Mbinebri

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I was just seeing the same things but just wanted to make sure. I might have looked at it the wrong way because I have been sick lately. Thanks for taking a look.--ZiaLater (talk) 20:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Modshop (talk • contribs) 16:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

I am going to try to trim down the article a bit. I know you're good at it as well and I would like if you could check things out as they go.--ZiaLater (talk) 02:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Didn't someone already significantly cut that article down recently?  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 02:16, 19 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yeah but we were talking about slimming it down some more on the talk page. I did a little bit and you can check it out now. I removed some things surrounding singular events like court hearing or comments by certain groups about outdated things.--ZiaLater (talk) 05:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

From the latter comments on the talk page, it seems Sandy was recommending moving on to other articles now that this one has been trimmed. That said, I do dispute some of your editing, particularly removing what little analysis there is on poverty reductions, etc., while leaving in so much detail analyzing things like crime, much of which seems tangential to Chavez's presidency. Such editing looks partisan.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 13:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

I tried to summarize it without giving specific details of percentages and such. That is why I kept OAS and UN comments on reductions in poverty, inequality, etc. That's why I asked you to take a look. As for crime and such, it was new information that recently came forward which is why it was added. I even reduced from the crime section excessive statistics from other years trying to summarize how much crime had increased. Seeing how much you corrected following my edits, I believe I did a pretty decent job. Thanks for your help.--ZiaLater (talk) 23:34, 19 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

So I took a look at my poverty data I took when it was originally released by the INE and multiple years appeared to be altered by the INE in their Excel document between 2009 and 2013 (compare this with this, 2009). The data I have between 2009 and 2013 is different than what was originally presented by the INE, with 2009 originally being 7.2% (now 8.8% according to INE) and 2013 originally being 10.3% (now 9.8%). This is interesting and I wonder if the change of inflation calculations had something to do with this. With these inconsistencies, you can see how the UN can have a difficult time tracking poverty in Venezuela as well. In the meantime, I'll try to keep the data as consistent as possible.--ZiaLater (talk) 23:41, 16 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I don't really see a big problem here. The UN appears to have simply updated it's statistics, which, if anything, makes the numbers more reliable. Maybe an update in the section is necessary to fall in line with the UN's latest reportings, but removal is overkill. The UN is certainly a reliable and noteworthy source.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 00:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I know the UN is reliable, but it says not to compare UN data from 1999 to the INE data of 2012/2013. If they say not to compare it, why should we?--ZiaLater (talk) 06:31, 17 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for checking out that article, I knew you'd take a peek at it. What do you think about it? Also, I will get to work on the graph pretty soon, I've been busy and only doing sporadic edits recently.--ZiaLater (talk) 21:12, 25 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for updating the graph! I've been busy too—and editing has lately felt like a chore—but a broken foot has made me much less mobile lately, so here I am at the computer! Ugh!  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 16:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hope your foot feels better! I might take a break from editing for awhile again since it was quite nice (plus I have work to do elsewhere).--ZiaLater (talk) 23:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

You may see my recent edits and get frustrated but hear me out! Fossett, who was writing for the Passport blog for Foreign Policy is not that great of a source. I tried to explain it long ago (though I accidentally thought it was an opinion piece instead of a blog, but it seems like it can be described as both) and finally looked into it again after reading it some more. Foster pretty much parrots things from sources like some of us do here on Wikipedia. However, when she talks about 2002, she mainly parrots thoughts from those sympathetic to Chávez (Wilpert, LMD, etc.) and then incorrectly shows YouTube footage of ads "aired on private TV stations" that "called on viewers to hit the streets and protest" which actually show the results of 2002 instead of the ads encouraging the protests that happened that April. I know that we can find a better source so bear with me. I don't mean to stir things up so much but if things weren't stirred so much surrounding Venezuela, we wouldn't need to be having these conversations.--ZiaLater (talk) 22:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Ugh. You still can't get it out of your head that alleged sympathy with Chavez doesn't negate a person's reliability. (If alleged bias invalidated a source, we would probably have to get rid of the trillions of claims cited to your favorite source, The Silence and Scorpion.) You also still don't seem to get that Fossett links to numerous sources in her article and cherrypicking the few you don't like doesn't even remotely make it bad source—we've already discussed this. Your attempts to discredit the source because you don't like what it says are tiring. The RSN was already consulted and attribution was added per their recommendation. Let it go.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 00:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Also, please note that far more than Chavez supporters have said the Ven. media supported the coup—it's the predominant view. I also kept in your attribution trying to discredit Le Monde, but I might come back to that.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 00:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

What you didn't specify was that it was a blog. I will put it up again and see what others say. How is The Silence and Scorpion biased? It is not WP:IDONTLIKE, it is trying to provide reliable sources. If you could find the predominant sources, that would be great, then we wouldn't have to worry about an article written by an intern on a blog.--ZiaLater (talk) 00:45, 1 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Why would I call it a blog when it does not appear to be a "blog"? Considering the verbal screaming match Nelson and Wilpert got into over the book, it's clear they both represent the ideological extremes in this case. My computer hates me right now and wants to freeze every time I right-click trying to copy a link, but I found plenty more sources—in addition to the many already in the section. One is a goldmine. I'll add it in some time soon.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 01:05, 1 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

If you send me the title and organization, I can add it. I don't care if the Venezuelan media was innocent or wanted the coup so they could raid Chávez's panty drawer, I just think there should be a better source than one by an intern.--ZiaLater (talk) 01:20, 1 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello Mbinebri,

I am Allen Lin, a computer science PhD student at the University of Minnesota - Twin Cities. Currently, we are working on a project studying the main article and sub article relationship in a purpose of better serving the Wikipedia article structure. We noticed that you've created main/sub article relationship in Model for Promotional model. So it would be appreciated if you could take 4-5 minutes to finish the survey questions. Thanks in advance! We will not collect any of your personally information.

Thank you for your time to participate this survey. Your response is important for us!

https://umn.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_bvm2A1lvzYfJN9H

Here is the link to our Meta:Research page. Feel free to sign up if you want to know the results! https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Main/sub-article_relationship — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheetah90 (talk • contribs) 04:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I am a university student working on WikiProject Fashion this semester. I am working primarily on copyediting. Let me know if there is anything you'd like me to help you out with.

Thank you, Snapesofwrath (talk) 23:24, 7 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

I am taking one last run at getting Emily Ratajkowski promoted to WP:FA in time for a 25th birthday WP:TFA on June 7th. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive3 needs discussants. Since you have made at least 10 edits to the article, I am hoping you might give some comments.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

In the past you have been active at WP:FASHION, which seems to be inactive. I am trying to get the model Emily Ratajkowski promoted to WP:FA in time to be considered for WP:TFA for her 25th birthday. Although I know you are not as active as you once where, it would be great if you could get involved at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive3 and in her article directly. Let me know if you are interested.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Please join the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_November_17#Template:1995-1999VSFashion_Show.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:11, 17 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change

<span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Mbinebri|<font style="color:black;background:white;font-family:helvica;">''&nbsp;'''Mbinebri'''&nbsp;''</font>]]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Mbinebri|talk &larr;]]</sup> :  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←}

to

<span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Mbinebri|<i style="color:black;background:white;font-family:helvica;">&nbsp;'''Mbinebri'''&nbsp;</i>]]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Mbinebri|talk &larr;]]</sup> :  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←}

But, there's a good chance you intended "helvetica" not "helvica" in which case you would change it to

<span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Mbinebri|<i style="color:black;background:white;font-family:helvetica;">&nbsp;'''Mbinebri'''&nbsp;</i>]]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Mbinebri|talk &larr;]]</sup> :  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←}

—Anomalocaris (talk) 07:57, 31 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the correction!  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 16:01, 1 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! —Anomalocaris (talk) 04:54, 5 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

I am notifying you that you are one of the editors that has made more than 2 edits to at least one of the templates listed at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2018_April_23#Template:SI_Swimsuit_Cover_Models or Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2018_April_23#Template:1964–1969_Sports_Illustrated_Swimsuit. Please help us come to a consensus on this nomination.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:35, 23 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

If you're still active could you take a look at the Marissa Miller article again please. As someone who did a large amount of work on the page before I'd appreciate your input.

An editor recently added many images which seem unlikely to be properly creative commons license. He also deleted the Infobox giving me cause to revert without going deep into the issue of image copyrights.

Someone tagged the whole article as being written like an advert, which isn't particularly helpful but maybe he has a point. I guess the writing could be improved and some of the product details could be deleted as time has shown them to not be particularly notable. -- 109.76.241.235 (talk) 15:41, 25 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

The user who tagged the article has a point about some of the puffery, but other than that, I think the argument that the article has an overall promotional tone is overblown. I notice you made a number of edits. If you feel you've addressed the POV issues brought up on the talk page, you're free to remove the tag.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 00:41, 26 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

The editor has been helpful and engaged in discussion made some of the specific problems clearer to me. So far so good, far less problems than I usually encounter. Having thought about it I do agree the article could do with some work, the flaws in the article are becoming clearer to me too. That particular choice of tag over the entire article that did not seem entirely appropriate, and it made it harder for me to recognize the problems.

I think the inciting incident may have been that reference to the "famous iPod photo" and since Apple gets so much fan attention I can see how after all these years, it could seem like the photo was being given undue emphasis but I think I can make it clearer that it really was a big deal at the time, and generally give the article a cleanup. Thanks for your time. -- 109.76.241.235 (talk) 01:01, 26 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi! You put a Maintenance template on this entry back in 2012. I have added quite a few references to it - if you would be in a position to check if you agree? Or happy enough for me just to take the notice down? Best wishes Feline charm (talk) 00:14, 22 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Have pictures that can be used from my own various paludarium.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paludarium

Aquaticplants (talk) 07:11, 13 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Too early to dub him MVP? I'm from Maryland, we did that before the first game started! But I guess I'll wait another couple of games. «Marylandstater» ^«reply» 06:22, 15 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

I know it's tempting but let's at least wait and see if Lamar and the Ravens beat the Chiefs. :P  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 14:37, 15 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I noticed that you are a member of the Fashion WikiProject, so I was wondering if you might be willing to take a look at some suggestions I made to update the Daphne Guinness page, which is really out of date. I’m not able to propose these changes directly since I have a personal connection to the subject, which I’m given to understand means I have a COI. Thanks in advance. YhSA99b3tTnCnLdr (talk) 19:04, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

An article you recently created, Friedman Amplification, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more in-depth coverage about the subject itself, with citations from reliable, independent sources in order to show it meets WP:GNG. It should have at least three. And please remember that interviews, as primary sources, do not count towards GNG.(?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:48, 10 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the review, but I kindly dispute your conclusion to move the article to a draft. You mention needing at least three sources to establish notability. This is the first time I've heard of a specific number being required and the GNG guidelines specifically say, There is no fixed number of sources required. Can you point me toward where this "at least three" policy comes from? I also have to question your interpretation of the Guitar.com article as not counting toward notability as merely being an interview. According to WP:SECONDARY, a secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources. If the piece was simply a transcribed interview, I would see your point, but this is an in-depth article written by an author in a major, independent publication using an interview as its primary source and in doing so pretty clearly meets policy guidelines for secondary sources, at least as I understand them.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 15:50, 10 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kurt Cobain, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peavey. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:03, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Mbinebri. Thank you for your work on Friedman Amplification. User:North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Nice work

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 02:40, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

@North8000: Thanks, I try! :D Mbinebri (talk) 17:51, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

The article I Wanna Be A Model has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG. Tagged for notability since 2020

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DonaldD23 talk to me 19:16, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I was wondering if I could make a suggestion about models' pages. Since the term supermodel exists here on wikipedia as well (as a page) wouldn't it be more logical to label certain models who have achieved fame, success in fashion and money as supermodels? Because it would make a certain difference compared to the normal models and this difference would become clearer in people who are searching on wikipedia for information. I also edit on other languages and I have seen that some models are labelled supermodels. But I agree that the Occupation in the Infobox should remain unchanged because they're models but more paid ane celebrities. Maria1718182 (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello. The problem with your suggestion is that the term "supermodel" is an inherently subjective status while "model" is a neutral term for a profession, and as MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE says, the lead sentence should avoid "subjective or contentious terms." To put it another way, "modeling" is a job, "supermodeling" is not. The consensus is that if a model has genuinely reached supermodel status—the bar for which seems to get ever lower as time goes on—then it can be established in an encyclopedic manner subsequently within the lead. See Gisele Bündchen as an example. Many years ago, it was actually done how you're suggesting and the result was that every model, beauty pageant winner, porn star, rich guy's trophy wife, and female reality show participant was defined as a "supermodel" in their article lead sentences because someone out there was enough of a fan to make a drive-by change, usually sourced to a tabloid or puff piece. It was a disaster from an encyclopedic standpoint and really needed to change. Mbinebri (talk) 13:36, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ah now I understand. Thank you because I joined 10 months ago and I didn't know this happened on wkkipedia and thank you for finding the time to respond. Maria1718182 (talk) 19:50, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I saw your page List of distortion pedals, which I recently reviewed. I saw some of the content is copied from existing Wikipedia articles. Please note that copying without attribution is against Wikipedia's licensing requirements. Please add an edit summary providing correct attribution to the articles you copied content from. See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia for instructions on how to proceed, thanks! Broc (talk) 19:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Broc

Thanks for the note! I've never heard of this policy before, but I'll keep it in mind. Mbinebri (talk) 12:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Dear @Mbinebri, since you have always cleaned and modified the page with great care often, I wanted to ask you for the possibility and help of having more control authority and a general cleaning of the page of the supermodel Fabio Mancini. Because it is often vandalised unnecessarily. Thank you in advance for your wonderful work 109.52.151.46 (talk) 06:11, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Reply