Jump to content

Talk:Laetitia Casta

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

Fair use

[edit]

I must, with some regret, take one of the images off this page. The fair use guideline is fairly stringent.
brenneman {L} 12:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In a straight biographical article about a certain person, in what way would the inclusion of a simple head-and-shoulders picture of that person not constitute fair use?
Nuttyskin 14:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:FUC. It fails the very first criteria. Remember, Wikipedia's fair-use policy is stricter than mandated by the law. --Yamla 15:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Marianne?

[edit]

Why would the French people make a devout Sunni Muslim the symbol of their country? 68.84.17.112 02:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To whom do you refer? Tmangray 17:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb

[edit]

There appears to be an anon who repeatedly removes the standard link to IMDb. What gives? Let's try a discussion instead of a revert war. -Phoenixrod (talk) 17:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply:

w/ respect, Greetings. "All material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source." IMDB's Latest article is from 2001 and Laetitia has not worked for Madison since March 2000. This pr esents faulty information.
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:EL#What_should_be_linked,
Links normally to be avoided include sites with objectionable amounts of advertising, sites that make use of factually inaccurate material/ unverifiable research.Links mainly intended to promote a website, links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content.
Accordingly, it is important to consider if the link is likely to "remain relevant and acceptable to the article in the foreseeable future."
The current consensus on Wikipedia is that templates, and other forms of Source soliciting are inappropriate. Every article can be expanded as a matter of course but the question is in the details on a per-article basis. It is not possible to simply say "all articles of X type can be expanded using Y source".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources
Inline citations are needed for statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, including contentious material about living persons, and for all quotations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SPAM# External_link_spamming Inclusion of one spam link is not a reason to include another. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbalensiefer (talk • contribs) 20:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply, Mbalensiefer. With respect to you, however, I do not understand what you mean when you say "IMDB's Latest article is from 2001 and Laetitia has not worked for Madison since March 2000." Where does the IMDb link say that? Laetitia Casta's filmography appears to be up to date (certainly since 2001, since even 2008 post-production is included). Who or what is Madison? A search of the IMDb page does not turn up anything related to that name. I think you are mistaken on your information.
You quote a lot of policy, but I don't see how it is relevant. IMDb is not a site with objectionable amounts of advertising, factually inaccurate information, or unverifiable research. No one is trying to promote IMDb commercially; it is simply a common resource with reliable information about what roles actors have taken. Even actors themselves and PR firms check the information—because it is such a frequently visited site.
Templates are common on Wikipedia. I cannot find the text you claim to be quoting ("The current consensus on Wikipedia is that templates, and other forms of Source soliciting are inappropriate."). Point us to a relevant link if there is one.
We are not dealing with inline citation. This is a matter of one external link.
What is your point with "Inclusion of one spam link is not a reason to include another"? What spam? Perhaps you are not defining spam in the way consensus does.
As for other actors' pages that link to IMDb, here is a sampling off the top of my head: Tom_cruise#External_links, Monica_Bellucci#External_links, and Richard_Dean_Anderson#External_links. In each case, the first external link for each actor is to the IMDb. Since one of Laetitia Casta's jobs is acting, the precedent clearly indicates that her article should include the IMDb link. -Phoenixrod (talk) 21:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply. 'The current consensus on Wikipedia is that templates, and other forms of Source soliciting are inappropriate.' was found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SPAM#%20External_link_spamming
IMDB link added. -Mbalensiefer (talk) 08:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, IMDb is not a spam link by any stretch of the imagination, so quoting the spam policy is unlikely to be meaningful. Secondly, you are selectively quoting the spam policy and changing the meaning in so doing. The full passage is "Source solicitations are messages on article talk pages which explicitly solicit editors to use a specific external source to expand an article. The current consensus on Wikipedia is that templates, categories and other forms of anonymous solicitation are inappropriate." The word anonymous is at the heart of the policy, and you have managed to leave it out in your quotation without indicating that your quote was incomplete. There is nothing anonymous about this IMDb issue. None of the registered users who are discussing the issue with you and reverting to include the IMDb link are anonymously soliciting anything out of the ordinary. Furthermore, you have not responded to my points above. What makes the Laetitia Casta article any different from any other actor's page? -Phoenixrod (talk) 19:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you will read what is written just below my FIRST quote, you would have read "Every article can be expanded as a matter of course but the question is in the details on a per-article basis. It is not possible to simply say "all articles of X type can be expanded using Y source". Good grief. We are not talking about Monica Bellucci. We are talking of Laetitia Casta. IMDB may not be your version of spam, but remains a "Link mainly intended to promote a website, links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content," and, until recently, was also "sites that make use of factually inaccurate material/ unverifiable research."Mbalensiefer (talk) 04:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good grief, indeed. I'm trying to assume good faith, and I suggest you do the same. I understand that not all articles can be expanded with the same source, but virtually every actor has an IMDb link on Wikipedia because it is among the best and most accurate sources for filmographies/roles. The only articles about actors that don't include an IMDb link are stubs as far as I can tell. What makes Laetitia Casta different? You haven't answered the question; instead you have tried to use a spam policy completely out of context. Let's take a look at your last message. How is linking to IMDb "mainly intended to promote a website"? It's not, and I don't see how you can argue it is; the link provides a full version of Laetitia Casta's acting career. How does IMDb "require payment or registration to view the relevant content"? Again, it does not; the content is free, and readers need not register with the site. How does IMDb "make use of factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research"? Again, I don't see any evidence of that aside from your assertion. I'm sorry, but your arguments seem misguided. -Phoenixrod (talk) 21:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good grief, indeed. Are you still trying to debate this? I've re-added the link but you appear to wish to back up your own misconceptions. IMDB DID contain faulty information. Upon IMDB's refusal to change such info, I removed the link, and it apparently took them weeks to effect said change(s). If IMDB chooses to display, or re-display faulty information, I will again remove this/their link.
Regarding your question, "How is linking to IMDb "mainly intended to promote a website?," IMDB, FYI, is COMMERCIAL in nature. They do NOT display encompassing information on ANY of their subject's content matter without effecting a subscription to 'IMDB Pro.'
Does IMDB contain copious amounts of advertising? Is this a site that requires payment or registration to view the relevant content? Does IMDB source solicit? The answer is yes to all the above. Does NOT including an IMDB link make an article a stub? This is a fallacy.
You, sir, need to answer ME in how IMDB remains a "Standard" link. WHERE in Wiki guidleines does it EVER mention a standard link?? I am sorry, but your arguments (to me) appear misguided. Mbalensiefer (talk) 04:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break

[edit]

I'm tired of typing all the colons, so I'll align this comment on the left margin in a new subsection. Of course I'm debating your argument, since I find it unsupported and unconvincing; some links to your evidence would help. Is that not what this discussion is about, to come to an agreement that is best for the encyclopedia? Thank you for re-adding the IMDb link in the meantime.

Unfortunately, you have yet to prove that the link contains any "faulty information" on the linked page. Again you make the empty assertion that it has incorrect information, but you haven't shown that. What was faulty, where did you find it, and what change did IMDb make or not make? I cannot read your mind here.

After poking around, I see on LC's bio page at IMDb, which we are not linking to directly, what I am guessing you were referring to above with respect to Madison Models and nothing updated since 2001. But it is equally clear from that page that it is a user-submitted bio (rather like a wiki in some respects), so it's not really relevant to our discussion—especially since we should be focusing on the linked page's information. What is "IMDB's refusal to change such info"? You have not shared that before, so I don't know what you mean. Did you write to the company and request a change of something? If so, what? I'm sure you could submit an updated bio if that is the problem.

You say, "IMDB, FYI, is COMMERCIAL in nature. They do NOT display encompassing information on ANY of their subject's content matter without effecting a subscription to 'IMDB Pro.'" Unfortunately, I don't follow you. Wikipedia's pages on actors typically link to IMDb for complete information on acting roles. That information is freely available. Wikipedia's article on IMDb explains, "The IMDb website is essentially a free site. All of the basic database information is available without registration and without providing any personal information." I simply don't understand your point. What is relevant for our purposes is clearly free. As for the spam policy you are using out of context, even if it were relevant here, the purpose of including the external link is to provide further information for the article on LC, not to promote IMDb.

Of course IMDb is commercial in nature. That is not in dispute. Any company is trying to make money, but that does not mean that we cannot use the information they offer. By that reasoning, we apparently could not link to www.yahoo.com in the article on Yahoo!, since that would, in your eyes, serve to promote a commercial site. I don't see "copious" advertising on IMDb. "Copious" is of course a judgment call, one on which we seemingly disagree. I don't find two ads on a page to be "copious"; "copious" is more in the realm of The Million Dollar Homepage. :)

Does IMDb require payment or registration to view the relevant content? No. I don't know what relevant content you think cannot be viewed for free or without registration. Does IMDb source solicit? Again, no. I cannot fathom how you assume otherwise. Do you go to the talk pages of articles and find anonymous messages requesting that a sketchy link be included? That would be "source solicitaiton", but that's not what you find here.

You ask, "Does NOT including an IMDB link make an article a stub?" I never claimed that; don't twist my words. You seem to be reading far too much into what I said when I called IMDb a "standard" link in articles about actors. I simply mean, as I tried to point out with a few examples above, that you would be hard pressed to find any well-developed Wikipedia article on an actor that doesn't include a link to IMDb. That is all I meant. It is nothing to do with a guideline; instead, it is the well-worn path of consensus—a consensus that led to the creation of the IMDb template in the first place. -Phoenixrod (talk) 07:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...

Alright, this is going a little too far. But thanks for the alignment, BTW.

IMDB DID contain faulty info. I tried to correct it--yet it still does. Archive.org it for further details.

IMDB Ads may not be copious to you, but they are, nonetheless, present. Obviously, if one subscribes to Pro one gets more info. The only reason I re-added IMDB was because they issued SOME corrections.

"What relevant content you think cannot be viewed for free or without registration" I cannot fathom how you assume this one: When you register you get this; Starmeter and contact information, contact listings, company directories, entertainment news (Hollywood Reporter), In-Production charts, people rankings, Pro message boards, box office and theatrical releases, film festivals/events calendars, advanced search functions and customized reports. Click on the "Pro" links to see what else you get.

Wiki's IMDB note on "database information...available without registration" is factually incorrect. In fact, to STOP Banner ads and pop-ups, one must register!

Regarding your "Any company is trying to make money, but that does not mean that we cannot use the information they offer. By that reasoning, we apparently could not link to www.yahoo.com in the article on Yahoo!, since that would, in your eyes, serve to promote a commercial site." I never claimed that; don't twist my words.

Regarding your "As for the spam policy you are using out of context,"--my question to you would be: DOES Wiki Content specify that Spam and ads CAN BE USED to judge the relevancy of links? Yes, it does. I got a pop-up ad for Columbia College and an referral Amazon link last I checked out Laetitia right now.

In your paragraph two, you claim that IMDB does NOT contain faulty info, yet a paragraph later you say that it does. Also, how is that fact of whether or not a bio IS or IS NOT 'user-submitted' going to sway the argument of IMDB containing faulty info? IMDB CONTAINED it, CONTAINS it, this faulty info is THERE, and will probably continue to contain it!

In light of all your well-thought out (but ill-conclusive) above, you continue to fail to answer my question about "standard" links. Where do you find this? Enlighten me, please...or stop wasting my time.

Your arguments, sir, remain unconvincing. BTW, since you are an editor, can you ad the Wiki Quotes page for Laetitia to this one. Merci.Mbalensiefer (talk) 10:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We're done now, right? The short version of this unnecessarily long story is that the IMDb link will be staying. - Dudesleeper Talk 15:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Dudesleeper. I think that's been obvious to every editor except Mbalensiefer all along. Mbalensiefer, let me suggest this: if you maintain that there is an issue with linking to IMDb, try taking it up in a centralized place rather than on a lone article, since the "problem" would be encyclopedia-wide considering that virtually all actors' articles link to IMDb. I'm done. -Phoenixrod (talk) 17:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We have been done for awhile, and I truly thank you for all your input. IMDB will remain on site until it contains inaccurate info--as it still does.
No, I do not care to take anything up in a 'centralized article' unless it pertains to something I care about editing. Why would I? Again, I notice you reference "encyclopedia-wide" when I have already pointed out the fact that in Wikipedia ONE CAN NOT DO THIS. Refer to: "Every article can be expanded as a matter of course but the question is in the details on a per-article basis."
Which you seem to STILL fail to understand(?). Anyways, have a nice day, "both," and I extend a thank you all for our cumulative attempts to make Wikipedia that which it is, and needs to be: accurate. V/R MikeMbalensiefer (talk) 05:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IMDB is COMMERCIAL. LaetitiaCasta.com is not. IMDB hosts ERRORS (as stated above). LaetitiaCasta.com does not appear to. IMDB hosts outdated information. LaetitiaCasta.com does not. If one site link goes, Dudesleeper, they both go. Apparently neither meets Wikipedia's highly-selective criteria. You, sir, are a hypocrite of the highest order if you fail to see otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbalensiefer (talk • contribs) 04:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IMBD links are all over Wikipedia, as are many external links to sites with varying accuracy. The one-man effort to rid this particular page of an IMBD link is arbitrary and unreasonable. I vote to retain the IMDB link. Tmangray (talk) 00:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for adding to the consensus. However, I believe that the above discussion is now effectively over. Note that User:Mbalensiefer has been indef blocked. -Phoenixrod (talk) 03:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection?

[edit]

With the recent spate of IP vandalism, removing the IMDb link (Mbalensiefer's return, anyone?), it seems high time to semi-protect the article. Thoughts? -Phoenixrod (talk) 00:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a given, but you never know with Wikipedia. - Dudesleeper / Talk 09:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fashion Model Directory

[edit]

Is there a reason that celebrity Web sites such as the FashionModel Directory are back to being listed on this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.231.65.26 (talk) 02:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For a start, FMD has its own Wikipedia article and appears to be somewhat notable, unlike a random fansite. But then, I didn't insert the link, so I may not be the best person to answer the question. -Phoenixrod (talk) 03:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

[edit]

Although I hate wholesale reversions of large edits, per WP:BOLD I reverted a recent edit by the user Nimmzo and thought doing so deserves some detail. My primary concern is that much of the writing isn't encyclopedic. For example, writing like this does not belong: In Visage (Face) directed by Tsai Ming-Liang, the icy eroticism of the irresistible monster Salome, she-animal with sprawling feminine hands brushing the Laetitia Casta's body with sounds of hoarse and metallic moans, makes St. John the Baptist loose the head in a kiss of extreme tenderness, face against face under a veil of stars that does not mask the pain of the young woman. The film section is full of this.

Do you mean before the Great Purge of 19 May 2012?
Nimmzo (talk) 17:14, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even understand the section that follows. It's a play-by-play transcription of a show reel on her official site?

Yes.
Nimmzo (talk) 18:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What? Then we have a table on all the songs she has sung, including non-recordings?

Yes otherwise singer would be her occupation.
Nimmzo (talk) 17:14, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The notes in some of these tables are bizarre too: Louis Vuitton-clad Laetitia, dressed by the Art Director Marc Jacobs, is the first to emerge, attracted by the source of fresh water, in the Louvre Cour Carrée (square courtyard) while, paying tribute to Brigitte Bardot, one heard the famous trumpets from And God Created Woman. What's the relevance?

The level of the questions shows that you did not know her plays of theatre or any of her movies.
Nimmzo (talk) 17:14, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And this isn't even going into some of the smaller issues (for example WP:FLAGBIO). If this all sounds harsh, I apologize, but it stems from a necessary reversion.  Mbinebri  talk ← 13:55, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As Marianne

[edit]

On May 19, 2012 you restored the following text quoted here in a dotted frame for discussion. It was already in the section Marianne → Models. Why do you need to duplicate it without more precision despite I added the bookmark to the link? 

She won from a shortlist of five candidates, scoring 36% among the 15,000 voting mayors. 
The other candidates were ...
There is no need to list the losers of this election. It is not diplomatic for them.
See my reference n° 16 by the Consulate of France in New York.
Are you really interesting in the percentage of her score and the number of voting mayors?
In your reference n° 17, you are promoting not only a fan site but using the subtle mechanism of the dead link. Is it by definition a reliable source? This demonstrates how long you needed to cancel my contribution and mainly check the two only references of the short but oriented abstract that you restored.
Shortly thereafter a mini-scandal shook France,
The word scandal and the verb shook are not appropriate. See WP:PEACOCK, WP:NOTSCANDAL. It is not a "mini-scandal" but an affair of state as indicated in my reference quoting the reliable source the Belgium newspaper Le Soir because it involves official statements from both sides of the channel tunnel including a statement of the French minister of interior quoting explicitly her name.
after it was publicised that Casta — the new icon of the Republic — had relocated to London.
You introduced a biased opinion asserted as a wrong fact "(she) had relocated to London". Note the vague "it was publicised that", which sounds apparently as a typical WP:WEASEL expression to support a biased viewpoint.
The final sentence contains the main WP:NPOV issue.
Although she claimed that her move was motivated by practical professional reasons,
The bias "her move" begins the part that presents her own reasons. Again she did not move. Are her children born in London? The justification "practical professional reasons" is WP:UNSOURCED. Hence the prominence of the final fake viewpoint. Check WP:UNDUE and WP:BALANCE.
the magazine Le Point, among others, suggested that she was trying to escape taxes.
The restored abstract quotes the name of the French magazine Le Point but its last reference n° 18 is about the British Broadcasting Corporation News. What is the coherence? The failure in the neutrality tone is that you conclude the section by a suggestion of "Le Point, among others," for which the readers could think it is perhaps true after all particularly after the reading of the BBC News completely against her. Of course I kept this reference but certainly not in conclusion.
In the revision history you wrote: "previous version was overkill and borderline incomprehensible".
I understand that you find my contributions incomprehensible if you delete the references that you do not understand because of the WP:NPOV#Anglo-American focus syndrome illustrated by your other recent deletions:
  • Deletion of the French link Blue Bicycle in the lead section. I will not teach you the principle of the Expand French tag in the header of the Gainsbourg movie. It would be more difficult to create the English page of the Blue Bicycle movie from the current English link pointing to the author of the book that I finally added since you prefer no link instead of a French link.
  • You did not delete all Filmography Notes. You only kept about The Island my note "First film with English dialogue" removing Bulgarian movie and the Croatian link to a festival despite the positive contribution of another editor demonstrating that this note interested at least one Wikipedian contributor.
Maybe the readers could agree about the consensus in the mouth of the French minister of interior.

He declared that her installation is not corroborated.

Note that he did not use the word "move". I invite you to use google translator to translate his short interview quoted by L'Expansion because he explains the trap by the media.
Beyond the research and filter of reliable sources that still exist nowadays, my presentation establishes an analogy between this affair and the play of theatre Ondine that she interpreted. The Great Jury at the radio corresponds to the trial in the play for which I translated a short extract from the #1 judge in reference. It is the entire power of Wikipedia that allows linking here to the myth of salamanders or the destructive test. No matter she is an ondine or a salamander, she will be sentenced to the capital punishment. There is also a reference to her role as Luisa Sanfelice beheaded as icon of the Republic. I fully summarized the political context explaining why the opposition used this affair as pretext to criticism the French government in order that the alleged scandal becomes really an affair of state.
The symbolic of names of newspapers quoted in the body of the article is relevant: Libération, L'Humanité. When I reference the newspaper Die Welt, it is to highlight the character international given to this affair. You do not need to understand the German language to find that it quoted the English title and the name of a newspaper qualified of "tabloid" in its Wikipedia page. This explains the mechanism of the propagation of the rumor by the media. With the abstract that you restored, Wikipedia itself continues to participate to this pseudo-scandal mongering (WP:NOTSCANDAL). It sounds like if her French Wikipedia page referenced some gossip magazines to publish her weight in kg in the Info box, the previous owners of her house (strangely not in London but in ... Paris. What? She lives in Paris!) and if she smokes or not (WP:NOTGOSSIP). Is it encyclopedic?
Did you ever switch to another language than English? So you could remove for example the French flag from her Aragonés, Euskara, 中文 and Беларуская Info boxes instead of writing some WP:COOL delicatessens such as your "massive disaster" on 18 April 2012 or "pseudo-poetry" on 19 May 2012 in the revision history.
In conclusion, I highlight the fact that this affair has been developed intentionally an April Fool's Day so the reader should consider it as a hoax. It is why I prefer to talk about her plays of theatre or her movies. Would you give a chance to another editor to rephrase or simplify this section keeping the spirit of my contribution including the new facts and key references since the goal of Wikipedia is not to propagate hoaxes?

Nimmzo (talk) 18:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Christ. You do realize, don't you, that my edit was simply copy-and-pasting from Marianne#Models (a section I did not write and that you have never protested, despite your above list of issues) simply due to it being far more understandable and to-the-point than the content you just restored? This is an encyclopedic article: exhaustive detail is unnecessary (based on a policy you even cite) and clarity is tantamount. Just the fact that you can launch into one of the longest talk-page lectures I've ever seen on what basically amounts to a footnote to Casta's career is proof alone of how much undue emphasis is being put on this topic.  Mbinebri  talk ← 19:40, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

In the section "Early life", it mentions Laetitia's sister, Marie-Ange, with a wikilink to the French WP. I don't know what the policy on this is, but surely if we start wikilink to other languages right left and centre we are going to end up with a big mess. I for one, expect that when I click on a wikilink that it takes me to an article in the same language as the page where I am clicking. What would be the point of wikifying things like Maty (entreprise) or Barriga-verde? Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 15:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure they count as "policies," but some guidelines are here, and it does seem interlanguage wikilinks are allowed. In the case of inline links, it recommends some ideas, including leaving the text as a red link but adding an abbreviated interlanguage wikilink in parentheticals immediately following it.  Mbinebri  talk ← 20:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A further note is needed on the topic of Marianne

[edit]

I'm a little nervous mentioning this, since this page has so many fervent defenders. As far as the part about Marianne goes, there is no mention of how long she was Marianne or even if she ever was actually used as the figure of Marianne. It simply says that she was picked and the choice became controversial (which implies she wasn't actually used as the model). Shouldn't this point be made perfectly clear? Is she still the model for Marianne or has someone else taken her place?__209.179.51.170 (talk) 20:05, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Laetitia Casta. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:34, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Laetitia Casta. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:12, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Incomcletr information

[edit]

The box indicates that she has 4 children, the text about her personal life only lists the first three children. 2003:E7:273A:7534:4C90:50AE:7D00:A83A (talk) 14:09, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Laetitia_Casta&oldid=1258763467"