User talk:BahianChic

Welcome!

Hello, BahianChic, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! -Phoenixrod (talk) 04:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

June 2008

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as in Talk:Adriana Lima, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. Sdrtirs (talk) 08:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adriana & Bettie Page

Info should be cited correctly in the first place in order to avoid these mistakes, don't you think? But I've now watched the corrected citation, and with Adriana calling Page "innocent" -- what??? -- and not looking so sure of herself as she said it, she most likely confused Page with someone else.

That said, your on shaky ground using foreign language sources, especially considering some of your edits don't seem to be supported by the used article. For example, Lima stating she adores classical doesn't mean at all that it's her favorite type of music -- that needs its own citation to be credible. I'm guessing if I looked into it, I would find the same problem in the claim that her favorite type of movies are black-and-whites. You seem to be drawing conclusions as opposed to stating known facts, which makes those edits invalid, so you'd be better off finding more direct citations.

But since I'm not trying to be mean about this, I'll only delete the sentence "Adriana who has old fashioned values, also has some old fashioned taste." As a writer, I understand why you would put it there, but it's a useless sentence for an encyclopedic article and it's really just drawing conclusions again, unless you have a source describing her that way. Aren't citations a bitch? Mbinebri (talk) 03:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, scratch that last part: I rewrote it so that the paragraph is shorter, sounds less repetitive with all those "She this" and "She that", and is less challengeable. That's the best way to write these things. Mbinebri (talk) 03:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"So if it walks like a rabbit, jumps like a rabbit...it's a rabbit."

Not according to Wikipedia. It's only a rabbit if a reliable source explicitly publishes it as so. It wouldn't matter if it was Lima herself who showed up here and edited it in if she didn't have a citation, because it's not about faith in the editor; it's about verifiability. So you can be as knowledgeable as possible on Lima, but that's inconsequential on its own, and even if your website is as in-touch w/ her family as people from your site are always saying, that won't help you much either, as Wiki administrators have repeatedly shot down its validity in the past since it's really just a fansite. The best you can do is give what facts there are and let the article's readers decide on their own if it's a rabbit or not. Mbinebri (talk) 14:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image permission problem with Image:Adriana Lima BioFit Tour Aventura.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Adriana Lima BioFit Tour Aventura.jpg, which you've sourced to startraks. I noticed that that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the image (or other media file) agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to [e-mail], stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the image to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the image has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to [e-mail].

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the image's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Images lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. dave pape (talk) 00:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

French Heritage

You just don't get it, do you? IT DOES NOT MATTER THAT YOU'VE BEEN A FAN FOR YEARS. YOU do not matter, so stop promoting yourself as some kind of authority! What matters are legit sources and that is ALL that matters. And as for Lima's heritage, neither source you gave supports what's listed in the article. Both said French, Portuguese, Caribbean, and Native American - there was nothing on African or Swiss descent, and you can't just pick and choose what to include from contradictory sources. You have to find a source and reflect exactly what that source says or else it's not valid.

There are basically three options for what to write in the article based on various sources:

• French, Portuguese, Caribbean, and Native American
• African, Swiss, and Native South American
• or you acknowledge each group as the TV.com site did

Now why do I feel like I've already said a lot of this? Oh right, because I already have! If you'd bothered to check Lima's talk page (where article issues are supposed to be discussed) instead of harassing me as always, you'd see I already stated my reasons in the "Wrong Heritage" section for reverting her heritage back to what it's ALWAYS been and for what there is the greatest reason for it remaining as. This is not an argument between you and I: it's one for all interested editors, and since the consensus reached on Lima's talk page some time ago is that African, Swiss, and Native South American is the most viable claim to her heritage, I'm reverting your edits until you can find a source that can't be refuted. Mbinebri (talk) 16:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you know that she has French heritage, do you? Well that's funny because your precious fansite doesn't support you! But I'm frankly tired of arguing with you, so I'm going to allow what your added sources claim as her heritage (French, Portuguese, Caribbean, and Native American), while allowing for the possibility of African, Swiss, and Native South American heritage as well, as TV.com said. It's all stated neutrally and the sources are your own, so the only cause you could have for reverting my edit is vandalism, and I won't hesitate to report it. Mbinebri (talk) 22:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm also glad I edit Adriana's article because, that way, the article has at least one person more concerned with its integrity as an encyclopedic entry over their own ego. Unlike you, I won't hesitate to admit I don't know things, while any suggestion that you're not a complete expert on Adri's life is met with hostility and/or a defensive attitude (as user Catgut has also seen), which in no way helps the article or makes you a suitable editor. And that makes it all the funnier when you say I insist I'm right when we both know the only person who always insists on being right is YOU with your useless comments of being a fan for so many years in order to justify questionable edits. The day you can be objective in your edits and mature in dealing with other editors, you might actually become a descent Wiki editor. Mbinebri (talk) 22:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see from the results of your taking this issue elsewhere (which I was also going to do), there is no agreement with you - only agreement with me. So I'm reverting your recent edits back to the original claim of Lima's heritage until you can find a source of Lima stating something different. Mbinebri (talk) 15:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 15:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When are you going to talk to me?

I'm trying to contact you. Everything i said about the emotions is true. About me, I dont know about everything else. If i made a couple of mistakes, like my blindness causing to mix identities. I am sorry for that. I am also sorry for anything i may have done that you deemed to be negative. The music is just a hobby, its not something i take seriously. If you want to fix the situation somewhere. Just give me a time and a meeting place and ill be their. On the webpage or something like that. I'll just be waiting. I feel like i took it to far and i should of just shut my mouth up. But i still want to do it forever with you. Like together. yea. Try to find a way to contact me. Alright peace out. I'll try agaian later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pharoahj (talk • contribs) 16:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT?

I just want to know if your alright and if you want to meet me and be with me. Thats all. I just want to meet up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pharoahj (talk • contribs) 21:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that turned out a lot different than either of us probably expected

I'm assuming the policy against Youtube vids is that they don't go through the normal publishing process (a Wiki requirement for reliable sources), and instead of letting editors bicker over whether one can be used over another because of where it comes from, site admins just decided to disallow them all.

Anyway... I've already removed the citations, which makes for an ugly looking article with all the fact citation requests, so I removed what content I doubt there are other sources to be found for (and that the article can live without) and left the rest in with citation requests. Note that I'm not disputing the truth of them; if you find reliable sources, feel free to re-add them. Mbinebri (talk) 05:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing

Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on others' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Adriana Lima. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Here's an example of your canvassing as well as here. Also, remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes like this ~~~~ or by clicking the signature button , which appears in your edit toolbar. It is important that you do that so that people can tell who said what when. It can be very annoying to some users when they read unsigned comments. Cheers. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 21:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 18:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adriana video

I have made the interview on youtube public again (per your request).MorbidAnatomy (talk) 03:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 17:12, 1 February 2009 (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) 13:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]