User talk:Lil Flip246

Welcome!

Hello, Lil Flip246, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I was gonna reply on your Talk Page but it seems you've been banned. I said that you didnt have to mention the Devon fact because it was alreay mention in trivia. Instead of making a section on models' culture, you could've just made a tiny article. It is not necessary to list them, when we could just check their pages. Devon is the shortest major top model. She's shorter than Kate, and is unofficially called the shortest of the supers. Lil Flip246 22:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- Longhair | Talk 19:52, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Please don't create articles which contain nothing but links to other websites. This is an encyclopedia, not a collection of links. If you want to write articles about these people, please do so. Zoe 23:41, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Spam

You seemed to have added a spam link to Total Request Live -- can you explain why?

Sorry about that. Since it was on the MOD page, I thought that I should put it in TRL. Anways, I already removed it. LilFlip246

TLC

Hi,

There's no need to go into detail about Destiny's Child on the entry about TLC. I've fixed that entry so that the excess detail you put in is gone. --Cjmarsicano 03:39, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Articles on modeling agencies

Hi, I saw your new articles on modeling agencies like Women Management. If you'd like to create articles on those companies, please make sure you review the guidelines for articles on corporations at WP:CORP, and then that you enter content about those companies in the articles. Articles that contain nothing but links (external or wikilinks) will probably be speedy deleted under CSD A1 or A3. Let me know if you have any questions! | Klaw ¡digame! 02:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Articles on Super Models and leaving them containing no content

Hello, you seem to keep adding articles and then just leaving them blank, please add content to your articles. Matthew

Sorry about that. I was just adding more. I'll get back to those pages if I have time. You should check the article on the list of supermodels. Don't you agree that list of supermodels "article" should be erased? I mean there's already a "category" which is a bigger list. -Lil_Flip246

Try to work on one article at a time and not batch process work because an empty articles no use to anyone, and many empty articles could look like vandalism from a bot with a large list of names. Matthew

Sorry about that. But can you help me fill in these articles with information? Thanks. I'm trying the best I can cause I gotta leave in less than 10 minutes. -Lil_Flip246

Sorry, i have no knowledge on those articles and subjects. However if you keep making blank articles with no content your articles will just be delete, I suggest you try and sesearch and create one article at a time. Matthew

Canonical issues

Hiya

I'm kinda wondering why articles I create keep getting sections deleted/edited, specifically regarding canonical issues.

Changes

For example you looked at this:

The books featured in this list are not part of Buffyverse canon. They are not considered as official Buffyverse reality, but are novels from the authors' imaginations. Unlike internet fan fiction however, all of these stories have been licensed as official Buffy/Angel merchandise. Furthermore the overall concept for each Buffyverse story had to be accepted by Joss Whedon (or his office), who did not want these stories to venture too far from his original intentions.

attached to that was a link to the main article Buffyverse canon which explained in more detail how the novels came into being.

and changed it to this:

*The books featured in this list are not part of Buffyverse canon. They are not considered as official Buffyverse reality, but are novels from the authors' imaginations. Basically they are fanfic which is published. Canon Books are written by Joss Whedon, Mutant Enemy Staff, and Buffy writers from the show.

I believe this is not showing Neutral point of view:

It rightly states what most fans would agree, which is that it is not part of canon
However it fails to mention that it has been licensed.
It implies that the books need no more accepting by Whedon/Fox than fanfic
It suggests that the there is an exact and fixed definition of 'canon'

Differences between officially approved licensed stories and fanfic

I've researched the internet and discovered many interviews with Buffyverse writers such as Peter David, Jeff Mariotte, Chris Golden, and Nancy Holder where they reveal a number of points about the licensing.

An outline is produced which describes a brief overview, (of the whole story).
It then has the potential to get an 'approval'.
This requires both Fox's and Whedon/his office 'approval'.
The writer then goes ahead and writes the story,
They then become officially licensed "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" or "Angel" merchandise.

I therefore know that this licensing process (assuming the authors and Whedon are not all just making the same stuff up) is a bit different than the possibility of a fan cobbling together bad grammar in a notebook.

Also you said that "Joss has never picked up any of these books. You should know if you're a big Buffy fan.". If you were talking about the Buffy/Angel crossover books, then that is probably true, since he has said in past interviews he has never actually read one. Nonetheless those books must have had there outlines 'approved' from him or his office. In an interview cited at Buffyverse canon, Golden (who wrote one of the Buffy/Angel crossover books talks about Whedon's approvals/rejections, as does Whedon himself in an article also cited on that page. If you think that evidence is not enough I can find one or two more interviews I have read before and add them. I know that Whedon has been interested in the Buffyverse comics, he has publicly said how he enjoyed Ring of Fire and Spike & Dru for example. lil flip246 is an idiotic, cum cuzzling dick sucka

Buffyverse 'canon' = not an objective term

Finally I personally would never argue that these Buffy/Angel crossover books were canon, as probably most Buffy fans would agree. But perhaps you should realise there is no fixed 'canon' for the Buffyverse, it is a subjective term. Unlike Star Wars canon no authority has come out and defined which materials are and are not canon. The star wars canon is indisputable since its creator has formally organised it (see web page). In fact Whedon does not seem interested in doing as such. Just like the church centuries ago did not have a defined 'canon', and different people argued about what should and should not be 'canon'. At one point early in Christianity, many people argued that 'Revelation' should never be canon, but now to Catholics it is. Furthermore you imply that anything touched by Whedon or mutant Enemy instantly becomes canon. I personally agree with this view, but realise that some might not. You say "Canon Books are written by Joss Whedon, Mutant Enemy Staff, and Buffy writers from the show", but that is a debatable point. For example:

Some Buffy fans refuse anything as canon that is not onscreen.
Some Buffy fans I know refuse that Haunted is canon because they dislike the Mayor's role in it despite it being written by Espenson.
I personally don't think something being written by an actor/actress makes it canon, but can still respect the opinion that it does.

... and so on. 'Canon' can be different to different people until there is a consensus (which there is not for the Buffyverse).

The purpose of an Encyclopedia

The purpose of an encyclopedia should be to consider all points of view not just the dominant ones. Should the abortion article just focus on republican views? Should the Palestine article be written only from a Jewish perspective?

A good encyclopedia should remain neutral or deal with all points of view without rubbishing any of them. In the same way there does not have to be a problem.

In other words I am saying wikipedia is capable of dealing with the whole Buffyverse not just the canon Buffyverse. In fact Wikipedia's explicit policy is Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Buffy fans have the right to access to information about 'uncanon' sources as about 'canon' sources. they also deserve unjudgmental access. As someone who has recently spent a great deal of time creating whole new articles, and adding to existing articles about Buffyverse, and dealing largely with materials that are not considered 'canon' by most fans, I find it offensive when bits of my articles are labelled 'uncanon', as if because its uncanon, I may as well have not bothered writing it. I believe I have recently been dealing with 'canonical issues' in a reasonable and neutral way based on actual cited sources and therefore do not require heavy editing unless there is a consensus on the discussion page of one of my articles for a particular direction? It's better when commenting on whether material is cannon, that it is done in such a way that people who are fans of such material are not rubbished. Use of language, implying that 'uncanon' is inferior or unimportant is not showing Neutral point of view, and instead shows disrespect to those who read the materials, and lots of disrespect to people who have spent even longer writing articles about them. I personally do not see the problem with using information from uncanonical sources as long as it is clearly referenced. I do not see the point of us repeatedly editing back the same thing. We should probably propose potential edits, using the discussion/talk pages &/or with the opinions of others before editing each others created articles. I will pay you the same respect and not edit anything in the articles you create, without discussion.

Thanks -- Paxomen 21:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buffyverse canon article

Hiya

was wondering what you think the problem with mentioning the comics written by Mutant Enemy Productions. This information seems worthy of including, after all i was hoping the article could be comprehensive and inclusive as possible, and surely the article is not overly long, and is therefore in no need of chopping? so why not include this text??? :

Several of the comics have been written by script-writers of Mutant Enemy Productions, and do not seem to contradict any information from the 'Buffyverse canon'. Some fans argue that any/all of these might also be considered canon. For example:

Jane Espenson has written a number of Buffy comics including the graphic novel Haunted, and the one-shots, Giles, Jonathon, and Reunion.

Doug Petrie wrote Ring of Fire, and 'Bad Dog' a mini story found in the graphic novel, Food Chain.

Spike & Dru story: ‘All's Fair’ was written by 'Spike' actor, James Marsters.

Thanks -- Paxomen 13:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also it makes the whole article even more unbalanced because the article the article now has 150 words on 'canon', and 792 words on Non-canon. i think any extra material about 'canon' section should be there to mak it a bit more balanced??? -- Paxomen 13:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed it cause it was obviously canon, cause the the writers are from ME. -Lil_Flip246

well, I know fans who argue that only what they see on screen is canon, but that's besides the point, I personally think they are canon (apart from the one by James Marsters - my own opion is that materials by james Marsters and Amber Benson has no more right to be canon than something by Christopher Golden, since those actors are just that, there primary job is to act, not to write, being actors for the shows does not give them much extra ability to write stories that deserve a place in 'canon'. But that's just my opinion. But me and you both agree that most of these (and you believe all of these) materials are 'canon', that is more than ever a reason that the text should be there, and not deleted? I don't think we should be forcing our opinions of Buffyverse canon on people in the article, but I do think those books should be mentioned in the article, and do not see the benefit of the deletion? I would greatly appreciate if you engaged into discussions with other members of wikipedia before making big deletions like this to articles I create. Thanks -- Paxomen 18:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why're you trying to make everything canon when you know it isn't. Like the book of fours has Willow in love with Kit and stuff. It's just not canon. Users understand which are canon and which aren't. It's in the buffyverse canon page. We've also included info on non canon. So I don't understand why you're complaining, when everything is included. -Lil_Flip246

Not sure what you mean, I'm talking about this bit of text which is actually on the buffyverse canon page:

Several of the comics have been written by script-writers of Mutant Enemy Productions, and do not seem to contradict any information from the 'Buffyverse canon'. Some fans argue that any/all of these might also be considered canon. For example:

Jane Espenson has written a number of Buffy comics including the graphic novel Haunted, and the one-shots, Giles, Jonathon, and Reunion.

Doug Petrie wrote Ring of Fire, and 'Bad Dog' a mini story found in the graphic novel, Food Chain.

Spike & Dru story: ‘All's Fair’ was written by 'Spike' actor, James Marsters.

When did I say 'The Book of Fours' was canon? In fact I have put this text on the Buffy novels page to make clear that most fans do not consider the Buffy novels remotely canon: The books featured in this list are not part of Buffyverse canon. They are not considered as official Buffyverse reality, but are novels from the authours' imaginations. However unlike fanfic, 'overviews' summarising their story, written early in the writing process, were 'approved' by both Fox and Whedon (or his office), and were therefore later published as officially Buffy or Angel merchandise (see main article for details).

The mentions of comics does no harm. I think it is valid to mention the comics which are by Mutant Enemy Production, because that increases interest for them. Furthermore you seem to be suggesting I don't need to because people already know that. however i don't understand how that kind of attitude works in an encyclopedia, if we start assuming people already know things, then why bother with encyclopedia articles at all? -- Paxomen 18:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All I was saying was that people obviously think those 3 books are canon because they were written by Mutant Enemy People. It was already mentioned, so I don't understand why it's on the neutral section. -Lil_Flip246

There will be fans who are not even aware of these books let alone where they fit into canon, only the other day I read a fan on a forum ask if all the Buffy comics were just adaptations of episodes, or if they were original stories. An encyclopedia gives information, not makes assumptions about what people already might know. It's true that the information may be elsewhere that these books were written by ME writers, but the information should be on the page. Furthermore they were in a neutral section days ago called 'Unclear' (which I personally believed they belonged in), taking your advice on board I actaully put them into the 'canon' section, so not sure why your saying they were in the 'neutral section' when you recently deleted them, because they were in the 'canon' section.

Okay, you've convinced me. Let's stop the arguing now. -Lil_Flip246

Help on Fixing Buffyverse articles

Can you guys help me? I'm trying my best to create articles for canon/non canon slayers. There are alot of info about them from the books/comics and internet. If we make pages of them, we can help complete the buffyverse articles. -Lil_Flip246

Lindsay Lohan

Welcome!

Hello Lil Flip246, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, some of your edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's NPOV policy, and have been reverted. There's a great article about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: and also, lil flip246 sucks lindsay lohans pussy all day

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Extraordinary Machine 00:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you removed that section on Lindsay Lohan. Why? -Lil_Flip246

On behalf of Extraordinary Machine, as I also am a major contributor to this article, I see two reasons why your passage was deleted: One, it was laced with POV, and an editor's personal point of view is not in keeping with the objectivity required by an encyclopedia; second, a lip-sync episode or two when an artist clearly can perform is hardly Milli Vanilli-ish and, therefore, its encyclopedic value is dubious. Questions? Please feel free to write me. Radio Kirk talk to me 00:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Kate Moss business is utter gossip with no corroboration whatsoever. Consider this a friendly warning. Radio Kirk talk to me 00:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3 May 2006

Hey, apologies, but I believe I had no choice but to revert this edit. My explanation is in my edit summary. (Edit: For anyone else for whom future modeling is a possibility, you might consider changing that back as well.) Radio Kirk talk to me 22:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But I think it belongs there. Actresses who are in these magazines and campaigns, aren't considered models. It's like saying Jennifer Aniston or Jlo are models cause they are always in magazines and stuff. Actresses become spokespersons for stuff like fashion houses, cosmetics, etc. But they are not considered models as their career. These actresses are put in the special arrangement thread in modeling agencies, which is a place for celebrities who are spokespersons for fashion stuff. Lil Flip246 22:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From that aspect, you're correct; however, the issue I see is, the way you phrase it assumes she'll never do it again. Obviously, no one can say that with certainty. Change "former" to "onetime" and I'll agree with it. :) Radio Kirk talk to me 23:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If she becomes a model again, she will never be listed as a model. She will be in the special arrangement category, where it's celeb spokespersons. Trust me I know alot about the Fashion Industry. Lil Flip246 23:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your response was in the wrong place, I didn't see it until a few minutes ago. I agree with your reasoning. Please, however, read my response below. Radio Kirk talk to me 23:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no response below. Lil Flip246 23:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yours and mine. Radio Kirk talk to me 23:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I will change my capitals. Thanks! :) Lil Flip246 01:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. Happy editing! Radio Kirk talk to me 02:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 August 2006

Just to let you know, I've edited your entry this date—since the article is Lindsay's, not Dina's, I've cut to the bare explanation with the relevant passage being the requested deposition. Feel free to comment. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 16:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

10 August 2006

Reliability isn't the issue; notability is. Every entertainer gets stalkers to some degree; encyclopedia space just for being a stalker (absent any other notability) demonstrates an excellent example of what Wikipedia is not (an indiscriminate list). This "stalker" is a nobody who did all of nothing important; let's leave him there. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 23:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk Pages

It would be all kinds of great if you would follow the correct etiquette for signing your comments on talk pages. For a lot of people, it's important to know when comments were made. All you have to do is type ~~~~ at the end. Thank you. Dave 19:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow Wikipedia guidelines by signing your talk page comments with four tildes (~~~~) at the end of them. Knowing who made comments and when is important. Dave 01:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Top Model contestant pages

Hi there, please do not divide individual Top Model contestant pages (specifically Kim Stolz and Kyle Kavanaugh) into categories when only one sentence fits under a category in your organization system. For short biographical entries, it is sufficient to write in paragraphs as all information can be found readily in this format. For a more notable model or celebrity, it's useful to categorize their entries so the reader can refer to his or her section of interest, but none of the Top Model contestants whose pages you edited are that notable as of yet outside of their time on Top Model. If you can find a lot more information on the contestants outside of their experience on Top Model to make the pages a lot longer, then categorization is a good organization solution.

If you have any comments to make, please post them on my talk page. Fabricationary 19:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WB promo canonical issues

Hiya, you may find this useful: User talk:Lil Flip246#Buffyverse 'canon' = not an objective term. I personally agree with you that the promos are canon but thats my opinion and other fans might often disagree. e.g. dmlandfair who said this Advertisements are created by The WB and UPN, not by Mutant Enemy and 20th Century Fox - thus, can't qualify as canon. Therefore why do you keep pretending there is consensus and that all fans agree that the promos are 'canon' on the Lucy Hanover#Trivia page, also are you aware this is already dealt with in the Lucy Hanover#Appearances in Buffyverse section, why repeatedly say the same kind of thing?

VANDILISM AND DISTURBING IMAGES POSTED

A user 68.12.106.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has posted links to pornographic images on Kahlen Rondot's page.

Reality TV Stars Category

I recently created this category. Can you guys please add more? Thanks. Lil Flip246 01:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adrienne Curry Quotes

Could you please provide proper citations for these? Please consult WP:CITE. Thanks. Jtrost 23:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? —This unsigned comment was added by Flip246 (talk • contribs) January 20, 2006.

The text -Playboy February 2006 is not the proper way to cite a source on Wikipedia. Use that link above to find a template for citing a magazine and add it to the article. Jtrost 23:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you have still not added proper citations. Here's the template that you should use for magazines: {{Journal reference | Author= | Title= (required) | Journal= | Year= | Volume= | Issue= | Pages= – | URL= }} I would add the citations myself, but I do not have a physical copy of the publications and therefore do not have enough information to fill this in myself. Correctly citing sources is a major part of verifiability, one of the major content guidelines that we have. Thanks. Jtrost 02:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity "Party" Girls and Celebrity "Bad" Girls

Yes, paris hilton and lindsay lohan are in this category are they are crackhead, cum cuzzling whores. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. As a member of the Wikipedia community, I would like to remind you of Wikipedia's neutral-point-of-view policy for editors. In the meantime, please be bold and continue contributing to Wikipedia. Thank you! Thanks. --Madchester 23:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay Lohan

Your edits to Lindsay Lohan have been reverted. The smoking reference was written POV; further, its encyclopedic value, given the hundreds of millions (at least) of people who smoke, is all but nonexistent. Also, there is no "Celebrity Party Girls" (or similar) category at Wikipedia, and the reference could be considered inflammatory anyway. Please read "What Wikipedia is not" as soon as possible to gain an appreciation of what an encyclopaedia is supposed to be. Radio Kirk talk to me 23:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE STOP. Given your conversations with other editors, you are now clearly aware that you are adding nonsense: Nonexistent Wikipedia categories that could be considered inflammatory. Constructive edits are welcome; however, doing whatever you want with the knowledge that your edits are unconstructive edits—such as those you made to Lindsay Lohan and Paris Hilton—are considered vandalism. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Thanks. Radio Kirk talk to me 00:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I was not aware of it. Please forgive me. HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! sucked in!!

Lil Flip246 00:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forgiven. If I may, I'd like to ask that you reread some of the comments that have been left on this page: Editors (myself included) have left links to Wikipages that can help you become an even more valuable contributor, which you appear to want to be. If you ever have a question about what is or is not in keeping with the articles you'd like to edit—and with Wikipedia in general—please don't hesitate to ask me. If I don't know the answer, I do know how to find it. Thanks! Radio Kirk talk to me 00:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Summaries

Hi. I noticed you are not using edit summaries for your edits. It would help a lot if everyone uses them. Thanks --PTSE 00:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labelled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

When you leave the edit summary blank, some of your edits could be mistaken for vandalism and may be reverted, so please always briefly summarize your edits, especially when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you.

Buffyverse Slayer timeline

Please sign all your comments with ~~~~, as that will provide anyone reading this talk page with your a link to your user page as well as the date and time of your comment. This makes the conversation easier to follow, and it makes you available for messaging.
Please structure your conversations in the normal pyramid style using the character : to increase the indent. If you're unsure what I mean, poke around on some talk pages and look at the wikicode behind them.
Please take some time to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Manual of Style. It will help you format the article itself.
Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Buffy before expending all your energy on Buffyverse articles. We are an organized effort to do exactly what you are trying to do. In addition, we have discussions on

format
canon
and directions

for these articles.

Thanks. - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 16:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Reality television stars

This category is largely redundant with Category:Reality television participants, in which most of those you added are already included, either directly or in a subcategory. Someone has accordingly listed it for deletion, but I think it could be renamed appropriately to be a parent category for the "participants" category, and whomever has served as a recurring host or judge on a reality television show. Please leave your comments on the deletion page as to the appropriate rename ("stars" is rather unacceptable for a category name). In the future, please try to avoid creating categories without checking to see what already exists; the fact that you did not include Category:Reality television stars as a subcategory in anything at all suggests that you did not try to integrate it into the preexisting category system. Cheers, Postdlf 00:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please, can't we transfer those few people from the other page into it? I've spent hours working on the page. It would be a shame if.. Lil Flip246 00:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, what "few people" from what "other page"? If you're asking to transfer all the "participants" entries into the "stars" category, that's not going to happen. Nor do I think most people are going to want to keep "stars" in a category name, because who is and is not a "star" is too subjective, and the label too complimentary, compared to describing who is simply a "host" or "participant." You unfortunately wasted a lot of effort because you didn't investigate what categories articles were already in: for example, the Category:American Idol contestants are in Category:Idol contestants, which is then in Category:Reality television participants. Postdlf 00:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to Drew Barrymore, are considered vandalism. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thanks. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 21:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What did I do on the Drew page? I am sorry for inconvenience, but I am just curious what I did wrong. Lil Flip246 21:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adding the GLBT category to the article when with nothing to back it up is considered vandalism. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 22:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I thought I should add it cause on the article it said she had sexual relationships with women. Lil Flip246 22:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of supermodels

You tagged this with a CFD, but never listed it in the proper voting area. If you aren't going to list it for a vote, I'll remove the tag soon. Crumbsucker 08:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Models

If you are going to add models names, please place them in alphabetical order and observe the existing columns. Thanks. Doc 01:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, per WP:MOS, "models" should not be capitalized unless it is a part of a person's official title. Radio Kirk talk to me 22:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OKAY WHY ARE YOU CHANGING IT?? I MADE THIS CAT BECAUSE IT WAS FOR NOTABLE CALVIN KLEIN MODELS. I'M A MODEL EXPERT SO I SHOULD KNOW! Lil Flip246 22:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop screaming. The correct category should be "Calvin Klein models" per WP:MOS. "This Year's Calvin Klein Model" would be a title (but dubious), while "Calvin Klein models" would be a group of people, not an official title. The category will exist, but correct. Please make the same change to "Versace models" if you're working on this as well. Radio Kirk talk to me 22:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These guys are notable' faces of Calvin Klein and Versace. You might as well put every Category in small letters. :(Lil Flip246 22:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an official title. "Calvin Klein models" is correct. Radio Kirk talk to me 22:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just delete the other similar cat then... Lil Flip246 22:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Already redirected. Radio Kirk talk to me 22:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~This should explain why a redirect without fixing the individual page links doesn't work right. Radio Kirk talk to me 22:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)~~ Now fixed, will no longer demonstrate the purpose of this post. Radio Kirk talk to me 02:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should have come here first and explained what I was doing, rather than rush to do a lot of work (and, as a result, do a lot more work). That was my error, please accept my apologies. Radio Kirk talk to me 22:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit to List of supermodels was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept our apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // Tawkerbot2 13:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

She is in agencies part of the Special Arrangement Section, which again is the celebrity spokespersons category in modeling agencies. If she did retire from acting and started modeling, she would still be listed in the celebrity section not the women category. You see where I'm going? Thanks. :) Lil Flip246 23:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, your assertion regarding Lindsay Lohan at Ford Models is correct, but your edit summaries there indicate a frustration level that's a little high. Please deal with your fellow editors in a civil manner, even when you disagree. If something needs to be handled off-page (or off the article's talk page), please take it to that user's talk page and make your case in a friendly manner. We're all wrong from time to time—assume good faith until another user proves they don't deserve it. :) Radio Kirk talk to me 23:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Order

Once again, please, if you are going to add models names to a list, place them in alphabetical order, not at the end of the list. Doc 16:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please, if you cannot, or will not place names in order on the page, then put them on the talk page where someone else can put them in the correct place instead of messing up the namespace page. You just make a great deal of work for others the way you are doing it. Doc 23:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For which page are you speaking of? Do you mean categories because they are already in order. Lil Flip246 22:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You still continue to add a name to a model agency without following the convention of alphabetical order. Today you added the name of Ali Larter, to Ford Models, placing it under all of the other names and the column structure. This continues to make more work for other editors. Doc 21:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another example where you have done this is Elite Model Management Doc 22:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You ask, but you don't perceive or follow when it is pointed out. You just added the name of *Rebecca Epley to ID Model Management, it was only the second name but you put it last, not in alphabetical order. Please, you continue to make more work for other editors instead of working with the MOS guidlines and standard practice. Doc 20:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adding information about future episodes of TV shows

Since Wikipedia is above all an encyclopedia, I don't think information on TV show episodes that haven't aired yet should be added to articles about the shows. I'm speaking in particular of your recent additions to America's Next Top Model, Cycle 6, which I have removed from that article. Not only is there a spoiler problem with such info (not to mention reliability issues), but I don't see how it could be considered encyclopedic if the public hasn't even seen the episode yet. - dcljr (talk) 18:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May 2006

Please stop. If you continue to use Wikipedia for advertising, you will be blocked from editing. --Madchester 18:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia for continuing to add spam links. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires.

--Madchester 18:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why I've been blocked. ALl those other links were to tv spots too. I don't understand what I did wrong. I just posted a link to new clips, just like the other links above it. When will I be able to edit again? Lil Flip246 18:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to Naomi Campbell

I'm sorry about the confusion with my edit summery to the revert on the Naomi Campbell article. What I put was "Reverted edits by 70.107.127.74 to last version by Lil Flip246". This means that I reverted the edits by 70.107.127.74, which is correct. However, I think you may have been confused by the bit saying "to last version by Lil Flip246". This doesn't mean that you made the edits. What it means is that the version I reverted back to was last edited by you. I admit it can be a bit confusing if you're not used to seeing it but it's a standard summary that you'll find quite often around Wikipedia. Don't worry, I'm not in any way accusing you of making those edits. Again, I apologize for any confusion. Tra (Talk) 18:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!! Sorry. I'm still new kinda. Lil Flip246 20:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Tyrasuede.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Tyrasuede.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Model categories

I'm skeptical of the need for categorizing models by every magazine in which they've appeared (whether inside or on the cover, e.g., Category:ELLE models) or fashion label/designer for which they've modeled. The number of categories on Naomi Campbell, for example, has surpassed the ridiculous. There really isn't any limiting or defining factor at play here that I can discern that is appropriate for a category system; it's like you're trying to categorize them by every fact in their article. Wouldn't list articles be more appropriate in most cases? Thanks, Postdlf 00:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is actually necessary. Especially these cats like Versace, VS,CG, Maybelline, Valentino, Vogue, LV, etc.. Cause only a few elite models have done them. Only top models, celeb models, and supermodels have. It is vital. Lil Flip246 02:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so only elite models have done them, but on the flip side of that, the elite models do most of them. Which is why we have a dozen category tags just for what jobs the supermodels have had...and they are just jobs for each individual. So what's wrong with the appropriate mention in the article text and a list article for each brand's models? Postdlf 04:11, 7 June 2006

It's much more informative. What is the problem of having a big category?? Lil Flip246 23:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem for most users over on the deletion vote for the Omega models category is that it makes an entry like Cindy Crawford have an unreadable block of categories. Though I initially voted to keep the categories (as I think it's useful information), I'm starting to agree with the others about the implausibility of using categories for this purpose. I've proposed a compromise: that we give all models categories by agency: Crawford would get Category:Storm Model Agency models, for example. This would make it clear who they work for. But if that were adopted then it would be likely that nearly all the categories you've created (by product, brand, and designer) would disappear. You could still do them as lists, of course. What do you think of that? If you'd like to share your opinion, go to the Categories for Deletion page and make it known. Thanks!--Mike Selinker 13:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But it's like saying you're gonna removie the cats VS angels, Playboy models... There are only a group of VS Angels, SI models, Supermodels, Playboy models, Versace models, and stuff cause only the elite top models and supermodels have done them. We shouldn't delete them. We should move them to a Fashion Model Category.Lil Flip246 18:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that, but that's not the way people are leaning. You should make your case on the deletion page. Clearly, the Playboy models and SI models will stay, but everything else seems up for deletion.--Mike Selinker 06:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are other important stuff like VS Angels.Lil Flip246 10:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I argued for keeping that one too, and I think it will be kept. It contrasts with category:Victoria's Secret models, which seems more like a job than an elite sorority. I think that's the standard, and not much meets it: SI, Playboy, Angels, Got Milk?, maybe CoverGirls, and not much else.--Mike Selinker 19:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not keep all of them?? They're important. Cause standardd models don't do Versace, LV, Valentino, etc..Name a non top modle or supermodel who has. Lil Flip246 20:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The argument about supermodels versus standard models isn't what most people seem to see as the point. No one on the deletion page believes that the categories are worth keeping, because they don't believe models should be categorized by the companies they work for. If you want these categories retained, you're going to have to go to the deletion page and try to convince people there.--Mike Selinker 05:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where is that page? I have to go soon. Then that means I've wasted hours of my time working on them. Lil Flip246 10:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Selinker gave you that link several exchanges ago. Here it is again: deletion vote for the Omega models category. To not "waste time" is one of the reasons to "be bold" but feel the water and try to get consensus before doing a lot of work here at Wikipedia. I do believe that you are sincere and have a great deal of information to contribute here, but you've also made some rather controversial changes, that not everyone agrees with. It's very important to feel the general tone of other users and then seek consensus on the talk page before going overboard on the namespace article. For instance there are a number of items on the supermodel talk page that you have ignored. It should also be remembered that all information here is subject to being changed and/or edited by another user. Doc 14:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Supermodel

Please ease up on the use of ALL CAPS and words like "blasphemy" (and, please, look that up in a dictionary) in your edit summaries. I understand other users' edits can be frustrating, but you're taking them personally. Chill, 'k? :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 15:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Sorry bout that. It just annoys me whenever unregistered users vandalise the page. Lil Flip246 15:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Also, bear in mind, many of these edits are well-intentioned; it's not vandalism if an incorrect edit is made in good faith. Keep up the good work! :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 15:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two things: first, if you back up your assertions with reliable sources instead of with SCREAMING, your appeals to administrators will be much easier to handle—someone repeatedly removing a cited source is committing vandalism (without them—and I didn't see any upon quick glance, but I may have missed them, so don't be afraid to keep citing the source in the edit summaries—it's just a content dispute); second, if you suspect sock- or meatpuppetry and it's not conclusive, try WP:SSP. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 22:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is the long lists of trivia, firsts and highest paid that is being more and more frowned on by Wickipedia MOS. Several significant firsts can be incorporated into a paragraph in the article. The present highest paid and or several benchmarks again can be in a paragraph. The article should not have multiple 'lists' of facts. The rest of the information can be found in the individual articles. It would be very helpful if you could spend more of your time reading some of the guidelines so that you would get a better overview of the standards of the project. That would help you to understand and mesh better with other editors. Another thing that I notice is that you have some names wikied five times. It is customary to just wiki the name the first time it appears in the article, not every time, with some notable exceptions when it is a distant section. As I have said before your energy is great, but there are others here with knowledge too and we need to work together to improve the article. Doc 01:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But these are still very important information. Lil Flip246 01:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So condense it. Write a good paragraph of a few sentences that tells the story. Not a list of facts. Doc 01:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At the very top of your talk page you were given some very helpful links in your Welcome. Someone gave them to you again later, here they are again:

Spend some serious time reading these and your contributions here will be much better. Doc 01:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will if I have time. But I will need help to write it. Could you help me change Firsts and Highest Paid into paragraphs? Lil Flip246 01:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You somewhat miss the point here Lil Flip, you need to make the time for reading these guidelines. It may not be as much fun, but with the number of areas where you continue to not follow guidelines and policy, only intensifies the irritation of other editors needing to undo things. This means that not only your time, but that of other editors is not being put to its best use. You also need to open your eyes to how others are doing things to get a uniform appearance, such as using the colons to space a discussion here on the talk page. It gets very frustrating when you continually ignore conventions. Also, once again, if you wish to be taken as something of an 'authority' on models, you really need to give us some background on your talk page. Doc 02:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Valeria Mazza

Hey, man, what's your thing with Valeria Mazza? The fact that she was a supermodel ten or 15 years ago, when there were no internet and supermodel-sites doesn't mean she's not one. Even in spite of being retired from modeling, she has a lot of google hits. Besides, who decides which one is a super model and whichone is not? My wild guess is that you are probably not fro Europe, where she is widely recogniced (except perhaps for the UK). Mariano(t/c) 15:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vogue creates supermodels. Unless she very well known worldwide then she is a supermodel. How many magazine covers has she had?? Supermodels have hundreds. Unless she's had over 30 Vogues..Unless she is a household name in North America, Europe, and Asia, or other fashionable destinations..Unless she's had over 100 magazine covers..How many runway shows has she done this season?? Unless she has these qualities, she is a SUPERMODEL. Her career is AVERAGE compared to Iman, Beverly, Cindy, Claudia, etc..Lil Flip246 22:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia

Please don't SHOUT.
Those edits were a fortnight ago, you're acting as if I'm changing them as you change them back.
What "format" do I "have to follow"?
See Mikka's comment on my talk page. Also see WP:Trivia.

Rich Farmbrough 18:23 27 June 2006 (GMT).

Sorry about that. I was just shocked how everything changed. Lil Flip246 22:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My edits to the Supermodel wiki pages

Hi LilFlip,

1--I think this is how to send a message to you? I'm not sure?
2--I am not trying to vandalise the supermodel page. I am writing about the supermodel industry and my focus is on racsim within the industry. I thought it would be helpful to others to cateogorise them. For me, I had to click on each page and it was very time consuming, so as I found out I changed wiki.
3-- Also, the Devon Aoki comment was already there, I did not add it.
4--For the second Devon Aoki comment, where in the article does it already say she is the world's shortest supermodel?
5--What is wrong with the seperations I made in the History section?Pls email me lilkunta@excite.com so that I may know your responses208.58.196.156 21:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)208[reply]

Why don't you just register?? Lil Flip246 01:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Previewing

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please use the “Show Preview” button rather than saving every edit all the time. It is extremely difficult to follow the change history of articles such as “Supermodel” with the number of edits clogging up the ”recent changes” page for that article. Happy editing! Agent 86 02:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

==Models & supermodels== many great actors like paris hilton and lindsay lohan used to work as cock suckers on the streets until they got porn acting careers and then norm careers, thought i'd just add that, greenskinz. You seem to have great energy and enthusiasm for editing the articles pertaining to models in general. This is great, but you seem to think yourself above having to learn Wikipedia's norms and standards. Repeatedly you fail to read or comprehend, or incorporate into your style many helpful suggestions left by other editors. Such as: previewing, using the edit summary, the above link on trivia, the discussion on the huge number of categories which had to be deleted, placing new additions to lists in alphabetical order and following an existing column format, etc.

While reading MOS and guidelines and responding to helpful input from other editors may not be as much fun, it is essential to good editing. Failure to do so just creates a lot of extra work for other editors and greater frustration for you and your fellow editors.

When you cite your own expertise, it would be helpful to include a bit of your background on your user page. It would also be helpful if you had a working email address where one could communicate with you off the talk pages. Your energy and dedication is appreciated, but please try to direct that energy in a way that it is not wasted. Thanks. Doc 22:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find that many of the same issues that keep continuing are stated in this message I left a couple of weeks ago that you never responded to. These issues are critical to your contributions here being helpful in the long run. Doc 02:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Former fashion model

the line former fashion model does not belong in the opening paragraph of every film star that modeled early in her career. This belongs in ane early career paragraph in most cases. The opening paragraph per MOS is reserved for what a person is best known for. Doc 16:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC) you suck womans pussys and mens cocks and jack them all up the ass, regards greenskinz[reply]

Copyright violation

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate your contributions to the Ashley Judd article, but we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. Perhaps you would like to rewrite the article in your own words. For more information, take a look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Happy editing! Additionally, please see WP:RS. --Yamla 01:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)happy editing asshole, regards, greenskinz[reply]

Fashion model

When you wish to use the wiki for fashion model please pipe link the redirect as: [[model (person)|fashion model]] so that it is direct to the page. Thanks. Doc 01:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References

When adding new references or foot notes to the Supermodel page, please follow the correct form. Directions are given at the link in the no wiki line under References. Thanks Doc 01:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC) here we go again about the supermodels, you have been reading to many penthouse magazines havent you?? regards, greenskinz[reply]

Deleting everything

Everyone I've talked to loves the Portfolio Overview section. You seem to be the only one who thinks it's not necessary, please explain. And saying it should be moved to the ANTM Page...How would that be done? That would make the ANTM Page HUGE and way too detailed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.16.84.21 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 19 July 2006

I don't see why it is necessary because you can just go to the ANTM page for that. Lil Flip246 23:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All the judges had their own views. Not everyone agreed with the same thing. Lil Flip246 18:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unwarranted allegation of vandalism

Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors. See Wikipedia:Assume good faith for the guidelines on this. You reverted edits at Supermodel with the edit summary, "Removed vandilism of unknown names"[1]. While the articles on some of these people do not adequately describe their notability, others may well qualify as "supermodels". There is no evidence to indicate that the editors who added these names were acting in bad faith. This only highlights the current problems with the "Supermodel" article - it is far too subjective and editors (including myself) have no idea who does and does not qualify as a "supermodel". The edit history of the article shows that you have added and removed varous individuals at what appears to be an arbitrary basis. It is not bad faith when others do the same. Agent 86 18:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I just removed names of random models who are far from supermodel. I compare models to real supermodels like Kate Moss and see if they are close to their status. The models I kept were the closest thing to supermodel. They are successful in both high fashion and commercial. They are high on demand on both markets. The general public knows them well. Non fashion sites such as AskMen.com feature them, and they are paid like supermodels. Lil Flip246 18:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fashion models

We should make a seperate category for fashion models, so the viewer doesn't get mixed up. I went to the French models cateogory and they said this category was for fashion models. But half the models there were Playboy models and adult models. We should really seperate Fashion models from other types of models. We should make a category for fashion models, child models, and other types of models. Lil Flip246 18:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check the cats out and give the categories some thought and get back with you. Doc 21:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think about the cats?? Don't you think it is best to seperate them. So child models will have their own cat..Fashion models their own..Foot models..Hand models..There are many different kinds of models. It is best to seperate them, so people won't get confused. As I mentioned earlier in the cat it said that this was a cat for fashion models. Yet half of the models listed were not fashion models. Lil Flip246 17:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I really don't see how anyone would get confused, that's not the purpose of categories anyway. The Category:French models has nothing to do with fashion per se anyway. It says that it is for models from France. Perhaps some broad sub categories for Category:Models but it needs to be thought through carefully first and perhaps have discussion on the talk page for Models. Doc 19:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"It says that it is for models from France." That's because I changed it to that. Earlier it said fashion models. We need to make subcategories for models to seperate the models into the type of models they are. One category for foot models, one cat for child models, etc.. Lil Flip246 00:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for using proper indentation. My suggestion is to start the discussion on Category talk:Models. That way you will get input from several heads before you waste time and energy on something that may get deleted. Doc 00:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has replied to my post. Lil Flip246 23:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would read that to say that there is not much interest in sub categories. My suggestion would be that unless you garner support here, don't create new categories or sub categories. That would be just setting yourself up for more deletions and wasted time. Doc 23:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But don't you agree that we should seperate the models?? Or else the viewer will believe they are all the same type of model. By the way, what do you call men's magazine models? I mean the likes of Pamela Anderson and Caprice Bourret who aren't fashion models, but they are in men's magazine half naked or naked?? Glamour models?? Lil Flip246 18:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I like your idea, I'm going to have to agree with Doc on this one. I tried several times to create categories for Dance music and other subgenres, only to see those get deleted or merged, so I know how that feels. Robert Moore 00:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Former model

Please stop putting the fact of every former model in the first paragraph. The first paragraph should be one or two sentences that cover the most important synopsis and what the person is best known for.

It's fine to put that fact in the paragraph on their background or history, but unless they were a very well known child model, it is not significant to be in the first paragraph of a news person or actor. You seem every time to add the fact in the very first paragraph and while there may be a few instances where it is notable enough, in those cases it will usually already be there. Please take some time and reread your entire talk page. Take three deep breaths and read it again and follow the links to some very helpful pages that have been left for you. You have no idea how much clean-up work you continue to make for other editors that might really like to be working on new material. Thanks. Doc 20:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD on List of supermodels

I see you've added the AfD template to List of supermodels for deletion, but never followed through to complete the nomination. I did so for you and the discussion is now listed for discussion on AfD. If you are uncertain as to the process, what you need to know is available by clicking here. Agent 86 23:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removing AfD Templates is considered vandalism

You removed the AfD template from List of supermodels. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages. The notices and comments are needed to establish community consensus about the status of an article, and removing them is considered vandalism. If you oppose the deletion of an article, you may comment at the respective page instead. Thank you.

You have been repeatedly urged by other editors and myself to read the WP policies so that you do not constantly breach the rules or make things more difficult for yourself and other editors. At one point your response (above) was that you'd read them if you have time. This is not acceptable. I strongly urge you to read the policies that you have been directed to read. Agent 86 19:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article Improvement Drive for America's Next Top Model

Hi, I notice you've been a frequent contributor to America's Next Top Model. I've just nominated the article to be improved through Wikipedia's article improvement drive, and you can see the nomation here. I'd appreciate your comments on (and hopefully support of!) the article's nomination. Thanks :). Fabricationary 04:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please Read WP Policies

If you would read the WP policies listed at your welcome message, you wouldn't have to post comments such as the one you left on my talk page. You may also wish to make the time to read plus a few others such as WP:POV, WP:NPOV, and WP:OWN. Finally, I repeat myself: use the “Show Preview” button rather than saving every edit all the time. Agent 86 19:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated removal of AfD template: List of supermodels

This is your last warning. The next time you remove Articles for deletion notices or comments from articles and Articles for deletion pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Agent 86 03:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it that you and Doc are always angry at me?? You guys seem controlling. Lil Flip246 23:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is not an anger issue it is policy! You continue to edit without reading the policies and guidelines which we have strongly encouraged you to do before you make any more edits. You continue to not use edit summaries on a consistent basis, you arbitrarily change or rv other editors additions without giving any source or reason. No, I think we have been very patient with you. It is getting very frustrating that you don't seem to comprehend the concept here. Doc 23:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not speaking for others, but I agree with Doc: this is not an anger issue. In fact, I would suggest that people have bent over backwards to assume good faith on your part (but that patience is probably starting to wear thin). You adamantly refuse to read WP policies or make any attempt to comply with them. As noted by other editors, you will probably make an excellent editor if you can learn to work with others, which starts with you reading WP policies. As to why I put this template on your talk page, it should be self-explanatory. I very much doubt that you will, but if it isn't apparent, please read Wikipedia:Vandalism. Your edits are already verging on vandalism; don't add to my growing suspicion that you are being a troll to the list of concerns about your behaviour. Agent 86 00:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trolling in Wikipedia. I am helping this site from being a victim of vandilism. I am removing vandilism and yet I am being blamed. I am shocked that Wikipedia will allow vandilism to stay. Lil Flip246 18:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well today is convincing me all the more clearly that you are trolling and yes I am getting upset as it is a waste of my time. You don't listen and you don't seem willing to learn. Doc 18:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trolling. I am actually helping Wikipedia by removing vandilism. Yet everyone is blaming me for trolling. Lil Flip246 18:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop

Please stop editing until you read the policies and guidelines, your edits are crossing the line to become vandalism instead of contributions. Doc 04:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting edits

You just reverted the additon of the model Kathy Hoxit to Wilhelmina Models – there was no edit summary, no talk page discussion. This is very bad form. Have you read the pages above that you have been asked multiple times to read? What is your source to know that this model has never been a Whilhelmina model? I know nothing of this model, but there is an article and in the future if you do not provide this information I will rv your edit as vandalism. Doc 22:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know that she is not with that agency because I am the biggest ANTM fan ever, and If she was I would'nt have removed it. Lil Flip246 23:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When you read the policies indicated you will see that "origianl research" is not allowed. That is not good enough. Who are you? You must either take it to discussion on the talk page or give a solid source to make that change. Then you must also use an edit summary, so that we don't have to go to every one of your edits to see what you did. Doc 23:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've given you every opportunity to read the posted guielines in the future I will just rv your edits when I see errors. Doc 17:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you see that the agency stuff is vandilism. Isn't it odd that this is the only site which says so. Not even in her MySpace. I've even check the agencies' site, and she is not signed with them. I am just trying to help Wikipedia by removing these kinds of vandilism, yet you guys are blaming me. Lil Flip246 18:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fashion

I was wondering why you are interested in fashion? It seems like you're always editing fashion pages, yet nothing on your user page is evidence of it. I was also wondering how is it that you find time to edit. It seems like you have all day to edit. Lil Flip246 18:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My interests are very diverse, but many of the pages here are for persons that I have known. I considered Wilhelmina a personal friend, have had dinner with Eileen and Jerry Ford, and in the 1960s and 1970s worked with many top models. To be truthful it has taken more of my time recently that I would choose, but I do care about Wikipedia and have tried to read its guidelines and policies. You have told us nothing about yourself on your user page yet you tell us to take things just on the basis of: "I know this is true." You still are not following many policies and guidelines and yes, my patience is wearing very thin with the fact that you continue to edit without reading what you have been asked to read. It is not appropriate to edit here without a willingness to read, comprehend and follow the accepted guidelines. Please do so before you take up other editors time. Doc 18:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do read the guidelines. Yet users misinterpret my edits. I am only removing vandilism. I am a fashion freak. I live and breathe it. I am always in the know about fashion models, especially the ANTM contestants. I love visitng agency sites, and other fashion sites such as Style.com for all the latest fashion shows and the models featured. I am just shocked that wikipedia will allow vandilism such as in the Kathy page. It claims she modeling for Prada and the likes, when I know because of my sources that she has not. Lil Flip246 18:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

well you don't seem to comprehend or follow what you read then. You seldom use edit summaries, which take other editors more time; you use an upper-case letter for the second word in a subject header which is not a proper name; you re-edit half a dozen times instead of using "Show preview"; etc. You have nothing on your user page to tell anyone about yourself. If you would use reliable sources and use them on the page your facts would self qualify, but don't use such things as fashionspot or other blogs or wikis as a reliable source. When you don't agree with something you just keep repeating yourself without responding to the points that have been made. Doc 18:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do explain why I made my edits. I am always in the know of models in fashion. I am just dissapointed the Wikipedia will allow vandilism to stay. I've even checked the agencies, and these people are not signed with them. Lil Flip246 18:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Vandalism. It is not vandalism when other editors, in good faith, add examples of models to the fashion articles (such as supermodel) that you disagree with. Differences of opinion, particularly on a subjective topic, do not constitute vandalism. You may also want to read "appeal to authority" - while I do not doubt your enthusiasm and interest in the fashion industry (which could be put to very good use here if you'd read WP policies and not take constructive criticism personally), verification is paramount, regardles of your own personal knowledge. Take a moment, have a nice cup of tea, look at some of the key WP policies, and then get back to doing what you seem to be trying to do, which is to help create encyclopedic entries on a topic you care for. Agent 86 21:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Hutton

Hi, I see that you added a category to Lauren Hutton about her being a CoverGirl model. However, I can't find this information anywhere....could you please provide some evidence for her being a CoverGirl? I've taken her name out of the category for now. Thanks so much, and please try to cooperate. Mayukhers112 16:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think she was in CoverGirl either. So thanks for removing it. Lil Flip246 16:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. :) Mayukhers112 17:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ujjwala Raut

Hi...I recently began an article for Indian supermodel Ujjwala Raut. I'm assuming you know very much about her, as you're the model expert. Here's her supermodels.nl page: http://www.supermodels.nl/ujjwalaraut . Do you think you could expand the article? Thanks a bunch. Mayukhers112 18:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I opened the article but you didn't write anything on it. Could you please work on it, and I'll add on to it later. Thanks. By the way, not all the models in supermodels.nl are supermodels. They sometimes just add random unknown models. So be careful which ones you call supermodels. The unknown models we just say fashion model because they aren't big. Lil Flip246 15:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've started the page but it's still a stub. Could please work on it?? Thanks. Lil Flip246 16:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kay, thanks...I'll try. Mayukhers112 03:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabetical order

You still don't seem to get alphabetical order. On List of Victoria's Secret models you added a name at the bottom of the Rs. Every other name in the Rs was in alphabetical order until your addition. Please, it is not fair to expect other editors to always have to clean up behind you. If you can't put them in order add them to the talk page noting that you would like them added. Doc ♬ talk 19:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting

Hey, could u tell me why are you deleting the category I made It's not nice just b'coz u it's not necessary and u can just delet it and I think is very allowed to make a category for celebrities fyi!.--hottie 21:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is unnecessary.

Shut up, you kvetch! U Should be banned at wikipedia forever--hottie 21:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to report you for your rude behavior. Lil Flip246 21:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look who's talking--hottie 21:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your behavior is rude and immature. Lil Flip246 21:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's unsourced, report me and let's see who's right--hottie 21:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where exactly in wikipedia does it say that you can do a category on the person?? Lil Flip246 21:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is allowed you must be new here there's plenty of categories about a person or a group [2]--hottie 21:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I am still pretty new here.Lil Flip246 21:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now put them all back--hottie 21:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Former models

Please, stop putting former model in every article of anyone that ever modeled. The first paragraph is to be very short and to the point of what a person is most known for. It is enough to cover that fact that they started by modeling in the early life or early career sections. It should only be in the first parpagraph if a person is still modeling or was so well known for this that someone might not even known them without that information. Doc ♬ talk 21:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking categories

Please do not blank catgories as you did to the American reality television participants one. Please list it for a proper WP:CFD vote. Crumbsucker 02:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing, please stop removing applicable categories from articles. "Not necessary" is not a valid reason. It you have a problem with a category, list it for a CFD vote. You've been warned about your edits several times now and it doesn't appear you've read any rules or heeded any of the warnings. I suggest you start now or you may get vandalism tags. Crumbsucker 03:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimentorship or wikicoaching

I would like to offer a suggestion that may help improve your enjoyment of contributing to Wikipedia and minimize some of the frustration you might be feeling? I hope that you take it in good faith, as it is only a suggestion, one that you might consider following, but are under no obligation to accept.

There is no doubt you are an enthusiastic editor. Unfortunately, you are probably exasperated by what must seem, to you, repeated conflicts with other editors. A number of editors (myself included) have posted repeated requests, issues, problems and warnings on your talk page. Some editors might be losing patience. Others may see that your intentions are in the right place but it appears you are not doing anything to improve the situation.

Here is the suggestion. After some discussion with Doc on my talk page, we thought a possible solution might be for you to participate in some form of coaching or voluntary mentorship. The coach or the mentor should be someone you see as independent and trustworthy, who can assist you in improving as an editor.

While there does not seem to be any sort of well-developed mentorship scheme like there are for some other areas of Wikipedia, this is a practical solution that might help you become the kind of editor you want to be. I would suggest approaching a fellow wikipedian who has been around for a long time, is active, and a record of being supportive in training new users and create some sort of coaching relationship. That person does not necessarily have to be an admin, just someone who knows his or her way around this place and is willing to help. That person could provide you with advice, answer questions you might have, and show you the ropes. You might wish to approach an editor you are comfortable with. Alternatively, I am willing to help by trying to find an editor who might able assist you, or suggesting places to post an invitation for someone to assist you with this.

Whether or not you choose to accept this suggestion, I hope that you take steps to improve yourself as an editor and contribute in positive ways. Agent 86 04:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I could go with the mentorship program, cause I only user wikipedia when I have free time. But I will try not to make any further mistakes. Lil Flip246 21:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would strongly encourage you to reconsider or accept Agent 86's suggestion. You are on here a great deal and devoting a portion of your time here would show good faith on your part, that we have tried to show to you, and to learn and follow the guidelines here. You may find it easier to work one on one with someone than to pull the things out of the printed text on guidelines here. Doc ♬ talk 22:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will think about it, and get back here. Lil Flip246 22:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it helps, what I am suggesting isn't some sort of regimented, time-tabled, structured or otherwise inflexible scheme. It does not need a lot of time on your part (although you should really make time to read wiki-policies, as previously suggested). What I am suggesting is to have a coach or mentor that can help you along your way - someone who can provide advice, answer questions, assist in resolving problems before they escalate, or can act as a sounding board. That person doesn't need to supervise you or hold you back in any way, they're just a resource until you're more familiar with the way things work. Ultimately, the decision is yours. If you choose to, I will be rooting for you; if not, I hope that you are able to improve and succeed regardless. Agent 86 23:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finesse Model Management

Your most recent edit to this article had the following in the edit summary: (The agency does not exist from what I know. Plus I know that she isn't signed with that agency.) Well if from what you know the agency does not exist why did you start the article in April of this year. Secondly how do "know" that she isn't signed with that agency? To "know" something doen't count if you can't back it up. Doc ♬ talk 20:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paris Hilton

I alredy stoped vandaling Paris Hilton. P.S, this woman lied to get out of jail, is a slut of a whore, gives men blow jobs and cant tell the difference between a duck and a moose!! regards, greenskinz.

DMX: Soul OF A Man

AYo, Flip you edited my page saying it's reality TV it ain't it's a documentary tv shoow if you clicked on the link even though it says documeentary film there is also documentary shows change it please aight peace

It's not a documentary show. There are different forms of reality ahows. I suggest you visit that article. Lil Flip246 22:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have and it looked like a good idea but i do still believe it's a documetary show --DogPHman 21:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

You are still using edit summaries less that half of the time. To be specific in the last 150 edits: 45% for major edits and 27% for minor edits. You also have many direct questions that you have never responded to above. Doc ♬ talk 23:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)and also, 25% of your brain doesnt function, regards, greenskinz[reply]

Gisele Bündchen

Your right, this guy Andnanso keeps adding the same rubbish to the article. He won't respond to any messages and doesn't use edit summaries, so it seems we have no idea of his motivation. I suggest you revert to the previous version again. I would do it myself but I'll be violating WP:3RR if he keeps this up much longer. Soo 15:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. If you read the article, it seems as if every sentence is his opinion. In the article it says stuff like she is the greatest model ever, having done more runway than any other. That and more rubbish. It needs major cleanup. Lil Flip246 15:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Categorization

Hiya, and thanks for helping to edit the articles about So You Think You Can Dance contestants. I noticed that recently you had been adding Category:Reality television participants to each of the bios. However, please be aware that they're already in a child category of that one, Category:So You Think You Can Dance contestants, so it's actually redundant. I'd recommend removing the "Reality television participants" category from all of the dancer bios. --Elonka 22:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jesper Skibby

You should probably mention which reality show Jesper Skibby has participated in in the main article, otherwise the category seems strange.--Per Abrahamsen 23:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism warning for blanking

Please refrain from removing content from Wikipedia, as you did to Category:American reality television participants. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Crumbsucker 01:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gisele Bündchen

Please help keep a watch on Gisele Bündchen. Andnanso is becoming a real problem on this article again. For almost a week now he keeps vandalizing the page. I spent a fair amount of time getting the introduction and first couple of sections into better encyclopaedic language and he keeps changing it. I've left a welcome on his talk page, but he clearly is not reading any guidelines. I'd appreciate your keeping watch on the page and with several of us we can avoid getting into a 3RR ourselves. Thanks. Doc ♬ talk 22:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia

Your edit summary says "basically it's all trivia" on the Gisele Bündchen article, when you reverted it back to trivia. Well, how many times do I have to say "Please do not change the section heading back to "Trivia"." Trivia per se is not encyclopaedic, so if you insist on calling it that it must be removed altogether or incorporated in sentence structure into the article. To avoid that for the moment I changed it to an acceptable term. So, if you want to remove all of the information fine. If you change to trivia again, I'll just remove the entire section to the Talk page and folks can incorporate it if they wish. At least we are starting to get a fair encyclopaedic article and I would hope that you can help monitor it and not vandalize the article yourself which is what this change was. Doc ♬ talk 17:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What The Hell?

I was only trying to promote the truth, that Channing Tatum is bisexual, in a non-judgmental way. It's not my problem if people like you are against it, but im not, and i think that just because he is a bisexual, heterosexual people should not try to erase that fact simply so he doesn't look bad. Lil Flip246, im dissapointed. BUT, i will stop editing Channing Tatum's page, despite the fact that it lacks the TRUTH.

Where is your source?? Lil Flip246 16:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism warnings

When leaving warnings on the talk page of vandals, please use one of the boilerplate warnings at WP:UTM. That way, other vandal fighters can tell when to report vandals and which warning level to use next. Thanks. MER-C 05:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Model

I guess we'll agree to disagree on that aspect. --Tim1988 ^talk 16:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ford Supermodel Contest

Hey, I've got a question about the Ford Supermodel of the World Contest. I've read that Aishwarya Rai and Bipasha Basu (it says in her article) won the Ford Supermodel of the World Contest. However, this isn't in the Supermodel of the World (contest) page. Help? Thanks. Mayukhers112 18:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really in the know about that contest. All I know is that Tricia won it once in the 90s. But maybe you can check the official website. Or maybe it was another contest they won? Lil Flip246 16:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recent categories

I can only assume that you didn't take up the offer for wikimentorship or wikicoaching. You are onece again up for almost 30 categories to be deleted. Please reconsider this so that you don't waste everyone's time here, particularly your own. Doc ♬ talk 19:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I didn't know that models couldn't get own categories. Lil Flip246 21:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Tyra Banks Dolce And Gobbana.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Tyra Banks Dolce And Gobbana.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 00:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Chillax. Now.

sigh*. Stop freaking. Stop shouting. Stop repeating yourself, we can hear you. Stop vandalizing. Stop spamming images. Stop spamming period. Stop make nonsense. Stop unless you want another block. Julz

How am I spamming? What did I do?? Am I shouting? No. Lil Flip246 15:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, stop blanking pages, creating catagorys, and PLEASE USE NPOV. Anyway, is to your questions, how about a few quotes you may remember...

"Hi there, please do not divide individual Top Model contestant pages (specifically Kim Stolz and Kyle Kavanaugh) into categories when only one sentence fits under a category in your organization system. For short biographical entries, it is sufficient to write in paragraphs as all information can be found readily in this format. For a more notable model or celebrity, it's useful to categorize their entries so the reader can refer to his or her section of interest, but none of the Top Model contestants whose pages you edited are that notable as of yet outside of their time on Top Model. If you can find a lot more information on the contestants outside of their experience on Top Model to make the pages a lot longer, then categorization is a good organization solution."\

"Your edits to Lindsay Lohan have been reverted. The smoking reference was written POV; further, its encyclopedic value, given the hundreds of millions (at least) of people who smoke, is all but nonexistent. Also, there is no "Celebrity Party Girls" (or similar) category at Wikipedia, and the reference could be considered inflammatory anyway. Please read "What Wikipedia is not" as soon as possible to gain an appreciation of what an encyclopaedia is supposed to be. RadioKirk talk to me 23:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

PLEASE STOP. Given your conversations with other editors, you are now clearly aware that you are adding nonsense: Nonexistent Wikipedia categories that could be considered inflammatory. Constructive edits are welcome; however, doing whatever you want with the knowledge that your edits are unconstructive edits—such as those you made to Lindsay Lohan and Paris Hilton—are considered vandalism. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Thanks. RadioKirk talk to me 00:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)"

Well, I gotta go. Anyways, you get the pictures. I'll post more if I feel it neccesary. Julz

Semi-Protection of Articles

Please do not add {{sprotect}} tags to articles, as you are not a administrator. You adding this tag does nothing but confuse people. Thanks! --Die Hard 2k5 23:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I never knew that. I thought you were allowed to. Sorry. Lil Flip246 23:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Just thought I'd let you know. {{sprotect}}, {{protect}}, and {{test5}}'s are the only commands that non-admin's can't use, as far as I know. Happy editing! --Die Hard 2k5 23:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think those pages need it?? I mean people are vandilising pages like Paris Hilton everyday putting remarks and comments like she's a slut. I'm tired of removing vandilism from these pages. Lil Flip246 23:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thats true, but thats a part of a user-edited website. I've done my fair share of removing vandalism, but semi-protection is something you have to bring to the attention of one of the administrators. --Die Hard 2k5 00:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last name response

No real reason, but a) It's done in most articles and b) A person should be referred to one name throughout the article (The latter doesn't mean it has to be the last name). Ohyeahmormons 16:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Umm... I was just surfing around, and I just somehow ended up here, but I also want to point out that last name should be used to address the subject in formal writings. mirageinred 23:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ANTM Contestants

Sorry, but it goes against what I believe is the spirit of an AFd discussion for anyone to go around trying to drum up support. It's not a vote anyway, it's an attempt to reach a consensus. The discussion we're having is instructive, because there isn't yet a guideline for reality show contestants and there probably should be. However, I don't have any vested interest in ANTM articles, other than that I don't agree that they should all be deleted en masse and I do believe that Wikipedia should be more inclusive. Thanks. Dina 16:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting

You should know that I only revert pages in cases of clear vandalism, not as a means of editing. I'd encourage you to use it the same way. You go to the history, click on the version of the page you want to revert to, and then save it. Dina 16:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do you save it?? Lil Flip246 17:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eva Pigford

Stop removing "citation needed" tags from the article. Having an "external links" section is NOT the same thing as having cited references and sources. And MySpace does NOT count as a valid source under WP:RS. wikipediatrix 17:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I Know. I am just saying ALL the information was taken from the links in external links. They are not false information. They are all from External links. Lil Flip246 17:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not good enough. Having an "external links" section is NOT the same thing as having cited references and sources. You have violated the WP:3RR rule that forbids reverting an edit more than three times. Restore the tags or I will have to file a report against you. wikipediatrix 17:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have added sources. Lil Flip246 17:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your source links don't say anything about the information that they're supposed to be sourcing. If the page you are linking to doesn't specifically say exactly what the article says, it's not a source. And the livejournal blog is not acceptable as per WP:RS. wikipediatrix 18:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Albert

I see you have also removed "citation needed" tags from the Sara Albert article, and simply claimed "the source is MySpace" in your edit summary. You have already been informed that MySpace is not a valid source, and the edit summary is not the place to cite a source. Do not remove such tags from articles until you are absolutely certain that proper sources have been given, and judging from your edit-warring and 3RR on Eva Pigford, I don't think you understand how WP:RS and WP:V work. wikipediatrix 18:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some policy issues

Hi; I had Dina's talk page on my watchlist because of a comment I left there early this morning, and I saw two posts of yours that were somewhat troubling. I looked on your talk page and saw some other things of concern. I'd like to offer up some advice that I hope will make your time with this community more pleasant, and maybe help relieve some WikiStress.

First, it isn't appropriate to ask users to "vote" one way or another on Articles for Deletion discussion. AfD isn't a vote; it's a discussion in which strength of argument holds sway. It isn't a popularity contest; it's a way to determine whether or not an article meets the criteria to stay in Wikipedia. One of the reasons I asked Dina to come to a particular article on AfD was because the situation had changed (and is still changing), and I thought Dina might want to take a fresh look at the situation. It's okay to let a few people know when an article that they have an interest in is being put up for deletion, but it's considered a breach of Wikipedia etiquette to ask them to "stack the vote" in one way or another. It's called meatpuppetry, and it can bring warnings, blocks, or sanctions. I'm glad Dina talked to you about it, but I think it bears repeating and explaining so you aren't left in the dark.
Second, remember that our policies on verifiability and reliable sources are paramount. If something isn't properly sourced, it needs to be deleted. To take an example from your talk page, a guy named "Doc" was upset at you for removing information that wasn't cited anywhere; he was wrong. Similarly, when you try to back up something in an article with Myspace or livejournal, that violates Wikipedia policy as well. When something is cited in an article, it needs to be supported by a source that an encyclopedia would find reliable.
Third, when removing {{fact}} tags, be absolutely certain that you're leaving a precise reference to a reliable source (which is never Myspace). If someone has added a {{fact}} tag, it means that it isn't an easy reference to check, or the editor doubts that the reference exists. What you should do then is follow the guidelines in WP:CITE, which explain how to properly cite your sources.
Finally, be very, very cautious with reversions. One of the tools in "History" is to look at an old version of the page, which you can then edit. When you save your edits, everything since then that has been added to the article will be erased. Because of that, you need to be very careful about when you use that tool; I would recommend only using it when someone does something that is unquestionably vandalism, at least until you learn your way around Wikipedia better. Otherwise, it's best to just remove the vandalism normally.

Wikipedia can be a very confusing place at first, with all sorts of jargon and ways of doing things that just don't seem right. It looks like you're picking things up, but I know how important it was for me to get help early on, and it looked like you could use a friendly word. Anyway, happy editing; feel free to contact me on my talk page if you have any questions or want to yell at me :-). Captainktainer * Talk 20:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop blindly reverting the removal of unsourced information!

Captainktainer and I have both tried to explain WP:RS and WP:V to you. If it isn't properly sourced, it cannot stay in the article, especially on articles about living persons. That means no gossip, no original research, no MySpace or Livejournal sources, no WP:OR criticism of the model's appearance or how well she did on the show, no copyright- violating images or "trivia" text cut and pasted verbatim from websites. If you persist in this destructive behavior, I will have no choice but to file complaints against you for vandalism and 3RR. wikipediatrix 21:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not vandilisng. I am reverting edits in which you removed valuable information. Lil Flip246 21:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

==lil flip? hell no.

Who are you suppose to be? stop frontin'.--75.33.255.139 23:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me?? By the way, please learn to post a new section. Lil Flip246 23:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Eva Pigford. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. The JPS ^{talk to me} 23:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Myspace as a source for articles

Here's how I see it: Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, and as a result, a lot of spurious information cant be inserted into articles. Anyone who's spent anytime on recent changes patrol can tell you that. As a result, all the information included on Wikipedia must be verifiable. Myspace doesn't count as a verifiable source because it is also a website that anyone can edit (essentially.) For instance, I could create a Myspace page for myself in which I described myself as a model with a list of credits. It's not true, but I could easily do it. It wouldn't be verifiable because a google search would turn up no articles, pictures, etc. about me as a model. A fact can be true ie. User:Dina is 5'6" (that's true -- see, not a model!)-- but it's not verifiable because there's no third party source to verify it with. Another editor adding ^{[citation needed]} to your article isn't vandalism, it's an effort to get you to name your sources. I'm sure a lot of the information posted on the ANTM model's Myspace pages is True, but unless it's written somewhere that they could not have written themselves, it's not verifiable. A sidenote: I know these articles are important to you and you'd like them to stay on Wikipedia. It's unclear what decision the consensus on AfD will reach. However, you do these articles a disservice by being too argumentative. If you really care about them staying, take a deep breath and step back and let folks dicuss it. Just some advice. Cheers Dina 00:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The MySpace accounts from the ANTM contestants are real because they post personal photos and update their careers to fans. Even Tyra has a MySpace. Lil Flip246 14:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also have another thing to say. The source: http://www.modelwire.net/webcs/Login.aspx is a source. If you login, you'll have access to the models and which agencies they are in, etc...I was wondering why you removed it. It is basically the source for what modeling they are doing. Lil Flip246 14:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More things to comment on..Why did you remove important sources? Did you even take the chance to look at them? For example..Sara Racey-Tabrizi. I gave the sources to her agency. If you actually checked the agencies, you'd see that she is/was part of them. If you don't believe me, call the agency yourself. Lil Flip246 14:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another example..Joanie Dodd's page. I gave the source that she modeled for Active Endeavors. If you actually took the time to go to the site, it shows Joanie everywhere. Lil Flip246 15:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please answer the questions above cause they are really important. Lil Flip246 15:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've already had it explained to you. Your source citations aren't backing up the information you're inserting into the articles. It's not enough to link to the index page of a site, and it's not enough to link to a page of nothing but images. If a sentence in an article says, for example, "Jane Smith was signed by Acme", the source citation link directly after it has to say exactly that. Read WP:NOT: "Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth." For another example, your link to NOUS' website's index page after the statement "Joanie is signed with NOUS Models" does not contain that information. It says nothing about Joanie Dodds. If the link doesn't specifically say what the article says, it's not a source and it's not a reference. wikipediatrix 16:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the agencies..If you open the women's division Joanie is there. Same with the Model Wire. If you login, you will see that they are all signed. It's not my fault that you are not registered with modelwire. Lil Flip246 16:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the last and final time, THAT DOESN'T MATTER. If there's a page within the site that says Joanie works for them, you have to link directly to that page, not the front page. wikipediatrix 16:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, they are not html. They are like graphics thingy, not like a normal site. For example Nous Models site is Abobe Flash Player. Lil Flip246 16:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No article ever written states what agencies they are signed. Just go to the agencies site or modelwire where it says ALL their agencies. So the citation needed will always be there, cause the only places where it says they are signed to those agencies are modelwire and the agency's site. Lil Flip246 16:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're saying the article has to state so, then why did you remove the Furonda link, where it states she is signed with L.A. Models and is part of the show?? Lil Flip246 16:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

^ wikipediatrix, can you please explain this about Furonda???? Lil Flip246 17:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

stop removing citation-needed tags

Now you are just being stubborn and committing vandalism. Seek an admin's opinion before you revert these articles any further, or I will be filing a complaint regarding you requesting that you be banned. wikipediatrix 16:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you just answer my questions like the Furonda, Ann, Joanie, and Adobe Flash Player? If you answer the quesrions, things will go smoothly. Lil Flip246 16:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not until you stop removing the tags from the articles. wikipediatrix 16:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. But can you Please answer my questions above and below. Thanks. Lil Flip246 16:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Lil Flip246. I suspect that the reason you are having trouble finding acceptable references for your articles is because many of these models are not particularly notable. If you can not find sources outside of flash and registration-protected sites, then we probably should not be including these facts in the articles. Also, I'd like to suggest that you start using footnotes for your references. They are easy to make, and allow you to give important pieces of information about the source, like the article/page's name, author, publisher, and date. In the case of web pages, the also allow you the opportunity to give the date that you accessed the page, which is very important. Within a footnote, you may also want to use the {{web cite}} and {{cite news}} templates, which can help you format the information. Take a look at any top article for an example of how they are used. ×Meegs 17:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are also fansites but wikipediatrix removes them. He/She also removed direct links such as the furonda one I mentioned above. Lil Flip246 17:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I personally might let a detail such as that a model appeared in a particular fashion show go with a less than stellar citation, but, in general, what Wikipediatrix is trying to do is undoubtedly correct. Please work with her and cut some of the details from these articles that you can not find solid references for. If there is no print or online media coverage of these models or their activities, then they (or at least those activities) probably do not deserve substantial coverage on Wikipedia. Regards×Meegs 18:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Markley

There are links to good sources. If you opened it. For example the Alice and Olivia, if you open the link it shows the runways show and even mentions Ann's name. Also the Elite Models, if you open it she is in Women's division. Also if you go to modelwire and login, then you will see that has done all that modeling. Lil Flip246 16:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can't expect readers to navigate thru these sites. Your link has to go DIRECTLY to a specific page that says EXACTLY what the sentence in the Wikipedia article says it says. wikipediatrix 16:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But the problem is it is Adobe Flash Player. And modelwire/agencies' site is the only source where it shows it, but nearly all the agency's sites are flash player so you can't get a direct link. Lil Flip246 16:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ANTM...

I totally agree with where you're coming from... I left the following message on their talk page:

I think you've definitely been taking this too far. Some of the information is relevant in the context of the TV episodes and can be verified by watching them (not that you can source that). By all means remove the most blatant gossip but I would ask you not to go overboard. I haven't even been much involved in these articles apart from those that relate to pageants but I've watched a few seasons of this show and can recognise that some of the stuff deleted as "unverified" is actually true.

The worst case of this is Shannon Niquette Stewart where there appears to be sources for some of the articles (although I haven't checked them myself).

Why not slap a sources template on them and encourage people to better source them rather than simply deleting the material? -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 21:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully we'll get a reply! -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 21:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it. Did you read the Furonda issue I wrote above?? The link to Furonda even stated she was in the fashion show (photos were included) and it also stated she was with the agency, yet he/she removed it. Lil Flip246 21:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a hint... I've started to properly reference the articles on my watchlist (only three, Cassandra Whitehead, Shannon Niquette Stewart and Nicole Linkletter. I don't have time to do the rest but if you do, you might want to do what I did to Cassandra's article. The best source is the ANTM episode summaries, but TVgasm can be useful as well. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 22:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Lil Flip. I just edited Yoanna House and added sources for all of her information. I know ANTM is a very important project of yours, and hopefully, we ANTM fans can work together to properly source all of the ANTM girls' Wikipedia pages. Thanks! Elcda0 23:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!! :D Lil Flip246 22:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well done, Elcda0....thanks! I look forward to seeing all the ANTM articles done so well. Hopefully the others will learn from your example. wikipediatrix 23:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much. I won't have time today to work on the rest cause I will be leaving soon. But could you guys please work on it? Thanks. Lil Flip246 15:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Supermodels

Hey!! There are alot of supermodel stubs here at wikipedia. The only non stubs seem to be the VS Angels. I was wondering if you could please help add more/edit articles of supermodels such as Doutzen Kroes, Jessica Stam, Gemma Ward, and Bianca Balti. Thanks. Lil Flip246 16:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about these ladys. I will, though, watch the articles and do copyedit whenever I can, try to find free imges for them and try to provide references for the contents. --Abu Badali 16:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!! Lil Flip246 16:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Report

At my talk page you asked Hey! I was wondering..How can I file a complaint concerning a user who removes sourced information, because he/she wants to make all the pages stubs and eventually be deleted?. Without further information on the actual edits concerned, I'm unable to provide to you any concise information for now, but you may wish to review Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance in any way. -- Longhair 10:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors involved in this problem have given me further information about your request and I've now had time to read over several articles, talk pages, and also viewed many edits in relation to your issue on deletion. I feel you have been given fair advice and information on adding references and providing reliable sources, and perhaps those warnings did become a little heavy handed when it appeared repeated requests to you were being ignored. Please take the time to read over the links provided to you above, as it's a very clear requirement and one that will put an end to this problem. Pointing the finger at other editors and assuming they are out to delete your hard work is not the case here and is taking a bad faith stance. They are deleting only unsourced information, and are within their editing rights to do so.

I've also noted that rather than assuming good faith, you did become a little argumentative when it appeared nobody was listening to you. Please be aware that the onus to provide references and sources for contributions rests solely with those adding the information, and that any editor is permitted to remove any unsourced material at any time. I realise it may not be easy to see the issues when one is so close to the centre of the problem, but users removing poorly sourced contributions are actually helping your article grow and remain undeleted by ensuring the articles are not just a collection of gossip, rumour or original research. We can't reference something we can't verify. It's that simple. Users can't be expected to register at any website to check your references, and that's why we must link directly to the information you cite.

Biographies of living persons are somewhat stricter with the requirement of sourced material, so it's best to include references where possible when editing articles within this category. It's been said before, but I'll repeat the information, being that MySpace and similar sites are not considered reliable sources as anyone can edit that site, much like Wikipedia.

User:PageantUpdater has offered to give you a hand with referencing, and if there's any technical or editing help you require, feel free to ask myself for some help as well. I trust you fully understand the dangers surrounding unsourced contributions when it comes to living people. The Wikimedia Foundation must enforce strict rules for biography articles on living people to avoid legal consequences of the worst kind. I hope this helps. -- Longhair 00:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's been further complaint regarding your edits and adding references which do not appear to be reliable. Please take this message as notice that you may be blocked from editing if you persist in adding information to articles that is poorly sourced or referenced. A reminder also to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. After looking into the issue, I don't think anybody is targetting your edits and purposely creating stubs so that they may be deleted. It's an unfair assumption to make and can only lead to further conflict. -- Longhair 02:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References

I have added the section as you requested. Please take note, however, that Fashion Spot, as you have been told many times, is not a suitable reference. It may well be used as an external link in some cases, but not a reference as it is not a reliable source.

Now you have a reference. The quote that you cited from Fashion Spot was a repost from Toronto Star. That is a reliable source and a good reference. I don't mind helping and answering a request such as your request today, but you really need some help with many things that you don't seem to grasp. When you continue with repeating things that many editors have tried to guide you on the frustration level often outweighs your contribution and leads to your own frustration by multiple contributions you have made being deleted. Please reconsider the wikimentorship or wikicoaching that Agent 86 suggested above. You clearly want to help, but continuing to charge ahead without sufficient understanding and your continued failure to reply to many posts on your talk page will only have more editors give up on trying to work with you. Doc ♬ talk 20:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I won't be able to do the mentorship, because school is back. And I will be busy. Thanks for the offer. Lil Flip246 22:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should really consider limiting your editing until you have the time. In fact the mentoring is really a way to help have your edits not require many other editors making the time to review and make corrections. So, if you have time to edit at all, you should seriously consider making time for the mentorship, it would only be at the pace that you have the time. Please talk with Agent 86 about it, he was the one who made the offer to help you connect. Doc ♬ talk 17:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Runway models

Because runway better defines the distinction than fashion. A fashion model can be anything from fashion still photography to television as well as runway. Runway is a clearer term to the general public. Doc ♬ talk 17:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Mentoring

I saw your note on my talk page. It is of no consequence to me if you choose to accept the suggestion or reject it as you have. I just don't think you understood what I was suggesting. It also bears mentioning that the suggestion was solely for your benefit. I'm sorry to say I've seen little improvement on your part, especially after reading through the many comments on your talk page. I still think you need to do something to improve yourself here and, with all due respect, it seems to me that you're using school as another excuse to allow you to maintain your bad habits. If you have time to edit here, you have time to at least read the applicable wikipolicies. Good luck at school. Agent 86 19:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Lil Flip246 20:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VS Angels

It was listed here two weeks ago, so that seemed like plenty of time. I was the only person who supported it, and lots of other people didn't, so don't feel too bad about missing the discussion.--Mike Selinker 00:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder

Hi Lil Flip! Just a reminder that when you add information to articles about living people, you need to cite verifiable sources for your statements. Places like livejournal and myspace are not acceptable as verifiable sources because, like wikipedia, people are able to add content that cannot be proven. Types of verifiable sources are webpages that state explicitly the claim you are trying to support, and things like newspaper articles. If you have any queries about this don't hesistate to send me a message. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 21:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And another reminder - and I, like numerous others, are beginning to lose patience. Per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Using_online_and_self-published_sources using "self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources". This includes Myspace, LiveJournal etc. Also, if you are going to add a source, simply adding it in the edit summary is not enough example - although this would not count anyway as LiveJournal is not an appropriate source. I appreciate your enthusiasm but you have been given numerous opportunities to get this right and still appear to be ignoring advice given in good faith. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 23:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I included it because it was scans from a user who posted it on LiveJournal. Lil Flip246 23:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to get into the supposed merits of scanned photos as sources but I would like to remind you AGAIN that using only the edit summary to give your source is not good enough. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 23:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, please stop listing EVERY modeling gig an ANTM girl has done. Wikipedia is not their portfolio. Secondly, as you have been told countless times, you cannot use the edit summary as your source! You're better off uploading pictures to something like Imageshack and then making an external link to the pictures. I'm not sure if that's valid and I think it may qualify as original research, but things like fashion shows obviously don't need such solid citations.Elcda0 22:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Chracteristics of a supermodel

Sorry, but they are gone. The paragraph was highly redundant to the opening one, and it was not very difficult to seamlessly merge the two. mirageinred 23:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But perhaps you can recreate it if you rebuild the paragraph with distinctions from the opening paragraph.. It's upto you, but it's deleted for now. mirageinred 14:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why you added the section back. The section is just too redundant from its opening paragraph! Did you read my comment on its discussion page? mirageinred 03:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changing username

To request a change of username, see Wikipedia:Changing username and leave your request there according to the instructions. -- Longhair\^talk 09:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ugly Betty

The character works at a fashion magazine, which features models. Do not remove from category, since it is based on a telenovela that has the same setup. Robert Moore 02:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However, you did put in a suggestion to change the category to Category:Fashion-themed television series, so I went ahead and created one, but left the Category:Modeling-themed TV shows intact since I already separated the shows that deal with the fashion industry from the shows with a modeling theme. I made the latter a subcategory because they are part of the fashion industry in general. This should solve the confusion. Robert Moore 03:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blasian

I'm sorry you didn't like the blasian page, but as far as we've all seen, it has a lot of accurate information. Please don't address yourself as anonymous on my page. You lose credibility. No one needs to promote blasians if they are promoting themselves on their own with thier on factual information. thanks. Americanbeauty415 06:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Apprentice

Hello, Lil Flip246 and thank you for your contributions on articles related to The Apprentice UK. I'd like to invite you to become a part of WikiProject The Apprentice UK, a WikiProject aiming to improve coverage of The Apprentice UK and related articles on Wikipedia.

If you would like to help out and participate, please come over and visit us here for more information. Thanks! Dalejenkins 13:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Model Management

An article that you created, Model Management, has been proposed for deletion, for the following reason:

Importance or significance of subject, see Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)

Wikipedia has standards for inclusion that all articles must meet. Certain types of article must establish the notability of their subject by asserting its importance or significance. Additionally, since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, content inappropriate for an encyclopedia – such as content more suited to a directory or social networking website – is not acceptable. See What Wikipedia is not for the relevant policy.

You are welcome to improve the article to meet these standards and remove the deletion notice. You may also remove the notice if you disagree with the deletion; note that in this case, the article may be discussed further at Articles for deletion. Thanks – Qxz 02:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A suggestion

Lil Flip246, a suggestion: you include edit summaries for less than 20% of your edits. Please summarize all edits you make. Per WP guidelines, "An edit summary should strive to answer the question, "Why did you make this edit?". Providing an edit summary, even if the edit is minor, makes Wikipedia work better by quickly explaining to other users what your change was about." Consequently, all edits, even minor edits, should have an explanation (e.g. fixing typo; or adding wikilink, etc.).

Major edits (which most of yours are, even if you're only replacing "fashion model" with "supermodel") definitely require brief explanations explaining (1) what is being changed, and (2) why. However, even the small percentage of changes for which you provide summaries do not do this and are often off-point or vague. For example, in the article Supermodel you added "Brad Kroenig" to a list models on December 28, 2006, stating "I'm surprised Brad Kroenig doesn't have a page. He is one of today's top male models." A more informative summary would've been simply, "Added Brad Kroenig to male supermodel list". Also, summaries like, "Why was this removed?" or "Why did you remove reference?" add little value. In the Channing Tatum article, the edit history shows that the reference was apparently accidentally deleted. Next time you see something like that simply replace the deleted material with a summary stating, "replacing accidentally deleted cite". If you have questions for the editor making the change, clearly explain them on that user's talk page. To Assume good faith is a fundamental principal of WP, so do not attack a fellow contributor (not to mention that the relevant edit occurred four edits earlier, so your reference was not obvious).

By doing this you facilitate other editors' reviews of changes, not to mention your own. Otherwise, interested editors have to click on every edit you make to evaluate its interest or importance to them. Thank you for your interest and industry, but please review How to edit a page before making more edits.

— Jim Dunning talk : 00:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Deweir

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Nancy Deweir, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. — iridescenti (talk to me!) 14:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:Sports Illustrated swimsuit models

Number1spygirl has nominated Category:Sports Illustrated swimsuit models (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buffyverse Slayer timeline

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Buffyverse Slayer timeline, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 00:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Swimsuit templates

As a leading editor at Petra Němcová 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) 01:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Swimsuit Templates

As a leading editor at Jeísa Chiminazzo 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) 04:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Debbie Dickinson

A tag has been placed on Debbie Dickinson requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 16:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of 2pm Model Management

I have nominated 2pm Model Management, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2pm Model Management. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Joe Chill (talk) 22:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Premier Model Management for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Premier Model Management 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/Premier Model Management 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. The Banner talk 23:51, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Boss Model Management

The article Boss Model Management has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Failed to find reliable sources.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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. MirandaKeurr (talk) 22:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 13:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Storm Model Management

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Storm Model Management requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company, corporation or organization, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Models 1

Hello, I'm Deb. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.
Hello, Lil Flip246. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.Deb (talk) 16:57, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of May Andersen for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article May Andersen 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/May Andersen until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.

damiens.rf 06:06, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion about Irene Marie Models

Hello Lil Flip246, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

While your contributions are appreciated, I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Irene Marie Models, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irene Marie Models.

Deletion discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. Our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. The most common issue in these discussions is notability, but it's not the only aspect that may be discussed; read the nomination and any other comments carefully before you contribute to the discussion. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Velella}}. And don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]