User talk:Mbinebri/Archive 2

Pernille Holmboe

I've added some more references to the Pernille Holmboe article. Maybe the {{Notability}} template can be removed? Nsaa (talk) 15:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I removed it and did a bit of a rewrite. The Fashion Model Directory states she participated in the "Supermodel of the World 1995" contest; this could be added as well to further establish notability if it's true (sometimes you never know with FMD).  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 16:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the rewrite. I've not searched for the supermodel of the world contest, so I don't know. Nsaa (talk) 17:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Supermodel

Hi Mbinebri, I need your help reverting vandalism in the Supermodel article. Thanks.  Vanthorn ^{msg ←} 19:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Lord, that article turns into a mess sometimes! I simply reverted the recent IP edits, as this editor has added them in the past and it all got removed; plus it seems to be Flyer22's method. I also left a comment on the talk page if you want to join in.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 21:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Blacklist

Hello. I see you added "Voy.com" to the list per my comments, but it still seems the site can be added to articles w/o the typical denial message (I tried it out on my profile). I remember reading that before a site is blacklisted, it should be removed from all articles. Does this need to be done for the block to "activate"?  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 13:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

No, it means I screwed up somehow. I'll post back at the spam-blacklist talk page to get someone to check it out. Stifle (talk) 13:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for compromise

Thank you Mbinebri. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Have a good day and God bless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by B.manotoc (talk • contribs) 17:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey

Adriana Lima stated her ethnic background: white, Amerindian, and black. Why erase it? Or do you have a problem with her saying she's of partial African descent? Klonk (talk) 14:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Lima herself has not been consistent in her claims in this regard. Other sources reflect the same inconsistency, which makes her ethnicity too difficult to source, and a third-party resolution deemed that the info should not be included for this reason. Also, your racism suggestion is unwelcome here. Please read WP:CIVIL.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 14:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Supermodel title

I know that noting models as supermodels in the lead (intro) of their articles has been discussed before at Wikipedia:WikiProject Fashion. I disagreed with you and others about them not being noted as supermodels at the beginning of the lead. Why? Because I feel that it is only fair that we go by reliable sources in letting these well-known supermodels retain the title of supermodel in their articles, although I saw/see the logic behind some of these newer/less-well known models not being noted as supermodels in the lead of their articles even when valid sources name them as such. It was suggested in those discussions that true supermodels be noted as being considered supermodels later in the lead, and it was stated that they can be acknowledged as supermodels further within the body of the article. I am not against all your edits to the Janice Dickinson article, but I will go ahead and tweak parts of it as a compromise with you. Flyer22 (talk) 00:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Tweak? It looks like you basically undid my edit, minus the lead, haha. But I won't debate it, although I think the who's-the-first-supermodel history lesson is unnecessarily long considering the same explanation is linked to in the supermodel article and it's several sentences only tangentially related to Dickinson.

As for the term's use in leads... "model" is a profession; "supermodel" is a label. No model, no matter how famous, gets paid for supermodeling - it's just modeling. This is the plainest and accurate way to put it. It's like Brad Pitt's lead saying "Brad Pitt is a superstar actor." Is it true? Sure. Can it be sourced? Sure. But that doesn't mean it's appropriate for an encyclopedic lead, as it's still a label/assessment. Rather, let the facts speak for themselves: if the model has the fame, the covers, the money, etc., people will get it; if the model in question has received coverage on the topic of being a supermodel (as Cindy, Linda, Naomi, etc., all have) or has been notably dubbed as such, then attribute it. This way, there's conformity in all fashion model leads and less risk of non-neutrality. Hope that helps!  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 03:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I get what you are saying, and somewhat complied with that. I did undo your edits, but tweaked the original version in ways similar to your edits. As for what is appropriate for an encyclopedia, there is no way that I would ever put "superstar actor" at the beginning of an actor/actress Wikipedia article lead, but stating supermodel in the lead is very different than that in my view. No matter if the reader knows who the true supermodels are, I still feel that it is valid to note these women as supermodels in the lead, considering that it has been a big part of their careers; the supermodel label is significantly more important to modeling than the superstar label is to acting. As stated, I get the logic of not noting it at the very beginning of the lead, though.

I also see your point about the length of the First supermodel claim section in Dickinson's article, but it very much relates to her and that claim. If you still want to cut down on it, however, I will not revert your edits on that matter. Flyer22 (talk) 03:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Just to make it clear (I might have confused you on this), I don't oppose all mention of being a supermodel in the lead. I have no issue with a lead like in the article Lisa Fonssagrives. In fact, I'm the one who tweaked it so that it reads like it does. And I guess the superstar actor comparison is kind of lame, but it's what Catgut used to convince me way back in the day.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 03:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Greetings. I just wanted to comment the "supermodel" tag on Milla Jovovich page. I see that you are confident that "model" is neutral and "supermodel" is not. Well it's not that polarized. I see the "Please just accept that the term "supermodel" isn't neutral" on your page, however, who says that? Is that statement verifiable (one of core policies on Wikipedia)? Do you have a reliable source that backs up that statement? If you do not have a significant coverage of sources for the statement "the term "supermodel" isn't neutral", then it must be your personal point of view. If a person is desribed by reliable sources as a "supermodel", and there is no other source that says about the same person that they are "not a supermodel", there is no reason not to interpret the reliable sources on Wikipedia. You obviously are not familiar about what exactly WP:NPOV means. It is not up to the editors to decide what is neutral and what is not. If there is a consensus among reliable sources, then that is what comes to wikipedia. "Supermodel" is relative, but not non-neutral, as well as "polymath", genius or child prodigy or many other words that are relative, but neutral. These people do exist and if there is an agreement among the sources, they can be tagged so on Wikipedia (see Leonardo da Vinci or Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart). What is not neutral is "perfect", "the best" or whatsoever, because there are no "perfect" people. So unless you provide reliable sources that say that Jovovich is not a supermodel, you should keep there supermodel (because "supermodel" has sources). The discussion on WP:FASHION is not relevant. The participated interchange their POVs. However, I won't revert your edits anymore or resume this discussion. It's up to you whether you want to maintain your POV in the article(s). Cheers.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 14:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

D.C. Meetup, Saturday, June 6, 2009

The 7th DC Meetup dinner will be held this Saturday, June 6th, starting at 5 p.m. The event will be at Bertucci's, near George Washington University and the Foggy Bottom metro station. It will follow the Apps for Democracy open source event at GWU. For details or to RSVP if you haven't already, see Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 7. (You have received this announcement because your user page indicates that you live in Maryland, Virginia, or DC.)
Delivered by The Helpful Bot at 20:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC) to report errors, please leave a note here.

Frankie/Missie Rayder pic

Actually I've always disliked that photo but hadn't brought myself to remove it. I agree with you completely. No photo is necessary to prove they were in a Gap ad, and if you want to show they look alike then the solution is to get a free picture (or two). Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

If it stays out of the article for a week or so, it will automatically be tagged and deleted as a non-free orphan. I wouldn't do anything for now, but if it's reinserted you can nominate it for deletion. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd just say something like what I wrote above: "No photo is necessary to prove they were in a Gap ad, and if you want to show they look alike then the solution is to get a free picture (or two)." Replaceable with a free image, fails WP:NFCC1 (and would not significantly add to article even if there were a free image, fails WP:NFCC8). Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice about the deletion discussion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

List of Victoria's Secret Fashion Show models

A fan site is better than no ref. Until we can replace the ref with refs that contain all the information, leave them. Also, the fact that there were no asians is notable and surprising.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

You don't seem to quite understand Wiki policy regarding sources. "Use it until we get something better..." is not a valid reason to use an inappropriate ref (there is no valid reason), and Wiki policy is very strict on avoiding contributory infringement via sites hosting copyvios. Not to mention, there obviously isn't going to be a reliable source that conveniently pops up to provide all the necessary info, which means the above rationale is really just an excuse to permanently keep the fansite refs against policy. As for what the majority of the refs verified, none of it seems like the type of info likely to be challenged, so no source really needs to be offered, IMO, until someone comes along to challenge it.

As for the no Asians part, you finding it interesting isn't a valid reason to keep it in. It requires an RS source finding it interesting.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 04:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's put this discussion somewhere useful. Meet me at Talk:List_of_Victoria's_Secret_Fashion_Show_models#Copy_vio.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I notice that you have removed vsholic from many individual model pages. Be sure that you only do so in cases where it is a redundant ref. In many cases this is the only source of a model's particiaption.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

If fansites (along w/ FMD) are the only "sources" available for such a credit to be cited, then perhaps said models do not meet notability requirements.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 02:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Check it out!

Hi, I assume you could be interested in these anonymous edits. Would you mind checking whether they're correct or not? I've reverted some of them earlier, but the guy came back. Right now I'm really don't have the time to do the necessary research, so I'd rather refrain from reverting. Basically, I think that those details about a model's height, shoesize etc. should be well sourced. I suspect there's a lot of people out there who love to poke fun at good old Wikipedia by intentionally inserting false facts. Happens a lot of times, I'm sure, and sometimes leads to slightly embarassing media coverage. I've become a little stricter when observing changes made to biographical articles, because even tiny but wrong details can damage an encyclopedia's credibility. Cheers, --Catgut (talk) 23:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Ugh, what is with IPs randomly changing models' measurements? I checked a bunch of this IP's edits, and unlike most instances lately, the changes aren't necessarily horribly incorrect. The IP made a few correct changes (or "correct" in terms of being backed up by FMD, the info of which is user-submitted anyway), but also oddly changed a lot of the heights to 5'10" when FMD says 5'9.5". This person seems to have some bizarre issue with models being that height, but like you, I'm not chock full of time to make corrections at the moment.

That said, I've come across a lot of your recent reversions and I don't blame you at all for added strictness. It's obnoxious to have to babysit articles and continually waste time fact-checking out of a vain attempt to continually assume good faith. Better to just revert. ...If only that resolution that would have semi-protected all BLPs had passed!  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 00:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah... and thanks for checking the edits! Cheers, --Catgut (talk) 22:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Volunteer opportunity in Bethesda, Thursday, July 16

The Wikimedia Foundation will be conducting an all-day Academy at the National Institutes of Health, in Bethesda, Maryland, on Thursday, July 16. The team that will be teaching at the Academy, a mix of paid staff and volunteers, is looking for four more volunteers to be teaching assistants, providing one-to-one assistance in workshops whenever a workshop participant has a problem following the instructional directions. (We currently have two editors signed up as teaching assistants, and are looking for a total of six.)

The NIH editing workshops are only for two hours, but volunteers are asked to meet the Wikimedia Foundation team at the hotel in Bethesda at about 7:15 a.m. (time to be finalized shortly) and to stay for the entire day, which ends at 4:30 p.m. Lunch will be provided. (The full schedule can be found here.)

The team is not necessarily looking for expert editors (though they are welcome), just people who can help novices who might get stuck when trying to do some basic things. If you've been an editor for at least 3 months, and have done at least 500 edits, you probably qualify.

If you're interested, please send John Broughton an email. If you might be interested, but would like further information, please post a note on his user talk page, so that he can respond there, and others can see what was asked.

(You have received this posting because your user page indicates that you live in Maryland or DC. --EdwardsBot (talk) 03:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC))

Removal of PROD from Sigal Cohen

Hello Mbinebri, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Sigal Cohen has been removed. It was removed by ThaddeusB with the following edit summary '(contest prod - a search of her Hebrew name turns up several usable sources (run http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22%D7%A1%D7%99%D7%92%D7%9C+%D7%9B%D7%94%D7%9F%22&btnG=Search&um=1&ned=us&hl=en through a translator) - will expand+source ASAP)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with ThaddeusB before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 20:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Ana Colja

I hope that you will not delete this article. I believe that Colja is noteworthy and she also fits into the Slovenian project, which hopes to improve coverage of Slovenians on Wiki (see Ana Colja discussion).Robert (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

A user at least semi-demonstrated coverage for Colja, so I withdrew the nomination for deletion - in other words, no need to worry.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 19:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Sublime

I replied to your comment on Sublime's talk page. Alex (talk) 03:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

D.C. Meetup, Saturday, September 26

The 8th DC Meetup dinner will be held this Saturday, September 26, starting at 6 p.m. The event will be at Burma Restaurant (740 6th St, NW near the Gallery Place-Chinatown Metro station). For details or to RSVP if you haven't already, see Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 8. (You have received this announcement because your user page indicates that you live in Maryland, Virginia, or DC.) --EdwardsBot (talk) 07:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Orsi Kocsis

Hi-I see you have removed the table detailing Orsi's significant photographic activities. It was created to assist in establishing that Orsi has notoriety beyond her Hungarian Playmate of the Year status in that her erotic and nude photographic portfolio is perhaps one of the most extensive of any nude/erotic model in the industry. Can you explain why the inclusion of the table isn't appropriate. Not that they are correct, but other administrators (and I might add hard-core administrators) have reviewed the article without issue, at least with regard to the table. How might having this table be different than similar wiki tables in the entertainment industry?Pete Rogers NYC (talk) 20:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

First off, I think you mean "notability," not "notoriety" (which implies being known for unpleasant reasons), haha. That said, per WP:EMBED, articles should consist of prose, and anything that would further establish the subject's notability especially should be expressed through prose, not through a table or lists. The information the table contained seemed to already be covered within the body of the article anyway—or at least what was encyclopedic was already covered in the article. The rest, such as the number of photos in each magazine, is "cruft," which can be defined as excessive detail very few people would find helpful. Before I removed the table, the article was tagged as "fancruft," and the presence of that tag is likely why editors you spoke did not remove the table themselves.

As for other tables in entertainer-based articles, it's a matter of some debate whether they should stay in articles or not, but from what I can surmise, filmography and discography lists/tables are kept because they generally link to works that are notable enough for their own articles and are helpful for that reason. A table listing editorials Kocsis has appeared in cannot claim the same usefulness.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 22:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Understood, your explanation is appreciated. The notability vs notoriety is also noted...good call. I made a similar comment to another last week regarding envy vs jealousy. The Photographic Portfolio section is for the most part, without its content, perhaps that prose should be modified and moved to Modeling. I'm happy to do it, however it seems that the effort should have been part of your clean up!Pete Rogers NYC (talk) 17:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll get to a clean-up later—there's quite a bit that needs to be dealt with in the article.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 18:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, scratch that, I cleaned up the article while I should have been doing something else. Anywho... I removed quite a few sources that didn't meet WP:RS. For example, anything hosted by a forum such as "HQParadise" doesn't belong on Wikipedia, whether it's original content or something published by a magazine, since it is a copyright violation, as are most Youtube videos, which I removed as refs as well. The Youtube info was also trivial. What videos are available on Youtube is not encyclopedic. Also keep in mind that a citing a ref means you have to give us something to verify. Making a claim and using a ref such as "Interview with such-and-such TV station" or simply linking to the homepage of a website doesn't work—I can't verify anything that vague. You need to provide more specifics. I also removed the POV-ish material; this isn't a fansite and anything promotional sounding (or trivial) should be avoided. Lastly, I reduced the video/TV/portfolio sections to one section. Video and TV sections naturally belong together when each has such little content, and the portfolio content was mainly original research. I know that's a lot, so feel free to ask about anything I didn't cover well enough.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 19:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, you have been the most helpful editor I've come across on Wikipedia. It seems most have an attitude.Pete Rogers NYC (talk) 04:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the compliment!  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 15:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism on "Paul Banks" article

Hey Mbinebri,

Obstaclex continues to vandalise the "Paul Banks" article (see history) despite having been warned a year ago on his Talk page. Could you intervene? --Robby.is.on (talk) 15:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello again. I returned the info this editor keeps removing w/o cause and warned him for it. Next time, leave warnings yourself on his talk page. That way, he can be blocked—some admins will not block a user no matter how disruptive until a certain number of warnings have been given (usually four). But judging from the page history, it's a long-standing problem and I'll report him anyway if he removes the content again.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 15:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll keep your suggestion in mind for the future. --Robby.is.on (talk) 15:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Hoax edit on Marisa Miller

Hi. You may have missed my addition to the top of the section, but I didn't make the edits you are commenting on. There is no way I would change someone's measurements without providing a reference. Yours Truly, Piano non troppo (talk) 15:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean none of the edits outside the forum removal were done by you? If that's the case, I'm royally confused now, but I apologize!  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 15:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

New articles on Canadian Films

I have indicated my source The Canadian Film Encyclopedia and included the link. --Marleau (talk) 19:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Danita Angell

An editor has nominated Danita Angell, an article which you have created or worked on, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danita Angell and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. -- Eastmain (talk) 04:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danita Angell

You may have some comments for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danita Angell.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

DJ Heavygrinder

Why don't you condider her notable? Do others agree, or is it all just your personal opinion?(LonerXL (talk) 05:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC))

I don't consider her notable because there doesn't seem to be much in the way of distinguishing her from other professional DJs—I gave a more detailed account in the AfD nomination. And yes, what I wrote there is my opinion, and AfDs are done in order to gather opinions of other Wikipedians to reach a consensus. They might agree with me, they might not. That's how it goes.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 17:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

So it seems that none of the "wannabe-wikipedia gods" ever consider the possibility that more things and more notable sources may, and will appear in near future to enhance the article... That's equivalent to calling a person a lifetime failure on their day of birth.(LonerXL (talk) 05:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC))

Please read WP:CIVIL before making these kinds of comments. Throwing insults won't make anyone take you seriously in a disagreement. As for your argument, subjects aren't notable for what sources/achievements might appear in the future; they are notable for what sources/achievements are out there to be found currently. Not to mention, the AfD has received no votes so far, so there is no need to panic.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 16:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

It was never an intended insult, or a personal attack on anyone. I honestly didn't think what I said was harmful to anyone at all. My concern is to get an understanding on things, never to make "wikienemies." I simply believed the article was decent and respectable, so I was very dissapointed with the thought of deleting it.(LonerXL (talk) 02:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC))

Hmmn?! My apologies, for it also seems that you padded the ref list with trivial performance/party announcements to the ref list. I had absolutely no idea, and that's say ALOT, meaning you tried to find some "wikiness" with it.(LonerXL (talk) 01:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC))

Entre la mer et l'eau douce

You seem obsessed with my articles over small technicalities and quite frankly I don't understand why, I realise there must some kind of standardization but there is something unhealty in this kind of "control" ! --Marleau (talk) 01:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Headshot

Nice new photograph of Marisa, she looks great but it does look kind of creepy since the guy in the background is looking right at the camera and Marisa is not. I was hoping you might recrop the photo differently, so as to cut out that guy in the background and also try giving it potrait proportions. If you look at the photon flickr there is actually a tag box on the photo that is pretty close to what I think would be the best proportions for a cropped version of the photo. I could probably figure out how to use commons and everything myself (no problems on the graphics side, even have a program called Jpegcrop which allows lossless cropping) but I'm thinking you maybe you cropped the photo that way very deliberately on purpose for some reason I haven't though of? If you don't have a particular reason for doing it that way I hope you'll consider recropping the image the way I suggest or just let me know if you don't mind me changing it I'll try and do it myself. I've added this page to my watchlist for now so you can reply right here and I'll notice it quickly enough. -- Horkana (talk) 07:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you like the photo. I was looking for a new one forever. As for how I cropped it, the idea was to tighten the frame around Marisa while not altering too much the basic composition of the shot—i.e., that it's unbalanced with Marisa to the right and people to the left. I didn't think to crop out the guy because: one, he's out of focus anyway; two, people in the Flickr comments list liked the photo as it was; and three, personally I've always liked unbalanced length-wise compositions because they look a little more professional IMO. If I had to say anything about the photo is creepy as it is right now, I would say it's how the reflection of light in her eyes becomes a tiny white dots like she has white pupils, haha. That all said, I just cropped the photo to portrait dimensions. We'll see how it looks when I upload it.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 15:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I uploaded the new version and I like it.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 16:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. A portrait shot just seems like the most appropriate thing for an infobox, as it decontextualises the image and it is just about her whereas if the image were in the article the context and background of the picture (e.g. Hurricane Katrina fashion show) become more relevant. A photo of her with a great smile seems much more encyclopedia than a bikini picture. That she is looking to the left and the photo is right aligned works well too. Later. -- Horkana (talk) 20:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Angels

Thanks for watching.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Anything on behalf of factual accuracy.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 01:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. You seem to have it all under control.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)