Talk:Simone Bittencourt de Oliveira

Born eight months premature...
...seems impossible to me. But I do not know how to edit a Wikipedia page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.126.94.210 (talk) 14:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * What do you want me ot say: that she was born one month prematre, since she was born one month earlier than nine months? Is it so??Lulu Margarida yes? 12:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Fixed this phrasing. AnmaFinotera 01:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Authorization for copyrights
This subtitle is a copyright of this web site: www.somostodosum.ig.com.br. And the copy/pasted text was authorized via e-mail by its author:
 * (Better review the article as it is now, and then tidy up this notice, for "this subtitle" is nowhere to be found, so this notice is useless) --AVM (talk) 01:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

AUTORIZAÇÃO

 * Autorizamos a "Wikipédia, a enciclopédia livre" a utilizar em suadatabase e sob licença "GFDL - GNU Free Documentation License" os

textos e informações constantes em http://somostodosum.ig.com.br/conteudo/conteudo.asp?id=6705 e http://somostodosum.ig.com.br/conteudo/conteudo.asp?id=6728


 * Atenciosamente,


 * AcidZero
 * Realizador do site Saindo da Matrix (www.saindodamatrix.com.br)
 * truxton@gmail.com
 * Lulu Margarida yes? 17:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Issues with the article
I feel that this article is very overlong and loaded with unsourced and trivial information. I'd be interested in hearing the opinions of other editors in that regard.

Firstly, many of the sources appear to be linked to a fan website, simonepedacos.multiply.com, which I'm not sure is a reliable source; there's also a YouTube video used as a source, which is definitely not reliable as per WP:RS. There are entire sections that are virtually unsourced, such as the Repertoire and Talent, Voice sections. Repertoire, especially, seems to be a distillation of information that could be considered original research.

Much of the article is written in an overly positive tone. Sentences such as "Throughout the '80s, a decade marked by a wide recognition of female singers, she consolidated her name reaching sales records and packing nightclubs, gymnasium, stadiums: her records flew out of the shelves as soon as they were thrown and the name Simone shone as one of the greatest icons of the local show business." are found throughout the article, and need to be toned down extensively. Other examples are "From first LP recorded then to the current days the talent discovered is expressed by the spontaneity, the gifted talent, without any registration of passage for music schools or song classes, either uses the reading of ciphers as a resource to the chords." and the first sentence under "Duets", as well as others.

No offense to the author, but there are grammar issues throughout the article that need to be polished.

Essentially, there are a lot of issues that need to be dealt with. I've tagged requesting copyediting and further reliable sources; hopefully, more editors can help out to reduce some of these issues.

Thoughts from others would be greatly appreciated. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) The "fan website" (simnepedacos.multiply, the most important source of media and news abt her), is a long time fan and friend of her. His name is Fernando and he is also in charge of her official website;
 * 2) The repertoire can easily be cited, although article has 23 citations; I could do that to her official website. I just didn´t because she will upload a whole NEW website any time soon;
 * 3) It is widely know she never went to school, to any music classes, but I can cite that as well; Simone herself knows abt the artcile and is is by far the most extensive work abt her on the web;
 * 4) Duets? Well, that´s very easy to cite. Would like me to? There are pictures, videos and all the CDs she recorded;
 * 5) There is no original reserach at all, in any part of the article. The article is cited by Fernando and he uses it on his web site as the only and the most important biography abt her on the web;
 * 6) As for grammar, or spelling, several editors have corrected but so far not more than seven "mistakes", most of them spelling (I would say typing, not grammar. Lulu Margarida yes? 21:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * As for the citation: ; this link is from Brazil´s most respected news Magazine, Revista Veja. There was this article on the cover of Veja, Simone and many other brazilian female singers. The article is entitled "The nation of femal singers" and is aimed at telling the history of how "women sharply prevail" in Brazilian Music, most of them consolidated their names, fame, and etc in the eighties. Lulu Margarida yes? 22:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The "gifted talent, spontaneity" is also WIDELY know that she never had teacher... or wassisted a schoolclass. Lulu Margarida yes? 22:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I concur with Tony Fox's assessment and think this review is long overdue. I would have done it myself, if it would not have inflamed an already difficult situation.--Dali-Llama 00:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I also concur with Tony Fox's assessment. I've tackled some of it and cleaned out all for the bad references (including all to the fan site which, by Lulu Margarida's own admission does not meet reliability guidelines when it is run by her close friend and fan). I also cleaned up the biography section some.  Some help from the Biography project would be good.  There is probably a lot that should be removed per WP:Living as well.  AnmaFinotera 01:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Additional notes. In working on the clean up, more copyvio violations were found (whole sections listed from the allmusic page), so they have been removed. AnmaFinotera 02:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Who is Bittencourt de Oliveira? Very good job! You put all these pics together, looks good! You deleted inof abt her repertoire...Lulu Margarida yes? 01:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * AnmaFinotera: Good job on cleanup. This is more concise and readable, and I'm not seeing the promotional tone anymore, at least not so it jumps out at me. I'm a littel iffy on the big list of songs at the end, but I'll leave that up to consensus. All in all, looks smoother. Thanks for the second opinion. =) Tony Fox (arf!) 16:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks :) Probably still needs some copyediting, and definately still needs sourcing, but hopefully most of the cruft is out. I'm undecided on the songs too.  It is technically part of her music, and I couldn't find precedence for or against keeping them.  AnmaFinotera 19:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Main spectacles?
Main spctacles appear to be a repetition of discography? And what abt grammar and spelling ???? No grammar nor spelling problems so far? Lulu Margarida yes? 01:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What abt gramamr / spelling? Lulu Margarida yes? 01:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * There were a ton of grammar and spelling errors in the sections I've edited so far. Most of the sentences made little to no sense, and many appeared to be bad translations from another source. It makes me wonder if much of this article came from the fan site after being run through Babelfish or the like. AnmaFinotera 01:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Grammar?

 * Very good job, you are talented! The only thing you really edited on this article was changing her name --I just don´t understand why you belive me...I mean calling her for her first name is a trivia, and you should follow WP ´s rule, not me. So refer her Bittencourt de Oliveira and not Simone whatsoever. Oh, by the way, the remaining pic will soon be deleted --all Simone´s fans want distance from WP. Can you point any, at least ONE, grammar / spelling diff? Lulu Margarida yes? 02:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't just believe you. I checked other artists, like Madonna, to see what convention was used on their articles and followed suit.  AnmaFinotera 02:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * "Unreleased soap operas themes"??? Wow, there is a GIANT industry in Brazil that releases all these, you know, but that´s trivia, follow WP!! (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)Lulu Margarida yes? 02:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * If they have been released to CD, the CDs should be listed, not just the songs. AnmaFinotera 02:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The cds are released. I think you should delete this as well. You still follow my tips? Why is that? Lulu Margarida yes? 02:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Devil

 * Do you know what´s Devil´s brand, feature? He is totaly naive. Lulu Margarida yes? 02:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The real article

 * 1) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Simone_Bittencourt_de_Oliveira&oldid=169994730 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lulu Margarida (talk • contribs) 16:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * what´s this crap they did ? gosh this real article to be foud on a discussion page is factual one. what´s left is bullshit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.241.105.3 (talk) 15:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Back to fancruft?
As of this edit, much of the content which was cut out by other editors has been restored by Lulu Margarida. Her edits include restoring the birth information which other editors considered trivial, and a world of fancruft, peacock words and original research. This is bad enough to the point where Margarida is lists over 20 names of famous people, claiming they are "friends and admirers" of the article's subject and lists a photo gallery of these figures in the same picture as Simone as a source. That's a first for me. Anyone else have any comments about this latest edit?--Dali-Llama 22:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, at least the birth trivia is gone. Thank you.--Dali-Llama 22:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree completely that it's a problem. There are huge chunks of opinionated text that have been readded that are not backed by citations. This article needs vast amounts of help. =/ Tony Fox (arf!) 22:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, given that the consensus is against inclusion of most of what she's restored, I'd propose that since we have three editors (myself, Tony and AnmaFinotera) paying attention to this article besides Margarida, that all three of us revert to the last consensus version (I'd say it's this one]), and that if Margarida would like to include things, to do so in pieces and discuss it on the talk page beforehand. Otherwise, it'd be a never-ending revert war and completely disorganized. This is also a way to enforce WP:3RR, since we have multiple editors against the edits of a single editor.--Dali-Llama 23:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I´ve restored based on what was the latest edition. I carefully deleted all multiply sources and changed to Allmusic.com, Official site, Dictionaries, Encyclopedia, Terra Portal, Revista Veja. I also visited Madonna, Elvis, Bill Clinton, ELis Regina, Milton Nascimento and others to compare and see what they have and what I could publish. If you want to revise grmamar, spelling, that´s ok --but I´d like User:CmdrObot to do that, since he already knows the articcle and worked on it previously. If you´d like to delete refs. to the pic gallery that´s also fine. Lulu Margarida yes? 23:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Others could be Steve Pereira, Arion. Lulu Margarida yes? 23:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It appears the image has been deleted or renamed on the Commons, so I've removed it from the current version. Otherwise, agreed, keep the fancruft out. If Margarida begins violating 3RR again, I say just report it and let the admins deal with it. AnmaFinotera 00:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * On a sidenote to Ludovica, you don't get to "pick" who edits what. Saying that we should only edit grammar and spelling and leave content to CmdrObot or any one editor is a blatant display of ownership and implies that other editors are at best biased and at worst incompetent. I again strongly recommend you check your attitude at the door--you have three experienced editors saying your content is not fit for inclusion as submitted. If you have an issue with it, as I've told you many times, take it up to dispute resolution. If you continue, you risk breaking the 3RR rule and being blocked for a longer period of time.--Dali-Llama 03:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Lost in your own mess

 * After breaking all WP rules (ownership, personal attacks, lies, false summaries, inadequacy, unsorced) now the thief is back to the scene --to see the cracked scenario and try to clean its traces!
 * As you can see, you are lost in your own editions and now, although not to my surprise, you are shockingly LOST with your own grammar, spelling mess.
 * : "a recently established"!!! You want me t cite even more??? :O) kkkkk
 * the "edition" on left the side (Revision as of 00:21, 16 November 2007) is YOURS and it already has plenty of disruptive, misleading, tricky erros. Simone is famous for calling her lawyers as soon as she sees any damage to her image. I mean it: Watch out!
 * I would advice you to give up "editing" and confine your editions into that cut/paste/copy you so enthusiastically promoted. This is moving. Lulu Margarida yes? 20:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * continued to be more???? LOL, LOL, LOL kkkkk --that´s bad english.... very bad.Lulu Margarida yes? 20:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * 23,552 have donated. Isn´t that funny? millions of people have access and only a few donate...why is that? :O) Lulu Margarida yes? 20:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I or anyone else should respond as you clearly seem to trolling for conflict with your comments above. We are already dealing with your behavior administratively and the discussion should take place there. Dali-Llama (talk) 21:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * (EC) Okay, first, I'd really suggest reading the no legal threats policy and keep that in mind before mentioning lawyers again. Second, the revision you brought in yesterday had massive chunks of less than useful information in it; had AnmaFinotera not reverted to the edited version - which read to me like it was neutral (indeed, skewing slightly towards overly positive) and, though it still needs more copyediting and sourcing to INDEPENDENT reliable sources, reads reasonably well - I was going to go through your version and remove the unsourced sections.


 * You claim that those of us who are trying to work on this article are lying, making personal attacks, etc., but we're not. We're trying to work within the guidelines. I suggest that you do so as well; if you have edits you'd like to make that add to the version currently present, then you're more than welcome to do so as long as they are properly sourced to good, reliable sources. Photo galleries and other Wikipedias are not reliable sources; personal web pages are useful but not terribly independent; and fan pages are really not very useful at all.


 * Finally, if you feel that the page needs more eyes, please feel free to drop by and ask for a third opinion or start a article request for comment. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Back me up!!
 * This a different tone
 * You know what it looks like? Looks like soldiers on the war: the article looks XX, but let´s hash it! Do you back me up? yes, in any case, I will use WP´s rules to justify you...Ok, good so I will start to mince...!! Ok good go ahead. When you finish I will show up and praise yr edits. It looks like a whispered message, implicit --go there and mince, hash it!! Lulu Margarida yes? 23:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP issues and WP:OR
This article has a huge problem with a lack of WP:RS many sections are unreferenced or largely unreferenced, and several references are to blogs or media news websites of dubious reliability. The spirituality section in particular was full of WP:OR, some of which I have removed (such as all the numerology rubbish). None of this should be restored without very strong WP:RS that relates the numerology, for example, directly to Simone Bittencourt de Oliveira and is not calculations made by the reader using a numerology website. There is a discussion about this page ongoing on the BLP Noticeboard. Any restoration of the material without very improved sourcing and discussion first will be reverted per the WP:BLP policy, and such reversions are exempt from the WP:3RR - while additions of contentious material to a BLP are not exempt. Further edit-warring will lead to blocks. Verbal  chat  07:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Removal of tags while there is ongoing discussion here and at relevant noticeboards is disruptive and vandlism, as is repeatedly breaking the infobox. Verbal   chat  11:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

musicabrasileira.org
Is http://musicabrasileira.org/ a reliable source according to wikipedia standards? I'm not convinced so have not restored the references added since my BLP removal. Unless someone can justify this as an WP:RS then they shouldn't be used in a WP:BLP, and any text that was only supported by this site should be removed per WP:BLP policy. If people are still unsure about the site, then a question can be asked as WP:RSN to establish if it can be used or not for a BLP. Verbal  chat  08:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * HEY! And is Wikipedia a "reliable source" according to the standards of www.musicabrasileira.org ? --AVM (talk) 01:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Iam very very sorry abt this, but Musica brasileira is a major and very reliable source (one of the most important references on music!!! definitely!!). As for the numerology rubbish, you should know that the calculator explains very easily the total sum of her name which results in a seven (6 the sum of vowles and 1 the sum of consonants). You are saying, only saying without any knowledge or proof, that these sources are not good...But I don´t knwo if understand portufuese and know how reliable these sources are for the brazilians. Jackiestud (talk) 09:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you like to take musicabrasileira to WP:RSN, or shall I? The OR should be discussed in the section above, and yes your sources do not meet our criteria and it is OR. Have you read those policies? Verbal   chat  09:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, this is tiresome. Do you speak portuguese? Do you know all artists form Bahia dress in white?? This a a very old religious cult that they dress white specially on fridays??
 * Yes, I have read. How can you prove Musicabras. is not reliale --it has only texts form Brasil´s largest news weekly magazine Revista Veja --country´s most trusted source on news. Whta you are doing without any knwolegde is not acceptable at all. Jackiestud (talk) 10:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You should also notice that the link from Musica Brasilera presents two long extensive interviews with her. Do you perhaps understand what she is saying on these talks??? Jackiestud (talk) 10:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Check this link for white clothing in Bahia: http://www.google.com.br/search?hl=pt-BR&q=people+dress+in+white+in+bahia&sourceid=navclient-ff&rlz=1B3GGGL_pt-BRBR327BR327&ie=UTF-8 Jackiestud (talk) 10:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That should be in the above section, but google isn't an RS. I have started a discussion at WP:RSN. If you insert further controversial material to this BLP you will be blocked.  Verbal   chat  10:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * There is nothing controversial. Simone is widely known for her misticism, christian spirituality --not only she dressess herself only in white clothing but also Clara Nunes and Roberto Carlos (Brasil´s greatest icon of romantism); also Simone´s band, all of of them nust dress white...and this is extented to the sceneries. Jackiestud (talk) 11:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hundreds of pictures dressed in white: http://simonepedacos.multiply.com/ Jackiestud (talk) 11:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with whether this is a WP:RS. The discussion on WP:RSN seems to have demonstrated clearly that this site is not a WP:RS. Verbal   chat  12:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, boy, you can try her official webiste and Google images... Anyway, I offered plenty of sources and you don´t know anything abt her or her shows with white clothing both her an the band and sceneries and w hole cd wntitled Rays of Light (dedicated to her spiritual master and Clara Nunes. MusicaBrasileira is a very good and reliable source which offers Revista Veja citations (country´s largets news weekly magazine). If you cant even understand the lanaguage, you can´t check the sources. --  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackiestud (talk • contribs) 12:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I really don't doubt that she wears white. Have you looked at the WP:RSN? It says why musicabrasileira fails to be an WP:RS. What makes you think I can't read a Portuguese language website; that has nothing to do with the concerns. Verbal   chat  12:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, then the spirituality subtitle only explains the reason why she wears white> that is her spiritual master Seraphis Bey and that the number seven is recurrent for her --nthing else. ANd besides this is widely known. Can you pls specify on this page where it is said musicabrasileira is no good? Jackiestud (talk) 13:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * RSN. Please revert to the version without the poor sourcing and OR. Please keep discussion in the correct section (the section above is about BLP and OR problems) Verbal   chat  13:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Wordpress and other blogs also fail WP:RS. Replacing bad sources with other bad sources doesn't improve the article. Verbal   chat  13:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, I changed most of it. Do you mind if I leave musicabrasileira with her interviews? Jackiestud (talk) 14:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, because it's an unreliable source. Remove it and any text that relies upon it. It's all covered in WP:BLP and WP:RS. Verbal   chat  15:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Flikr is also not a reliable source, so I have removed that too. Verbal   chat  15:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Greatdreams.com
This site also clearly fails to meet WP:RS, and as this is a WP:BLP any text that relies on this source should be removed. (Note Flikr is not reliable also). Verbal  chat  15:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

geraldofreire.uol.com.br
I don't see why this radio host's site qualifies as a reliable source for the sort of claims we're using it for. Verbal  chat  15:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Not reliable
I imagine others have checked this, but for the record, this reference is not a reliable source, its a page from a commercial product site.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, and have removed the spirituality section as unrecoverable per WP:BLP. Verbal   chat  16:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * yes, i also agree, the sources provided werent adequate. I personally love when people in the public eye can espouse their values as they relate to their notability (free speech and freedom of religion, etc), but it needs to be sourced here impeccably, otherwise it can be seen as libelous if it associates a figure with an "offbeat" religion.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I just reverted the above users edits, following WP:RS, WP:MOS and WP:BLP. This user has just come off a four day block for edit warring and breaking the above policies and guidelines on this page. The user was warned they might be indef'd if they continue. I'm asking Jackiestud to discuss the changes she wants to make and the sources that support them on the talk page and then wait for a response from other editors. The BLP concerns and sourcing issues need to be addressed here first. Thanks, Verbal   chat  18:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Jackiestud states that they are "changing all sources to her official site". This is not acceptable, as the site falls under WP:SELFPUB and is not a WP:RS for all claims in the article. Verbal   chat  18:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

... more than 31 albums
I have modified the first line to replace 31 with 30. Saying 'more than 31 albums' is silly: either you give the exact number or you round up! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.92.106.36 (talk) 19:53, 5 March 2022 (UTC)