User talk:Mbinebri/Archive 1

Nice job...

... on the Marisa Miller article. It hasn't had a major rewrite in a long time. Maybe you could recruit some other people from Bellazon to help out as well. --Maestro25 (talk) 23:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Swimsuit templates

As a leading editor at Marisa Miller you may have an interest in the debate at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_June_27 regarding swimsuit issue templates.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Jim Miller

It is getting quite ridiculous. Perhaps citing a source would help. Though if it continues at this rate, semi-protecting the page seems the only other viable option I can think of. --Kurt000 (talk) 22:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Editor's Barnstar
		To Mbinebri, for greatly improving Karolína Kurková. Truly fine work that is appreciated. Catgut (talk) 00:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Adriana and Bettie Page

Hun, before you delete that you might want to watch the video where Adriana says herself her icons are Marilyn Monroe, and Bettie Page! —Preceding unsigned comment added by BahianChic (talk • contribs) 01:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not drawing conclusions at all. She has stated several of her favorite movies in several interviews, all which are old movies and black and white. So if it walks like a rabbit, jumps like a rabbit...it's a rabbit. I've been a fan of Adriana for about 8 years now, so I know what I'm adding to her page. I'm not an idiot. Everything I add also, has been backed up by friends and family of her's we have contact with at my website www.adrianaflima.com. As for Bettie paige, she likes her innocent look in the pictures and how she could pull that off, she's a pretty classy lady so she likes a lot of old fashioned actresses. Adriana is fully aware of who betty paige is, she's a huge fan of Burlesque and even goes to Burlesque shows every time she can in NYC. As for her favorite type of music, it's been said in many interviews when asked your favorite this, your favorite that. So it's pretty common sense that it's her favorite type. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BahianChic (talk • contribs) 04:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, they can shoot down the validity all they want. As far as I'm concenred when she says things in videos and interviews, it can't be any clearer. Then it comes down to common sense. Our site have proved ourselves several times with personal photos in our gallery and etc, but that doesn't even matter. In the end it is a fan site, but it's quite sad that people who don't know much about Adriana doubt and delete things, after not taking the word, or articles/interviews/videos that a fan of adriana has placed. I myself don't place anything in the article, that isn't backed up by a video, or an interview she's given. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BahianChic (talk • contribs) 02:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Tarheelz123#More on .22supermodel.22 statuses

In this section, I responded to you as well, and I just wanted to let you know, in case you disagree with part of what I stated there. I mean, one thing is for sure, we want Tarheelz123 to better understand how Wikipedia works. Flyer22 (talk) 01:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Adriana Lima's heritage

I'm going to be contacting Wikipedia about her heritage, because while she has stated in words on video what she is, she's also stated many other things in print interviews...even Victoria's Secret's official page on her has the ones I've listed, which common sense tells us all she tells them what to put. So I'll be contacting Wikipedia about you disputing 3 sources that add to her multiple ethenticies additionally to her Swiss and etc. The ones I won't argue is the fact that she's also got Japanese in her...unfortunately I can't find that interview or I would include that as well. You can't dispute with written interviews, or fashion insiders or Victoria's secret execs who have backed her other parts of her heritage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BahianChic (talk • contribs) 08:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

French

Sorry she's french...you might want to research things before you delete them...esp from someone who's been a fan of Adriana for several years. You might want to think you should at least research it first...thanks Re added the french heritage with 2 references and I can find at least a dozen more if you need —Preceding unsigned comment added by BahianChic (talk • contribs) 14:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

LOL! You can find in different videos all her heritages, in different videos. I'm sorry but she is french, you will find it on several sources. Just run Adriana Lima French. So I will undo what you did and add links where it says she swiss as well I'm sorry but find any video where they are going to say 6-8 things like she is in one video. i'll re- add them because they are legit..sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BahianChic (talk • contribs) 17:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually your re edit is fine, I don't have any problem with it. And that's fine don't talk to me, honestly I could care less. I like to speak to people who aren't against them because they said something about their precious number 1. So again I have no problem and I'm glad you edit Adriana's page, but before you edit something why don't you investigate it first, instead of just insisting you are right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BahianChic (talk • contribs) 15:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Siri Tollerød

I just wanted to thank you for reducing the Siri Tollerød page to a shadow of what it was after I spent a great deal of time collecting information to share with the general public. I was under the impression that the point of Wikipedia was to give accurate information about a person, an object, etc, but I was clearly mistaken. You do not have to be concerned about me "undo'ing" the page, since I have decided not to contribute to Wikipedia anymore and instead share my information through other, more positive medias. 193.217.93.84 (talk) 08:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel this way. Any hard work on a Wiki article is appreciated, but before adding so much unnecessary content to an article, you should look at related articles to familiarize with their content and how best to write an article for future purposes. Also see WP:UNDUE. Mbinebri (talk) 20:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Help request

{{helpme}} At the risk of looking like a "deletionist," I have a question about notability and its relationship to secondary sources. I do a lot of clean-ups and patrolling in fashion model articles, and I've come across quite a few whose notability is indirectly asserted through a list of runway credits (some for famed designers); but I would challenge the notability of the subject by saying runway work (even for famous designers) is typically an entry point for young, unknown models, and therefore not an indicator of actual notability, and the model otherwise lacks more notable criteria like awards, beauty contracts, or campaigns. I can imagine this would all be contradicted by some less fashion-industry-knowledgeable editors in AfD, so if I was to anchor my argument by stating there are no secondary sources at all for the model to establish any notability, how much weight would that point be given? As WP:RS states: if an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. Would it be the overriding principle then? Mbinebri (talk) 01:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

• It's been my understanding that WP:RS and WP:N trump everything else. If there are no sources present, they shouldn't have an article, regardless. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Christie Brinkley article and its complications

Thanks so much for your contribution to Christie Brinkley's article and the explanation on the "Discussion" page, I was at loss with the situation there.
I'm a bit too tired to explain it all now but I'll try to do so at a later date.
The most important thing you need to know, I think – at least right now – is that user "Efsawyer" is in fact Errol Sawyer (initially I merely suspected this, he later confirmed) and that he added the whole story of his discovery of Brinkley into the article. --Robby.is.on (talk) 02:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Picture of the day

Your picture of the day is hidden behind the text at the right, unfortunately.Mathilde Fischer (talk) 21:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess that depends on the computer screen. On my Mac with its wide screen, it's fine, but on my PC laptop, yeah, it's stuck down at the bottom unfortunately. Oh well.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 14:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Nico

[1] Ah, right -- I get it now. Sorry for the confusion. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry about it! I was going to roll your revert back as a good faith edit, but I don't think Twinkle lets you put in an edit summary if you choose the AGF option.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 02:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

help

hello.. please tell me whats wrong with the article i wrote.. i would really appreciate it if the article stays on wikipedia =) can you help me? its the article about fashion model maiko okuaki Watashiwakawaii (talk) 06:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

First off, let me say thanks for approaching this with civility! Too many times people just immediately go on the attack like I just spat on their mother! Secondly, the problem with the article is simply whether what Okuaki has done as a model is notable enough for her to have an article. For example, has she been on the covers of important fashion magazines (Vogue, Marie Claire, Vanity Fair, etc.)? Does she have any lucrative designer contracts? Has she walked for internationally-known designers? Those are kind of "the Big Three" to me, and without them, a fashion model article usually gets deleted sooner or later. But importantly, if a model has had any of these things, the article would then need significant coverage in reputable secondary sources to prove that this is all worthy of notice. As the article stands, Okuaki doesn't have the required notability or the proper sources to establish it if she did. This is what needs to be addressed. More notable credits, better sources. I would start with the latter, although I did a search myself and couldn't find anything. But I'm sure you would know where to look better than me!  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 15:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh.. well she is pretty popular in the philippines, so i thought i'd put her here in wiki. its just too bad the page has been deleted already. (T_T) i put so much effort on it XD lol so i guess ill just wait for her to be featured on vogue.. :) Watashiwakawaii (talk) 14:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Amanda Lain

In reference to Amanda Laine article: Hi Mbinebri. You say the source contains the information but doesn't back it up. That would be original research on your part. All we have to go on is the source. If you don't feel that is the case, why don't you find another source to back up your claim. ThanksWackoJacko (talk) 04:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Wait, what? I say the source doesn't contain the info. Nowhere in the referenced magazine article/page does it explicitly state Laine is a supermodel, which is why I removed it.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 04:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The source refers to her as a "super model being born". Do you have another source to contradict that?WackoJacko (talk) 04:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, she is referred to as a teen super model here at the Toronto Star: http://www.thestar.com/comment/columnists/article/308689

Maybe that would be a better term for the articleWackoJacko (talk) 05:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Great. The Star article actually does more than make an indirect suggestion, so I have no problem with it. Let's just avoid using it for anything bordering on POV-pushing.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 05:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, I do see that the first article was a little nebulous as far as the super model claim was concerned.WackoJacko (talk) 05:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Glad we could work that bit out. I'm just a bit anal when it comes to using the term "supermodel", since, more often than not, editors only use it to flatter models of all levels of success (or lack thereof) rather than include any such claim due to it being made by a notable source. Like Anna Wintour calling Karolina Kurkova a supermodel is significant and worthy of mention - but most other times... it's just unencyclopedic flattery.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 05:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Just to add... I saw the article as it presently stands and am okay with it.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 05:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks.WackoJacko (talk) 05:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

In reference to what you said above: Yes, I see what you mean. I actually became involved with the article on the other side of the debate. I was originally on the side of if being deleted. There was a proposed speedy delete that was denied, with the reason being that the article was "met notability guidelines"(paraphrased), the admin did say that it needed some more references, etc. I decided to go ahead and try to be neutral and find some references. In my search, I found enough references to sway my opinion somewhat(of the articles notability status). However, the article definitely could be expanded and "wikified" some more. I also definitely do agree now about the first "supermodel" reference not being adequate, and the fact that she probably does not qualify as a full blown super model. Like we have discussed, the "teen supermodel" seems more appropriate. Thanks for the good discussion and help.WackoJacko (talk) 06:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not surprised someone tagged the article for speedy deletion. Laine has one ad, no mag covers, and has had a very brief career so far, so she does seem to have little more than threshold notability. But if she's actually opened shows for notable designers and she has the reliable sources, the article has a right to stay - certainly more so than a lot of other model articles I come across. Ugh.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 15:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Christie Brinkley article

Hi, I think the article has references enough. Please remove tag. Thanks, Vanthorn (talk) 20:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)Vanthorn

There's no need for me to do that (although I just did it). If you added the citations where needed, you can remove the tag yourself - and kudos to you; citation tags are the ones people usually ignore.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 21:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Shaariibuugiin Altantuyaa article and consolidation to Murder_of_Shaariibuugiin_Altantuyaa

Hi there, I agree with your removal of the article because both pages are repeating almost identical information verbatim. However, on the same note, you might want to consider doing the same for the other article related to the case Abdul_Razak_Baginda being that his sole claim to fame (according to the article at least) appears to be his participation in this case. Again, the contents are almost verbatim with the Murder_of_Shaariibuugiin_Altantuyaa article. Or at least they should be. I have noted quite a number of POV edits in the past due to the political nature of the case, so consolidating these into a single article make it easier to monitor and also prevents discrepancies from 2 different writeups for the case. Thanks for your consideration! Zhanzhao (talk) 01:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It's kind of a grey area here, it looks to me. On the one hand, yeah, if the murder is the only source of notability for him, the article could be deleted, although if the case became as famous as the article claims (which I'm entirely ignorant on), that in itself might be enough for his article to stay. I'll think about it. I might just nominate it for deletion just to see what other editors think.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 01:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Alice Lee AfD

Hi, you contacted me about the Alice Lee AfD because I started the page. I did not, however, start the article that is there now, and you'll have to look in the history for the article's progenator. When I created the page, it was a redirect to Alice Hathaway Lee Roosevelt. Thanks, Oldak Quill 15:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Danella Lucioni

Article must stay. She lives in Los Angeles yes but she is from Peru and is known in Peru. This year three magazines wrote articles on her, COSAS wrote a 6 page article and interview and COSAS is a very great known magazine here in Lima (very high class like Vanity Fair) and then another magazine called C that is very exclusive for Asia (a beach city for very rich people). Also caretas said they were going to publish a special soon. She has also done a lot of very good work. She is a pride to our country. I want to translate her article in spanish. --Biffthebassman (talk) 14:28, 26 Feb 2009

Well, I just took a look at her article, and while she doesn't appear that notable to me (she just seems to have a lot of minor credits), the article isn't up for deletion or anything, so there's no need to worry at the moment. What the article needs though are better sources - and more sources. Sources are the key to establishing a subject's notability, and the ones Lucioni has don't cut it by WP:RS and could be cause to have the article deleted. If you want to make sure the article stays, you should read Wiki's policy on reliable sources and find some to add to the article to prove her notability. For example, articles from Peruvian news sources would be good, and shouldn't be hard to find if she is a "pride to your country." As it is right now, she doesn't appear to meet the criteria of WP:ENTERTAINER or have the sources to prove it if she did.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 01:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, forget about the get-better-sources part - I went and cleaned up the article (or should I say "cleaned down" the article?) by reducing it to what best asserts Lucioni as notable, and in the process I removed most of the sources. So now it just needs sources altogether, besides IMDb.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 03:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Marisa Miller

Hi. Regarding your question "Why would you remove an entire section per WP:V when only two refs in it were broken?", it doesn't matter how many refs are broken. If reliable sources are not cited in the article to support the material (whether they are broken, or merely make no mention of the claimed material), then that material is unsourced, and must be removed. That is is what WP:V calls for. I went over the article again, and it was filled with dead links and pages that made no mention of much of the material. The article also contained multitudes of non-noteworthy quotes, and completely disorganized material. I listed the material I removed and reorganized, and the rationale for this, on the article's Talk Page. We can discuss it there if you like. Nightscream (talk) 08:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Wiki policy does not in any way explicitly state that the material had to be removed - quite the contrary, in fact. I've elaborated on Miller's talk page.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 16:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Changes to pages

hello

I am mainly responsible for most of the text on Clarita de Quiroz's page. Most of this sitation is done through knowing her work via her agencies, listening to her radio information, seeing her work, and generally reading her personal blog etc. I've been trying my best to find citation (youtube has been the best) but apart from that, the websites have either gone under construction with her previous online interviews etc. does that mean I need to remove a lot of her stuff on the site? I am not a PR manager or anything, I am just a huge follower of the site and have created most of the stuff. If you could help me know how to cite these things (even though her work is easily found on flickr to see what jobs she has done etc and youtube, agency sites)

Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.73.224.113 (talk) 07:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

In short... yes, a lot of info will have to go - w/o citations, it'll be considered original research; and while the info might be true, Wiki's emphasis is on verifiability and reliable sources. As it is though, the article does need more sources. The ones referring to the police raid at the MC Harvey music video shoot are too minor to assert de Quiroz's notability on. You should just forget about Youtube and Flickr (neither meet WP:RS) and look for news sources. If she had any success in Scotland as a singer, you should be able to find sources stating enough info for the article. If not, she probably shouldn't have an article!

But for your references, all you were missing was some code. When you have a reference, make sure it's bookended by and in the body of the article itself (immediately following the statement it supports). As for below the actual "References" heading, just put

. (You'll need to click to edit this page in order to see the actual code I'm using.)  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 17:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Removal of the Modelinia.com external links

Hi Mbinebri, I would like to contest the removal of the Modelinia links from Adriana Lima, Selita Ebanks, Marisa Miller, Hilary Rhoda, Gisele Bundchen, Doutzen Kroes, and Alessandra Ambrosio's pages. This site is an additional source -- a media outlet providing info on these models (video interviews, articles, etc) that cannot be gleaned from Wiki alone. I've recently become a follower of this site since it launched, and I feel others wanting to learn about models will want to see what Modelinia.com adds to the picture. Many press outlets are citing it as a resource about models, and I know they get their info straight from the models themselves and their agencies. The link is just as useful and relevant as any other, if not more so! Can we please put it back up now? thanks!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by SuzyQfabulous (talk • contribs) 23:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

There are two main issues with using Modelinia as an external link. First, from the number of anonymous users who have been adding it to EL lists even after it's removed, and the fact that a Wiki article (started by you) on the site was deleted due to being blatant advertising, Modelinia.com's inclusion is rather clearly to promote the site rather than add something the articles really need, which violates Wiki's WP:LINKSPAM policy. Second, Modelinia appears to be hosting copyrighted content from other sources, which violates one of Wikipedia's more basic external link policies. I might also add that after browsing the site, I see no reason to think any of the site's info on models comes directly from the models themselves or their agencies; it all looks like it was gleaned from Wikipedia to me. For these reasons, Modelinia is inappropriate as an external on all model articles. I should also add that even if the links were appropriate, they certainly shouldn't be put at the very top of the external links list (putting it above the subject's official site link is especially absurd).  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 14:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Christie Brinkley article

Hi there, can you give me please some guidelines to improve the quality of this article?

Now stands as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.

Thanks and regards, Vanthorn (talk) 01:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)Vanthorn

Well, I can't really say I'm too practiced at evaluating articles on how to make them better when there are no obvious problems - my efforts are more about taking bad articles and fixing the major problems as opposed to taking good articles and making them great. But I will say Brinkley's article is well beyond a start class rating. I'd say it's a "B", which basically means the only issue is that it doesn't read quite like an encyclopedic article (or have the mind-boggling amount of detail required for "Good article" status). I know that's a rather vague thing to say, but I can at least point out that having the "Miscellaneous" and "Personal life" sections as lists is odd. They seem like dumping grounds for the info that didn't naturally fit anywhere else, and it seems to me that that would be a natural problem when the encyclopedic mark has been missed.

As Wiki's assessments page says, you can always request an assessment and see what someone else says about improving it, or just read featured articles to get a better sense of what needs to improve. One thing I can think to recommend for improvement (and this is just an idea) is to not divide up the career section by art form/medium subheadings - i.e., modeling, acting, etc. - but by stages of her career (break-through, super-stardom, branching out, for example.), or decade by decade. That way, all the various things Brinkley has done can be mentioned seamlessly as they happened in her career overall while maintaining an obvious structure as opposed to hacking its chronology apart to simply divide things up when they don't divide cleanly. I would also recommend modeling the awards section on Audrey Hepburn's awards section so it's not just another list too; removing much of the rather glorifying descriptions of what each award/merit means and perhaps integrating her philanthropic work into that section as well would be good. Hope that helps! I wrote so much more than I intended!  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 00:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Sarah Stephens

You edited Sarah Stephens but fixed part of the discrepancy while leaving the rest. I remain unsure whether you are aware of the discrepancy or if you just viewed one of the pages and decided to go with it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

You've got me kind of puzzled. The discrepancy? She's Australian (no matter which city she was born in). I don't get the problem.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 13:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Christie Brinkley

Hi, there! I need your help dealing with the user Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk · contribs · count). He removed from Christie Brinkley article the facts regarding her relationship with Olivier Chandon de Brailles, saying: "Claim of engagement is not supported by any of the sources cited, she-dated is not encyclopedic". The New York Magazine says (in a interview with Brinkley last year) that this was a serious relationship ended with the death of Olivier Chandon in a car accident. Why this is not enciclopedic?? And this is not gossip, I sourced the facts with many references. Thanks. Vanthorn (talk) 12:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

It's encyclopedic enough for me - I've explained further in Brinkley's talk page.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 13:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank You! Vanthorn (talk) 20:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Errol Sawyer

I don't agree with your editing. I will undo it and I will ask help from DGG and from an editing board
You have bad intentions because of the history with Christie Brinkley and you are looking for revanche.
1. The first paid job makes you a professional.
2. You change the structure and chronological sequence of the text without reasoning and you destroy it this way.
3. Errol Sawyer does not cite other photographers. You are insulting him on purpose. He says that he is influenced by them in the beginning of his career.
4. The fact that Errol Sawyer photographed Beauford Delaney, Patty d'Arbanville, Jessica Lange and Maria Schneider is very important to mention.
5. You take out important quotations and references without motivation or logic reasoning.
6. On purpose we will leave the link from Christie Brinkley to Errol Sawyer out because Christie attracks very strange visitors to her site that have nothing to do with Errol Sawyer as an artist.
7. The notability of an artist depends of the amount of pictures that are bought by important collectors such as Eric Franck and Manfred Heiting and Museums such as MFAH, Schomburg Library of Black Culture and La Bibliotheque Nationale.
I will past my comment in DGG's talk page too1027E (talk) 16:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

If you revert my edit, I will revert yours as vandalism and post the relevant warnings on your talk page - for example, the warning about deleting maintenance templates w/o first addressing their concerns, all of which I stated rationally on the talk page. And you clearly still do not understand Wiki policy whatsoever, such as WP:AGF, WP:OR, and WP:V.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 16:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I stop communicating with you here.1027E (talk) 01:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)