User talk:Mbinebri: Difference between revisions

=Better take a break from wikipedia. And delete your sockpuppets.

And tell your admin friends to fuck off. =

Archives

Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3, Archive 4

Thanks for your editorial assistance

This user helped promote Carly Foulkes to good article status.

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.[reply]

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