"

Explain the issue in more details. Decorative use and/or non-free images?

All the movie posters that were added come exclusively from WP with the current licensing policy. When the movie poster was not available in an existing WP article, it was not inserted in the table.

Can we or not reuse a WP image in a WP article? Indicate the rules. Why don't you delete the picture added on May 4, 2012 by 108.195.138.157? Isn't it a decorative use? Do you trust the uploader when he wrote that this image is now "free" under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported? What about the picture in the infobox? Will you delete all pictures from WP from May 25,2012?

Nimmzo (talk) 19:43, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, non-free/copyrighted content such as movie posters requires a "fair use" rationale for every article the image is in. Look at File:Derriere les murs.jpg. It has a detailed "purpose of use" explanation for why the poster belongs in the film's article. The problem with using the image in Casta's article is that the use fails WP:NFCC#8 of the Non-free content criteria: "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Casta's article doesn't need the images to understand anything, and putting all available posters into her filmography table is, as I said, just decorative.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 20:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 28

Hi. When you recently edited Stas Namin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lenin Stadium (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Christie Brinkley

As a contributor on the article can you share your opinion here? Thanks, 188.82.150.60 (talk) 02:35, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mbinebri. I think that still is no consensus between editors about the IP editions. Should I report this issue to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard or simply remove the unsourced IP claim regarding what´s established in WP:BLP? Thanks. Vanthorn ^{msg ←} 02:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Wow, this has been the longest discussion for a lead that I've ever seen! I'm not sure I have the time right now, but I'll give rewriting the lead a shot when I can and we'll see if I can come up with a version that's acceptable to everyone.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 16:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Still interested in participating? Since no further opinions by other users I will request the help of the BLP Noticeboard. Vanthorn ^{msg ←} 21:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sruli Recht

Hello, I started this page to cover this designer, part of the Icelandic and international modern design movement. There are over 110.000 articles on google about this designer, and he is very well known in the fashion and product design industries and in the press. He has been published in numerous books, and collaborated with other notable artists, designers and musicians, all who are on wikipedia. Many other designers reference this person as an influence on their work. This article is definitely not an advertisement, and was definitely written sourced from other articles online. This article should not be deleted, nor edited down from it's original format. This article highlights one of the few internationally known Icelandic based designers, who happens to be the leading designer in Iceland. Like the user below, please let me know what should/could be included to meet the standards. Sawwater (talk) 017:30, 26 July 2012

I withdrew my deletion nomination shortly after making the nomination in the first place, so you don't have to worry about it being deleted. That said, the article seemed promotional, hence the other user's edits. You would be better off starting a discussion on the article's talk page to bring up any specific points you have.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 18:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok Thank you. Although the article has been edited down considerably. I would like to put back some of that information but I dont have much experience on here and would rather not start a disagreement with other users. Do I start the discussion to put the information back, or just put it back? (talk) 017:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

If you want to be cordial (always a plus), your best bet is to just start the discussion on the talk page. An editor with no edits outside of the one article simply returning info can rub people the wrong way and make you look like you have a conflict of interest.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 23:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Supermodel article

Hey, Mbinebri. Thanks for still looking after this article. This IP that I've reverted twice now seems to be a problem. I know that you're still watching the article, but I nevertheless decided to drop you note about this. Flyer22 (talk) 16:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, as stated in this edit summary of mine, I don't trust the "source" that the IP added. Flyer22 (talk) 16:53, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay - someone must have viewed a Wiki page on my computer after you left this, so I missed the orange talk page notice. Anywho... I was aware of the IP's addition and I was a tad skeptical as well. But they at least added a partial source, so I didn't dispute it. Now it appears a page number has been included, so I guess all is good then?  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 01:37, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, after my and the IP's more recent exchanges,[1][2] I let the matter be. Thanks for the reply. I thought you'd ignored this message because you didn't consider it worth replying to, as in not an issue. Flyer22 (talk) 02:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Aliya Mustafina

I just added the note regarding the paramount importance of having the ethnicity of the Olympic gold medalists. As one of the few Tatar champions, she acts as a role model for the Tatar population and on that basis it is crucial to state the ethnicity. I find your efforts surprising as virtually ANY article on famous athletes clearly states the background. JackofDiamonds1 (talk) 23:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate you leaving me this talk page explanation, but as I said in my edit summary on the page in question, Your subjective opinion on what's important to the Tatar population doesn't overrule Wiki policy. Think of it this way: if Mustafina wasn't of Tatar descent, would her accomplishments be less notable? Of course not. Her notability is entirely as a gymnast who competes for Russia. And, yes, many biographies state the person's ethnicity - but not in the lead paragraph, and certainly not in the lead sentence. If there are articles that do this, they should be changed unless the person's ethnicity is vital to understanding who they are.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 01:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

In this context, it indeed makes the accomplishment more notable. Think of a relatively small country (like Latvia) with only 1 gold medal at the Olympics. Surely, this is more unique than being one of the 50 gold medalists. Also note that Tatarstan is an autonomous state with own constitution and president. http://tatarstan.ru/eng/documents/constitution.htm

Please, respect the Tatar gymnast and do not remove this from the page. JackofDiamonds1 (talk) 18:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I respect Mustafina as a gymnast. But you need to respect Wikipedia rules. You have nothing more than an unsubstantiated opinion that her being of Tatar descent increases the notability of her gymnastics career, which clashes with WP:NPOV and WP:OR. Now another editor is reverting you. I'd suggest, at the very least, that you come up with some sources detailing that her ethnicity plays a part in her notability if you insist on continuing this. But even then you'll probably get reverted because ethnicity is generally regarded as less-than-important.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 19:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, and your participation in this discussion may be critical to finding a resolution. The thread is "Aliya Mustafina". Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 21:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Jordyn Wieber pic

yeah, that nearly 3 year old, pre-olympics photo of her with dark circles under her eyes is lots better than the one I put up there instead, holding her gold medal, outside in the sunshine and smiling nicely. good work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdherrington (talk • contribs) 00:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate it!  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 22:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Megan Fox article

Hi. I noticed that you reverted an edit on this article. Will you revert this edit? It's wrong because she hadn't been fired from the franchise yet, as sources in the article show. And this edit? It's by a user who has been blocked three times now for his disruptive editing to the Megan Fox article. This time, he has divided her Filmography section into Filmography and Television, and has made them subsections of her Personal life section. 217.147.94.149 (talk) 16:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

It looks like someone beat me to it!  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 22:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but that editor left in the "After departing the Transformers franchise" part shown in the first link, referring me to the talk page. Why should I take this to the article talk page to propose that it be reverted when editors who watch and/or have reverted on the article won't correct this bit of information? Fox had not been fired from the Transformers franchise at the time that she was filming Jennifer's Body or during its release, so it's not like she departed from the Transfomers franchise first and then started working on Jennifer's Body. Fox was fired from the Transfomers franchise in 2011, two years after Jenniifer's Body.

Look at this line from the article: Bay similarly amended his previous statements of support of Fox, and told GQ in June that Fox was fired on orders of executive producer Steven Spielberg.

That may be where the editor got confused; it even confused me. It needs to be clarified that this statement was made in the July 2011 issue of GQ, or should at least state "June, 2011," so that readers don't think we mean June 2009. And the source's accessdate needs to be corrected; not sure why it says "(2009-10-13)." 217.147.94.149 (talk) 18:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I just corrected the date for the same reference at the Transformers: Dark of the Moon article.[3] But, looking at the sources there, Fox was fired in 2010; either way, that is still after her work on and the release of Jennifer's Body. 217.147.94.149 (talk) 18:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. I've taken it to the article talk page. 94.76.201.77 (talk) 17:38, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

VS Fashion Show

Hey Mbinebri, I see you've single handedly done a lot of work on the Victoria's Secret Fashion Show page. Given that the page is a GA rated article (and all the work you have done), I am reaching out to you to float two possibilities for the page.

The section describing the first webcast could be tweaked to more crisply capture the impact that the underwhelming tech design had for the webcast users (who were unable to view the webcast, despite their attempts.)

And secondly, we can tweak the piece by including - in greater depth- the operational goals behind the fashion show (ie relating to branding and also pertaining to VS's successful creation of a database of email addresses for current and potential consumer/customers)

Any help much appreciated. WestportWiki (talk) 22:33, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Go ahead with whatever you want to do. I have no problem with the info on the webcast problems as it stands and I know nothing about any email databases (although I immediately wonder how relevant such info is), but if you have sources that elaborate on the topics, I certainly won't object to any changes. And nice work on the VS article - that's a hell of an expansion!  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 12:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

ok. thank you. WestportWiki (talk) 18:18, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Victoria's Secret - Advice on Images

Hi again--as you have far more experience with these sorts of matters I am wondering whether i can ask you a question -- and you might be able to share with me any rules of thumb that you have for how I might approach thinking about images for the Victoria's Secret page--ie where it makes sense to enhance in an encyclopedic manner. I'm striving for informative images / good quality images for the page that serve to enhance the reader's learning too. Where possible to ensure copyright compliance I think I might take the photo myself too (like I've done on the Agent_Provocateur_(lingerie) page. Love to get cleverness and your guidance. Many thanks a head of time. Thank you. WestportWiki (talk) 19:21, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Flickr is the place most people find images for Wiki articles. You just have to check the Creative Commons box (and both those sub-boxes) in Flickr's advanced search mode to find ones that are compatible with Wikipedia and Wiki Commons. That said, I recently went through Flickr's results and uploaded (and added to the article) what I thought was worthwhile. You can look again of course.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 20:47, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Got it. thank you. WestportWiki (talk) 16:33, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Upen Patel

I think i must correct you. I represent ice model management. The Term Supermodel is used in the industry when a model has achieved this status through there work and campaigns and have international Exposure.

Upen Patel being one of the first Indian male super models who has worked with Hugo Boss, Armani,Versace etc and he is represented by several agencies around the world who also handle the likes of Kate Moss, David Gandy who are also referred to as Supermodels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.80.107 (talk) 16:12, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have explained myself more fully in reverting your edits. It's the long-standing consensus here that "supermodel" is an assessment made based on subjective views regarding the model's success, making the term inappropriate in defining the subject (which is what the opening sentence is for). "Model" is the neutral term for the profession and is therefore appropriate to use. Using "supermodel" is allowed outside the lead sentence provided the claim is sourced and used in an encyclopedic context - i.e., we're not just flattering the subject by calling them a "supermodel" but rather reflecting a widely-held opinion of the subject's significance in his/her field. So you can say Patel is the first Indian male supermodel, just not in the first sentence, and it needs to be backed up with a reliable source.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 20:54, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Model (profession), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Daughters (song) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sara Chafak, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Leila Lopes (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback (Ks0stm)

Hello, Mbinebri. You have new messages at Template talk:NCIS television.
Message added 19:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 19:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

List

Hi Mbinebri. As a participant in this recent category deletion discussion, your input on this related list deletion discussion would be greatly appreciated. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 19:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Joe Flacco, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jim Caldwell (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment

Hello. I have just noticed that the "forum IP" has moved their comments to Talk:Jessica Stam/Comments. Should that page be nominated for deletion (seeing how you reverted the same edit on the main talk page)? Best, Toccata quarta (talk) 13:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I actually did consider nominating it, since the page only has the one comment and that comment has nothing to do with an "assessment summary," but I couldn't quickly find any policy regarding assessment summary pages (I'd never even heard of such pages) and had to attend to some other things. If you want to nominate it, I'd back you. Maybe there's a speedy tag that would apply in this instance?  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 18:15, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2012 Packers–Seahawks officiating controversy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mike McCarthy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 23:56, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Katie Green

Exactly how is File:Katie Green, Focus on Imaging 2010.jpg promotional? What is it promoting? I take it with two reverts so far that you don't like images on articles? Green is a glamour model and can be shown on the article as such; she also appeared as a Page 3 girl, and again there's no viable reason she should be excluded from being shown. I don't see "Promotional", which I assume you mean as WP:PROMOTIONAL as being a very good reason for reverting my edits. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 00:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

You uploaded a photo and promptly put it numerous articles - including ones where the photo's relevance is, at best, dubious. Take Model (profession). The article doesn't mention Kate Green and yet you add the photo not only to the article, but as the lead image. Or take Page Three. The image is not at all representative of a "Page 3" tabloid feature or the type of photo such a feature would use. Your caption even states her appearance was involuntary. How does that make the photo a proper illustration of the topic? This is obviously promotional in both cases - of the photo and subject.

I hate photos in articles solely because of two legit reverts? Let's not get childish now. I love images - when they're actually useful.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 02:44, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Your first paragraph is reason enough for me; but then you get back to the promotional thing: "obviously promotional in both cases", which makes zero sense to me. But at least you explained your reverts better this time around, and I can see your point. Regarding "model (profession)", Katie Green is a model—but I suppose her image would need to be integrated better and with more purpose. Regarding Page 3, the image was mainly to show a Page 3 girl—except perhaps she really wasn't one, according to the caption (which I took from her article). So there we go, I agree with you! Sorry about the "you don't like images"—a definite "Internet moment" on my part, uncalled for and simply stupid, and tbh, I wasn't really fussed about the reverts. Anyway, thanks for your feedback. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 04:11, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Glad I could clarify things. And don't worry, I've had my share of internet moments - especially on Wikipedia.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 17:48, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Mbinebri. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 21:38, 1 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

2012 referee lockout question

Hello Mbinebri, I saw you just recently made a good edit to 2012 NFL referee lockout, and I wonder if you might be willing to consider revisiting the article briefly. First thing: I'm working on behalf of the NFLPA to make some improvements to NFL-related articles, and this is one that I've suggested edits to in the past.

However, one remains: it seems to me that the sentence about Josh Sitton's tweet, under Reactions#Players, doesn't belong. It wasn't anywhere near as noteworthy as Lang's tweet (which I think should certainly stay), doesn't add any context (it's less about the lockout than the game), and is just added profanity (even though, of course, Wikipedia is not censored). Because of my COI, I don't edit pages directly, but if you agree that it doesn't help the article, would you be willing to remove it? Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 19:50, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I removed the Tweet. It was more of an attack on a player than commentary on the lockout or refs, so it did seem irrelevant for the topic. I can't guarantee someone won't restore it though...  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 12:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Yep, I agree with your assessment. I doubt it returns, but I guess we'll find out. Thanks! WWB Too (Talk · COI) 13:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Latest Carly Foulkes kerfuffle

There is a new mini edit war in need of opinions at Carly Foulkes.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:33, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Commentary worth inclusion

Regarding this, I hope you plan on following the revert with a comment in the talk page discussion I mentioned in my removal. Ryan Vesey 15:27, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

And you did, thank you. Ryan Vesey 15:28, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I'm one of those "edit first, explain second" people.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 15:30, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

"Accused of"

Thought you might like to do the same thing for Category:Organizations accused of eco-terrorism that you've done with accused of Piracy. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 23:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Jessica Gomes

I don't know if you ever do WP:GAN reviews, but I was wondering if you would like to review Jessica Gomes.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

FashionIndustree.com

Noticed that you recently edited the Lara Stone page, you may not realize but FashionIndustree.com like wikipedia is based on measurable results and facts and is supported by the management of Lara Stone. Removing a link to all of her relevant archive is illogical. Since, I can only assume that you are acting in good faith, I would assume that you will investigate the link veracity and put it back. Thank you FashionIndustree (talk) 17:52, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the IP I reverted made multiple edits clearly promoting this website "FashionIndustree.com," in violation of WP:SPAM. In addition, your arrival here under this username (another policy violation) just reinforces the promotional nature of the editing.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 22:49, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Partner Information in Fact Boxes

Thank you for your edit on the Izabel Goulart page. When adding partner information, I was simply following the precedent set on the Alessandra Ambrosio page which includes partner information in the fact box. I mention this in case you may wish to review that entry also.

Kind regards.

EmmaWindsor (talk) 15:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the note, but I don't think the two examples are quite comparable, as Ambrosio's relationship appears to be a genuine "domestic partnership": it's a long-term relationship, they live together, have children, and they're engaged. In Goulart's article, there is nothing indicating it was more than just a few years of dating.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 15:36, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Links to other languages

Thanks, Mbinebri. Though I wander how updated that page is, seeing that if I am not mistaken, redlinks are now generally discouraged. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 22:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Alek wek

Your right "supermodel" is not the neutral term for her profession. Rather it is a status she has attained. Because by definition of the word she is a supermodel

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/supermodel

not only that is has been recognized in the industry as one for a very long time now from CNN to the United Nations

http://models.com/models/alek-wek

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/11/world/africa/alek-wek-south-sudan-journey/index.html

Unless you have a valid reason why you are making those agenda based edits I would suggest up stop, your disruptive edit. 69.120.212.166 (talk) 22:11, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but WP:LEAD clearly states that leads should stick to a neutral point of view. Whether or not people consider her a supermodel is irrelevant for defining her profession, which is modeling. Not supermodeling - just modeling. References to any sort of status, such as being a "supermodel," need to be put into some encyclopedic context elsewhere in lead or article for such a claim to be appropriate/NPOV. And please don't start spouting about "agendas." Editors who do so are usually the ones pursuing them.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 05:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, take a look around at other fashion model articles. You'll see that even in cases of models like Kate Moss or Gisele Bundchen, "supermodel" is not used to define them in the first sentence. Using "model" is standard for all Wiki model articles.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 05:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Adriana Lima

Hi Mbinebri! I have seen that you have reverted my contribution to Adriana Lima's profile, but I didn't understand why as it's her real full name and was referenced. Could you please explain the basis for your revertion? Yours truly, Luz del Fuego (talk) 21:25, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello. Pageantopolis.com seems to be a pageantry fan's self-published website/database, and therefore has no editorial oversight and is of questionable reliability. The specific claim for Lima's full name is also highly doubtful, as she has received much media coverage and yet pageantopolis.com is the only source to add "da Silva" to her name.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 02:28, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Cuban social network

Hello! I was just wondering if we should even include that statement about the Cuban social network controversy in the 2014 Venezuelan protests article. It's starting to look a little messy in the paragraph plus it takes the article more off topic. We can keep the Brazilian and Honduras coup statements but we should at least trim the statements about Cuba. I know its exciting news that was just revealed but as it is right now, it kinda draws away from the main topic which is the protests. I'm not trying to revert everything you do that is why I wanted to discuss this with you first.--Zfigueroa (talk) 23:30, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it's a very peripheral topic. However, USAID's alleged political efforts in Cuba are likely what Maduro was thinking of in pointing that agency out, so I think some context is warranted. An option is to remove everything in the article right now and just leave in that parenthetical with something along the lines of "...some through USAID (whose recent operations in Venezuelan ally Cuba have garnered controversy)..." with operations linking to United States Agency for International Development#Subversive program to create political instability. That way any detail can be left to the appropriate article.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 03:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

User page

I just wanted to let you know I looked at that stuff on your user page longer than I meant to. That is all.--Zfigueroa (talk) 07:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Miranda Kerr

You're right about Kerr. I was concentrating only the the redlink editor's text edits rather than his photo edit, and didn't realize he'd made text edits to the infobox. So ... good revert of my edit, sincerely! --Tenebrae (talk) 14:43, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Venezuelanalysis

Please familiarize yourself with this thread: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_55#Venezuelanalysis

It's very difficult to get English language resources on this topic (more exist in Spanish) but I believe these citations have individual merit. I ask for you to help suggest ways to help me strengthen this rather valid claim rather than dismiss these sources outright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.128.228.208 (talk) 16:44, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I am aware of that discussion, as of recently. What about it?

The original sources are still bogus - an email, a blog, and a movie review. The interview with Wilpert though is legit. That said, defining the site as "government funded" is misleading, as it only gave "some" funds.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 17:19, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Spanish tanslation

I saw that you had trouble with Spanish translation. I recommend that you use Google Chrome. It will automatically translate text for you.--Zfigueroa (talk) 01:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

"Bolivarian propaganda" article

Hello! As you've been editing Venezuela articles recently, can you please add your opinion to Talk:Bolivarian propaganda#Delete? (and watch the page?) I'm asking editors of Venezuela-related articles to put their view in as that article seems to have little traffic and we need consensus. Zozs (talk) 20:17, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I've nominated the article for deletion, please specify your opinion there. Zozs (talk) 02:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Economic offensive

I just wanted to let you know that the economic offensive info that you added on was originally from me. It was originally in the lead so I summarized it but it was later moved. Just wanted to apologize for that.--Zfigueroa (talk) 02:20, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I remember you adding it. At the time I was going to move the info and give it a proper expansion, but considering the whole economic problems section is in the background portion of the article, I didn't know where to transfer the info and procrastinated. Then someone else moved it instead and I procrastinated some more on fleshing it out. It's so much easier to be lazy!  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 02:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Just wanted to make sure you knew. Thanks for the communication.--Zfigueroa 03:04, 8 May 2014 (UTC)