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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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