Jump to content

User talk:Mbinebri

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Modshop (talk | contribs) at 16:41, 30 April 2015 (→‎Charlotte Mckinney). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hello. If you leave me a message here on my talk page, I'll likely respond here and give you a talkback notice (at least the first time around) to avoid confusion.

Eunice Olumide

Hi, I can see you removed the POV term "supermodel" from this article here, I've attempted to sustain this. However, this is repeatedly being reverted by COI IPs. I was wondering if there's anything you could do or keep an eye on it? Thanks. Tanbircdq (talk) 18:00, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just reverted the IP. If she—this IP made her gender pretty clear in claiming she's the article's subject—keeps reverting it'll probably get her a temporary ban due to the COI and edit warring, which would hopefully solve the issue. Then again, these types of editors rarely seem to learn their lesson.  Mbinebri  talk ← 19:35, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi sorry for the late reply, yeah there is little worse than narcissistic, COI IPs who are not prepared to engage in understanding Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Anyhow she seems to have gone away for awhile now but only time will tell. Tanbircdq (talk) 00:30, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Venezuelan protests talk page

I wanted to thank you again for showing me some other policies. But I have to ask you to please refrain from naming calling and making accusations about me as I'm only doing my best. So, I'm sorry if I have been difficult and only wish the best for our edits from here on out. Oh, and don't call me "man". lol--Zfigueroa (talk) 06:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, are you a woman? I can never tell with everyone's gender non-specific names (like my own).  Mbinebri  talk ← 15:38, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
lol thanks for the heads-up!--Riothero (talk) 16:37, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly believe no intention was made to offend you, but merely to explain disagreements. The best we can do is 'assume good faith' and explain our disagreements as clearly as possible, while making an effort to understand where the other person may be coming from, in the hope of reaching consensus.Riothero (talk) 16:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed! I'm trying to use the talk page a lot more. Thanks for showing me new things.--Zfigueroa (talk) 19:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Colectivos

re: the Colectivos article, i should have broken up my changes into separate edits, so that i could give reasons for each. in many of the cases, if you check the sources being cited, you will find that they do not support statements in the article (for example, colectivos from 23 de energo did not shoot at capriles aides to prevent them from entering--it says an aide chooses not to go to the neighborhood out of fear of being shot at, as "someone [unidentified] shot at one opposition colleague when she visited the slum late last year.") there was also undue weight given to the Tupamaro section so i editted with an eye toward trimming it (since Tupamaros has its own page, there is little reason to go into much depth here). perhaps i was too quick to restore my edits (before talking to you)--i did explain a little in my edit summaries. if you think i'm still in the wrong, feel free to restore your last revision, then let's take it to the talk page. respectfully, Riothero (talk) 00:54, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarifications. It's disappointing that we even have to worry about sources being misrepresented, as with the information on Capriles' aide. It's a good thing you're this diligent!  Mbinebri  talk ← 12:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mallory Haldeman

I see you have proposed the article on Mallory Haldeman to be deleted. Article is just an industry profile: some stats, competition history, and a long quote. Sourcing is sparse and, unsurprisingly, consists of just some stats, competition history, and quotes - no real coverage. Mbinebri talk ← 00:48, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I have since added a new section on Media coverage of the subject person as well as added additional content and references. In creation of the article, I used the following already existing articles as reference points from two other competitors to ensure uniformity in the topic area. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jen_Hendershott and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicole_Wilkins-Lee

I believe after review, you'll find the article I created (and have continued to expand on since first created) far exceeds that standards of these two accepted articles. My intent is to continue to expand the references and content as time permits and as is the desire of the project, create something worthwhile for others to edit as well.

As such, I would respectfully request you remove your proposal to delete. (Surtom (talk) 02:02, 14 September 2014 (UTC))[reply]

I appreciate your attempts to improve the article, but I don't find the sourcing satisfactory enough to withdraw the AfD. We'll just have to see what other editors think.  Mbinebri  talk ← 14:51, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again!

Just wanted to get a response on if I should create the Bolivarian diaspora article. I described what was in the articles you were wondering about on the talk page. I also have a new username now for less confusion!--ZiaLater (talk) 20:39, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just replied, although there isn't much new for me to say. I don't object to a Venezuelan emigration article but I do object to limiting a worthwhile topic's scope to that of political criticism.
Yes, I see you changed your name... it was confusing at first. :P  Mbinebri  talk ← 23:00, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Eddie Klint for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Eddie Klint is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eddie Klint until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. – Fayenatic London 18:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of interest to you

You were a discussant at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Cloutier which (somewhat strangely) closed as a delete with 5 delete and 4 keep responses. The article has since been recreated through the WP:AFC process and a speedy deletion was contested. Thus, I call your attention to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Cloutier (2nd nomination).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mbinebri, I added the largest archive of Adriana's fashion photography and modeling images, the link has the most complete archive of her fashion work anywhere that I have found on the net. Much like the other links like Fashion Model Directory, and Model.com the FashionIndustryArchive link is the most complete of all the external links related to Adriana.

The only link that is somewhat questionable is the Fashion Styles Magazine... Not something I have really heard of and I have been in fashion for 20 + years.

Thanks for your input and I am sure after you review the external link it is by far the most complete reference material of all the external links related to Adriana. 173.2.38.85 (talk) 20:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]


I assume in good faith that the deletion/revert was attributed to the fact that I have only added links to one site in particular, which on the outside could reasonably seem like spam, I agree wholeheartedly with your initial observation. However, if based on the pure merit of the content on the contrary, I have added a better external reference than the existing ones. Please let me know how to go about continuing this and also adding the current management agencies for other models as the information on quite a few models are incorrect. 173.2.38.85 (talk) 20:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edits—a second time as well—not because it seemed like external link spamming, but because it's a classic example of it. Not only are you exclusively adding one site (the definition of link spamming) but your edit summaries and your argument here are purely promotional. Normally, such editing behavior would make me report you and be done with it, because link spamming warrants a block without warning, but you left me this message in good faith, so I won't.  Mbinebri  talk ← 22:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm honestly not sure if the link belongs or not. From a cursory visit to the website in question Example Link, it seems to be a decent source of general information, not overtly associated with any company. In defending its addition, the anonymous editor at 173.2.38.85 claims industry experience and shows awareness of Wikipedia policies beyond the usual of a hit-and-run IP editor. I suggest to the anonymous editor that if the information for some models is incorrect, fix it, using the website as a reference, and insert it as a proper reference. I believe that would not run afoul of WP:SPAMMER --Anon423 (talk) 22:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I checked out a few of the site's pages myself and found the content to be Wikipedia page cut-and-pastes (ex., Lima's) which makes me question the site. I see no value in a site that just mirrors Wiki content or gets info from who-knows-where, and several ELs common to model articles already compile their work. We have enough fashion databases and I don't think a site that's willing to mirror Wiki content meets WP:RS.  Mbinebri  talk ← 22:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Huh. Well, you've gone further than I, just the first guy to hit approve on an edit that looked innocent enough. Along that front, I'm not as salty as some of you and haven't taken off my WP:IPs are human too kid gloves yet. My advice to use the source would be tempered by the possibility that the supposedly comprehensive high-quality information was just taken from elsewhere, in which case, use the elsewhere. Now let's just hope the IP editor looks for replies. --Anon423 (talk) 22:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say I've actually become less salty over the years. I used to be all for restricting IPs from editing bios, for example, but I've since come to the conclusion that the most disruptive editors—the truly awful ones—are always registered accounts, typically with no edit histories. Back to this site though. I've found the reliability kiss of death: FashionIndustryArchives makes no warranties and representations as to the accuracy of the content found on the FashionIndustryArchive Site.  Mbinebri  talk ← 23:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As a tip to the anonymous editor, I'd suggest not antagonizing someone patrolling recent edits by directly undoing their reverts. There's a lot of spam going around, and it's best you not look like aggressive annoying spam. If you want to help, convince us that you are. --Anon423 (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wise advice.  Mbinebri  talk ← 22:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is all great advice, I guess the best way to move forward is to make relevant edits without just sourcing this one site. I did notice the copy/paste wiki info that Mbinebri pointed out, which I agree with and particularly didn't like, and the " terms of service claim" not claiming responsibility for inaccurate information which I also agree is a not ideal; although, I understand from a purely legal aspect that sites verbage. I found similar and much more disturbing verbage on the other database sites with already existing external links like, MODELS.com DOES NOT GUARANTEE THE LEGITIMACY OR IDENTITY OF ANY USER, INCLUDING ANY PROFESSIONAL MEMBER, OR OF ANY INFORMATION OR ADVICE PROVIDED ON MODELS.com...": Which is far greater red flag in my opinion as to the legitimacy of the sites content.

I will take all of this advice and make my edits with more consideration, I genuinely appreciate the guidance and respect your edits, and will work to a positive contribution to Wiki . I will start with erroneous information rather than adding external links. I would assume that editing erroneous speculative information that is clearly unsourced would rank as good edits, and will start there. Would this be the best start? I am looking forward to your opinion and advice. 173.2.38.85 (talk) 01:15, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds alright. I'll caveat anything I say with the fact that I don't consider myself an expert editor. I'm a sort of jack of many trades doing miscellaneous cleanup, so if you think you can do a good job revising articles on things you know well, to make them useful and encyclopedic references on their subjects, it's all I can do to watch and help out. Besides the usual introductory links I've dropped onto your talk page, the following pages might be useful reference material: WP:Tutorial/Keep in mind, WP:Core content policies, and WP:Biographies of living persons. But don't let lots of reading material and rules keep you from doing what's right. Those are very general background guidelines, and if you know what a good encyclopedic article is supposed to look like and see something to make better, go for it. WP:Be bold. If you don't know how to format citations, or specific guidelines on how to write something, put up what you have even if it looks rough and talk to us (the other editors as a whole). As long as we try to work together, the spirit of cooperation should move us over all misunderstandings and obstacles. --Anon423 (talk) 04:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Made my first update to the Anna Ewers profile, please have a look, my first large contribution and edit. Please let me know what you think. 173.2.38.85 (talk) 19:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for approaching this in good faith. A few notes... When you're citing a source, at the top of the text field there's a tool bar with "Cite" at the end of it. This gives you templates to make proper citation style easier. I would probably also just use a link to each model's profile home page when citing FIA just to keep things cleaner/less redundant in the ref list. That said, when citing stats it's better to use an agency profile or the model's own website, as these are "official." I also wouldn't start deleting models.com or FMD external links. I'm not either site's biggest fan but, for better or worse, including them seems to be standard for model articles (especially FMD) so I think we'd need a consensus first.  Mbinebri  talk ← 21:16, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New article discussion

Hello Mbinebri,

I am discussing on creating a new article on this talk page. Since you have been recently involved in similar articles, I would like for you to be part of the discussion.--ZiaLater (talk) 17:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Global account

Hi Mbinebri! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 17:00, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting participation

I'm not trying to be a nuisance but the "significant increase" they state is not from the presidential elections but for the parliamentary elections the month before. I hope you understand. If you could fix it that would be great because I don't want to be blocked. I apologize for not explaining it better.--ZiaLater (talk) 23:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny that we're even debating what counts as low voter turnout. 54% for a non-presidential election and 64% for a presidential election would be considered great here in the US... sadly.  Mbinebri  talk ← 00:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I guess so, I don't know too much about United States politics. Venezuela used to have compulsory voting (forced voting), which can be explained for such high rates previously. Now with such polarisation, it is more like lets see if we can get someone out or keep someone in office that could explain the high numbers. I think we should share the numbers of voting in the article though since its a neutral statistic.--ZiaLater (talk) 00:21, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Errol Sawyer versus Errol Francis Sawyer{vetted}

This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page. Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed. For more information, particularly on merging or moving the article during the discussion, read the guide to deletion.

What is the reason for the deletion discussion when in real time there is little or no difference in text between Errol Francis Sawyer and Errol Sawyer?1027E (talk) 15:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're a little confused as to what's going on here. Since "Errol Francis Sawyer" was moved to "Errol Sawyer," the only thing that changes is the name. The text/content remains the same under the new name and a redirect notice is left behind under the former name. It's not duplicate article content.  Mbinebri  talk ← 18:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a copy because there is additional information added so you are mistaken and did not read the article, obviously. Read: http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/12/01/erro-d01.html1027E (talk) 10:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Creative Notability d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. Collections[edit] La Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris, France, 1974 and 2001. 37 pictures.[17] Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture, Harlem, New York, 1997. 40 pictures. Eric Franck Gallery, London, England, 1997. 21 pictures.[18] Fadi Zahar, La Chambre Claire Gallery, Paris, France, 2000. 4 pictures. Manfred Heiting, Amsterdam, Holland, 2002. 2 pictures. Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, Texas, 2004. 2 pictures.[19] Victoria & Albert Museum, London. England. Work added to National Art Library Collection, 2005. Tate Britain, London, England, 2012. 6 pictures. Frank Groen, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 2013. 10 pictures. 1027E (talk) 11:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Protest deaths

Thanks for your edit on the number protest deaths since I misread it. Is there are way that we can found out when the 44th death occurred? It was before Kluiberth was killed, so was it in early 2015 or later 2014?--ZiaLater (talk) 20:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's assuming there was a 44th death before this most recent one. Maybe the source just got it wrong?  Mbinebri  talk ← 20:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Romero of the FPV says that 9 deaths were accidental while the other 35 were murders (9+35=44). I found the article by El Universal too if that helps you.--ZiaLater (talk) 21:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I read from another source that had better wording where Romero was stating that there were only 35 killed in the protests and the other 9 stated by the government and the media are completely unrelated. Maybe we can do the 35-44 in the infobox?--ZiaLater (talk) 21:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely disagree with changing the 43 number. It's too extensively cited as fact by the mainstream media, and if I'm remembering correctly, there was a source (I don't know if it's still used in the article) that documented the names and context of the 43 deaths, so the number seems legit. Romero's claim, on the other hand, seems rather fringe-ish right now, given that he's the only one claiming 44 and it's unclear how he arrived at that number when no one else has.  Mbinebri  talk ← 01:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Just saw something different and thought I was missing something. Thanks!--ZiaLater (talk) 03:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page discussion

I would like to invite you to a talk page discussion. '(Disclaimer: This is not an attempt at canvassing)--ZiaLater (talk) 02:48, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Charlotte McKinney

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 12:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May 2007 RCTV protests

I was wondering if the title "May 2007 RCTV protests" should be changed simply to "2007 RCTV protests". What do you think?--ZiaLater (talk) 16:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay, I was expecting you to create a section on the article's talk page. I don't feel particularly strongly either way on this issue. Protests (or maybe just the one) did happen in June, according to the article, but reliable sources don't seem to pay attention to that and characterize the subject as May protests.  Mbinebri  talk ← 13:37, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would create a talk page section there but it would take forever to get anything going. Is there a template or something like that I can place there?--ZiaLater (talk) 20:35, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're looking for Template:Requested move. Now that I think more about it, I wouldn't oppose the move/rename. The current name seems to imply there was another set of significant, related protests that year but in another month that needs differentiation, which I'm assuming isn't the case.  Mbinebri  talk ← 12:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll try to set it up then.--ZiaLater (talk) 01:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you take a look?

Just wanted to know if you could take a look at the VIO article. I made some changes in order to add more content that wouldn't rely on opinion. One of the changes I made in the lede involving the VIO's statement of their goals may be worded in an odd way but I have seen in other articles that such statements are attributed to whoever said them.--ZiaLater (talk) 18:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little iffy on treating the CSP article as reliable. It didn't exactly get a ringing endorsement in the RSN. That said, if we can treat such a blatantly partisan source as reliable, it certainly opens the door for other partisan sources to be cited as fact without attribution, such as Venezuela Analysis.  Mbinebri  talk ← 13:33, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. That is why I replied somewhere (I think on my talk page) that I found other sources. Thanks for your help!--ZiaLater (talk) 20:33, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another article that I would appreciate it if you looked at it. You can fix anything on there and we can discuss some things if needed. One thing I would like to look at in particular is the "Background" section since it seems like a WP:OR section. I'm sorry for leaving so much on your talk page but I am just getting tired of edit conflicts lately.--ZiaLater (talk) 10:11, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How to confirm net worth

I just wanted to know how one can confirm the net worth of someone reliably. The majority of the people on the lists are "estimates" or "reports" and such. Should we clean up that article? I tried comparing what I found with other edits that were in that article.--ZiaLater (talk) 18:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are others on there from celebritynetworth.com too. Should we delete them? I at least tried to find some decent sources.--ZiaLater (talk) 18:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now that you point it out, there are indeed some questionable-looking sources. Hopefully, sites like celebritynetworth.com got their numbers from reliable sources so the information itself isn't bad. But they do obviously warrant being tagged for their questionableness and then ultimately replaced. We can cite reliable financial sources like Forbes, as Forbes frequently publishes such lists. While the numbers still might be estimates, the estimates are from a source that specializes in the field and has a solid reputation. Portraying one firm's theft-based accusations as fact, on the other hand, is the wrong way to go, especially when the most prominent sources covering it are gossip-based like The Daily Mail. Going through the ref list, some items are verified by public tax filings, which seems ideal.  Mbinebri  talk ← 21:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I found other sources that state Chávez's net worth that seem more reliable but are from the same individual stating it to be around $1-2 billion. I'll put what I have found related in another article. I have also notified a past user who was involved in the net worth article to take a look at the article for any issues.--ZiaLater (talk) 22:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So if you Google "Hugo Chávez net worth", it will show $2 billion. Also, according to celebritynetworth.com, it states $1-2 billion and uses the same source. Richest.com says $1 biliion. I found this from Forbes that says that of the $120 billion of PDVSA earned in 2011, "$30 billion went the president’s slush fund". Newser says that he had a net worth of $1 billion but uses celebritynetworth.com. So wherever I go I find that he had billions of dollars according to multiple secondary sources.--ZiaLater (talk) 00:11, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

..."according to multiple secondary sources" almost all (if not all) basing their figures on that iffy CJIA piece. The fact that the figure swings back and fourth between one and two billion—a huge difference—makes the whole thing look like guesswork.  Mbinebri  talk ← 13:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did some more digging and it seems the CJIA is only one person (WP:RS issue)—Jerry Brewer—with a history of writing hit pieces on Chavez's government and other South American leftists. It also seems to me that in Brewer's original piece (which I can't find), he never actually states Chavez's wealth but rather assumes a parallel with Fidel Castro's, which seems dubious.  Mbinebri  talk ← 14:46, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks Mbinebri, this seems like a rather similar case to the polling organization issues, someone could say something that is covered but they obviously have a strong bias. I'm glad that I found that article and brought it to the attention of others but I hope we can at least save some of it so the work of the other users doesn't go to waste.--ZiaLater (talk) 22:13, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute

Can you take a look at the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute? Let me know what you think because it may need more than a clean up.--ZiaLater (talk) 21:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article is basically what you get when someone writes an article on a subject they're affiliated with using only sources from the subject's own site but without blatantly going into advert territory. I tagged it for primary sources and the overuse/incorrect use of ELs within the article body. What are your concerns regarding this article?  Mbinebri  talk ← 13:44, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Mckinney

What is promotional about stating I am her business manager? I don't understand your comment. I am her business manager. It says it on her website. I have the right to have my name listed as manager and I cited the source, her website, as instructed. What is the issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Modshop (talk • contribs) 15:04, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have no "right" to be listed in the article, and using the article to bring attention to yourself is very much promotional. The community of editors ultimately determines what belongs. Right now, three other editors have disagreed with your edits. It's a bad idea to continue reverting, as you'll run into the WP:3RR rule. You also risk being permanently blocked as a promotion-only account with an admitted COI. You can take your case to the talk page if you want. When you're in disagreement with multiple other editors, that's the better place to discuss something.  Mbinebri  talk ← 16:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing promotional about it. It is factual information. As of now, Wilhelmina, which links to their page aka promotional, is listed as he manager. They are not her manager. I am. SO there is false information being displayed. Are they one of her agents? Yes. But they are not her manager. I have been with her from the start before any agents even signed her, yet here I am having to battle for my name to be listed factually? I don't understand. I thought the purpose of this site, and of editors like yourself were to help keep information VALID. Well as of now, you and your other editors keep changing it to INVALID information. Also, you keep changing her birthdate to 1991 and that is not the case. She is 21 years old and was born in 1993. I book all her flights and have her drivers license and passport to know this. So please, if your intention is to uphold the integrity of the site and its information, leave the edits as they are. There is no intention to promote myself, as my name does not link to anything, yet Wilhelmina's page does. It links to their page. That is promo.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mbinebri&oldid=660083621"