User talk:Mbinebri

Thanks

Thanks for your editorial assistance

	This user helped promote the article Carly Foulkes to good article status.

.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

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)