User talk:Victor Victoria

Hello, Victor Victoria! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! XLinkBot (talk) 20:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Intuitive guide to Wikipedia Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

August 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Kathy Griffin has been reverted.
Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): \btwitter\.com\b (links: http://twitter.com/officialkathyg/status/3229986519). If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, or similar site, then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 20:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Dugard case

Hi Victor Victoria and welcome from a fellow newbie. I have reverted one of your edits to the Dugard page (naming of children), as this controversial inclusion is still being debated in the discussion section. Please come read through the discussion so far, and add your reasons for wanting to include the names, if you still feel strongly about it. cheers. Nrehnby (talk) 02:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Wikipedia has a policy on the names of minors. It is to not add them unless there is an encyclopedic interest. Sarah Palin's daughters made their own news by getting knocked up and such, not to mention she was the Republican nominee for VPOTUS.

See WP:BLPNAME:

There is a presumption against using the names of such individuals, even if the names have already appeared in the media, where:

they are not in themselves sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article; for instance, because:

• they are only named in third-party published sources because they are related to or associated with notable individuals;
• they are only named in a few third-party published sources;
• although they are widely named in third-party published sources, such sources only have trivial content on them (e.g., minor accidents, criminal offences and public outbursts);

or
they are not directly involved in the article's topic; or
they are under the age of 18 years, and thus deserve greater protection from intrusions upon their privacy.

--CastAStone/^{/₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€} 04:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus to include the names of the minor victims in the article, per the talk page, so please do not put them in the article again until such a consensus emerges. Such action could be considered a violation of our WP:BLP policy. Edison (talk) 04:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Please stop reinserting the names of the minor crime victims contrary to consensus on the article's talk page. Edit warring can lead to blockage from editing. Edison (talk) 04:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

You should be able to fix dead links (which do not include the names of the 2 minor children) withhout reinserting the names in the article. Please see WP:3RR, which says that reinserting substantially the same material more than 3 times in a 24 hour period can result in being blocked from editing. How many times have you inserted the two childrens' names in how long a period? A "smoldering" edit war which technically avoids the 4 in 24 trigger is also prohibited. Seek consensus on the talk page rather than blindly reverting. Thanks. Edison (talk) 04:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Did you actually look at the edits? The names are part of the URL. Removing the names from the URL causes the links to be dead. Victor Victoria (talk) 04:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

It is not that encyclopedic to need to know the present address of a crime victim is "an undisclosed location" which conveys no information. Just seems like a backdoor way of linking to a site which states the names, which is against consensus, per the talk page. Why the rush to publish the names? Follow the consensus of the mainstream press. A bell canot be "unrung" and if the information is going to be out and common knowledge eventually, we can then follow the mainstream press, rather behaving like a tabloid on deadline. Press sources which do not include the minors' names in the link are sufficient for encyclopedic purposes at this point. Strangely, the (redacted) links also work, but I object to them leading to headlines with the names. Give it a few days and see if more sources give the names. Edison (talk) 05:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Seems ok for now. Jaycees "residence" at an "undisclosed hotel" is likely temporary. We do not need to track her daily or weekly movements. Time may lead to a consensus to name the offspring as is presently done in the Fritzl case. We follow, rather than leading, the consensus of mainstream media. Edison (talk) 05:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories

Nice work on the article, and thanks for being cool. Best regards, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 22:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Victor Victoria (talk) 22:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Controversy section

It states here quite clearly that criticism/controversy sections should be avoided. It also escapes me how the fact that Cantor was suggested as a possible running mate for John McCain in 2008 is "controversial". As is stated by Jimbo Wales, controversy sections are a symptom of bad writing. ~BLM Platinum (talk) 00:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that you are confusing a criticism section with a controversy section. If Eric Cantor said one thing, and John McCain (through his affiliates) says the opposite, then its a genuine controversy. It's not a criticism of Eric Cantor, it's a controversy and it is being reported in a Neutral point of view.

In addition, we must separate the death threats from the shooting in the campaign office. Even the reference cited says that they appear to be unrelated.

Victor Victoria (talk) 04:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Criticism and controversy sections are of the same breed. They both are made up of entirely negative information, and are separated from the actual article. Find one Featured or good article which contains a controversy section, and I'll let the whole thing go.—Preceding unsigned comment added by BLM Platinum (talk • contribs) 22:34, 6 April 2010

Due to the indentation difference, I didn't see this paragraph. The answer is Galileo Galilei. A former featured article current good article, the article has a section called Controversy over comets and The Assayer. Victor Victoria (talk) 18:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

In response to your assertion that Cantor's 2008 speculation is indeed a "controversy", I have to remind you that just because a situation involves a disagreement between two parties, the incident does not qualify as a "controversy". In this case, I don't believe there even was a disagreement; If I am correct Cantor never even mentioned Vice-Presidential aspirations, and McCain's people simply denied that they were considering Cantor. The Veep speculation never even received that much press attention, and at no point was anybody becoming angry or discontented with anybody else; I do not understand how this is a disagreement, or for that matter, a controversy.

I believe that the so-called "controversies" need to be absorbed into the article, and not shoved into a separate section. If you want an example of what I mean, see Jim Moran, an article I have worked extensively on. The controversy section for that article used to be about seven subsections long; but I cut out some bogus incidents which were referenced entirely by unreliable blogs, and added some genuine controversies which were ignored in the earlier versions. ~BLM Platinum (talk) 22:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

You may want to take a look at the definition of controversy over at dictionary.com. It seems to be a perfect match for both the 2008 presidential elections (some references list him as being on the short list, while others refute it), as well as the campaign office shooting in which he claims that it is related to the healthcare bill, but others contend that it was random violence.

As for your example of Jim Moran: not applicable. The Eric Cantor references are all within WP:RS.

I urge you to revert yourself on this edit, as your arguments are going into the Wikipedia:I just don't like it territory. Victor Victoria (talk) 06:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC).

All American Canal

While we do need to write from a neutral point of view, we also need to accurately reflect the sources being used. The source for the immigration debate regarding the the All-American Canal (60 minutes), specifically states that those people drowning in the canal are people trying to illegally immigrate to the US. It is not a violation of NPOV to make the statement that these people are illegals since that is what the source is using. To make a different claim is a violation of WP:SYNTH since you are imparting your own view of the source. Arzel (talk) 22:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

They may be entering illegally, but they are not illegal people. Victor Victoria (talk) 04:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Victor Victoria. You have new messages at Wikidemon's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

User talk:71.88.58.198

It was clear that the IP editor was attempting to make comments on the birth certificate to undermine its reliability. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 18:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Didn't seem that way to me. If anything, he strengthened the credibility of the certificate by pointing out that the certificate has an official stamp on its back that is visible in the scan. Victor Victoria (talk) 18:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

September, 2010

Third time, you are edit warring disputed on the Obama pages[1][2][3][4][5] to have your way. Please don't do that. I'll let it slide this one last time, but if you insist on editing in this fashion I will ask for administrative help, perhaps a 1RR restriction on these pages for you. I'll discuss the matter on the talk page but as of now your proposed changes are rejected per WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS, and although I will not revert again until after the discussion or if you can demonstrate consensus, your edit warring them onto the page does not have any standing. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

You are edit warring, and then accusing me of edit warring? That's the pot calling the kettle black. Go to the talk page and discuss your issues. The fact that you haven't done so speaks volumes as to your ability to work in this collaborative environment. Victor Victoria (talk) 14:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

You should research before you post

moved to User talk:DD2K, and subsequently deleted by that user. Victor Victoria (talk) 02:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Restoring-honor-rally.jpg

You forgot to add a justification to File:Restoring-honor-rally.jpg that you uploaded recently. Please fill out the "Purpose for use" field in the fair use rationale. Cheers. ww2censor (talk) 21:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Grizzly bears

Hi."Grizzly bear" is a North American name for a subspecies of the brown bear, which is the world wide name for that kind of animal. Kitfoxxe (talk) 23:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

So why do the two have two different Wikipedia articles, vs. one being a subsection in the other's article. Victor Victoria (talk) 03:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

There is both some misunderstanding and also the subspecies is important in itself.(As well as USA/Canada-centrism.) I've added some info to Mama grizzly. Kitfoxxe (talk) 08:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Billboard challenging Barack Obamas birth certificate.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Billboard challenging Barack Obamas birth certificate.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Billboard challenging Barack Obamas birth certificate.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Billboard challenging Barack Obamas birth certificate.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. PhilKnight (talk) 19:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

WikiThanks

Thanks for uploading File:Billboard Challenging the validity of Barack Obama's Birth Certificate.JPG. PhilKnight (talk) 07:11, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of 2010 Duke University faux sex thesis controversy for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article 2010 Duke University faux sex thesis controversy, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Duke University faux sex thesis controversy until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the article Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you. You didn't undo my edit, you found a source and restored the edit that was not sourced properly. Stop making a habit of making inappropriate and uncivil edit summaries. Dave Dial (talk) 06:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I guess you have a lot of anger bottled up inside of you, but I can't exactly figure out what you are saying. Can you please say exactly what is your issue? How was I "inappropriate and uncivil"? Victor Victoria (talk) 06:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Not angry Victor, but edit summaries are supposed to reflect edits and not be snide remarks to other editors. I've seen more than a couple 'Undid revision' edits from you that are not really undoing the edits of other editors, with almost the same sort of edit remarks(Not very difficult to find a reference). Wiki editors are supposed to remove material that is not properly sourced, and instruct users that are not familiar with proper additions if they can. If you want to save an edit that was not properly sourced, as you did, then say that in your edit summary. No need to be uncivil to other editors. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 06:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry your feelings have been hurt, but I don't see what exactly is uncivil about restoring deleted text that was deleted due to poor sourcing and adding a good source (one that meets WP:RS)? The adding of the good source eliminates the need to remove the text again, which is why I put in the edit summary that a new reference was added. If you feel that's offensive, perhaps a WP:Wikibreak is in order for you. Victor Victoria (talk) 12:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going to get into a huge back and forth here. I've stated my concerns and you are aware. You may want to adjust the edit further, because the source does not support the edit. The quotes are not in the source, and much of the entry is still original research based on the editor reading the PDF uploaded to a website where anyone can upload documents. I will leave it as it is right now, to give editors time to adjust the edit. Dave Dial (talk) 16:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

For the record, you have not yet explained what is the problem you see with my edit summaries. So far, all you managed to do was to throw unsubstantiated claims that my edit summaries are uncivil and inappropriate. You need to either put up or shut up. Victor Victoria (talk) 23:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I've explained it already. For the most part, you are doing a fine job. The concerns are listed here, and you are aware of them. I see the template for Wiki guidelines is at the top of your page. Some of these links may help further. In any case, for the record, I hope this helps and we don't have to revisit the issue further. Keep up the good work! Dave Dial (talk) 00:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Reversion notification

Hi. I've just reverted your edit to the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories article in which you removed a {{fv}} tag I had inserted there. See Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories#Tag in caption of billboard photo for discussion. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Article probation

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Bristol Palin, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Sarah Palin/Article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- Kelly ^hi! 04:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

RE: Your comment on the BLP Noticeboard

"The "unsourced comments" are now sourced, but that's besides the point, as I'm not insisting on including the actual quotes." - Victor Victoria

Actually the quotes you ascribed to Bristol are nowhere to be found in the reference you added. And yes, you were insisting on including actual quotes because you reverted my deletion of them. No offense intended, and I am sure your edits have been made in good faith, but perhaps you should fact check your comments before posting them? The analysis article in Salon that you have now cited says this about Willow and Bristol's comments:

The whole exchange smacks of the kind of impulsive lack of self control that's the burden of adolescence, a time when the brain is still developing in exactly these areas. In the age of Facebook, that burden has grown more onerous—a fleeting bad decision might not be fleeting after all.

So do you think Wikipedia should be like Facebook - a place that preserves impulsive adolescent ranting -- or should it more like online encyclopedia? I think that is that essential issue here. -Best regards- KeptSouth (talk) 09:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

This reference, which is now in the article has Bristol's quotes. In this post I wrote that I don't insist on using the actual quote in the article. Perhaps you should fact check before you post. Victor Victoria (talk) 09:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

An amazing counter factual non response. KeptSouth (talk) 18:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

You asked for references, I gave you references. WTF ???? Victor Victoria (talk) 02:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Crab Wars/NLL

Just WTF do you think you’re playing at?
This merger was under discussion; I’m not aware it had reached a conclusion, or a consensus, or been closed, or that you have contributed to it at all. So where you get the idea you have the right to barge in and carry out this merger?
And, I notice that, after merging Crab Wars because it “completely duplicates the other article” you’ve then deleted much of the duplicated content from NLL as well!
If your edit can be charitably described as bold, then I’ve reverted it, and the discussion, if you wish to make a contribution, the discussion is here. Xyl 54 (talk) 12:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The discussion has been going on for months. It's time to end it. I therefore formalized the discussion to an AfD. Victor Victoria (talk) 16:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

That's not up to you to unilaterally decide, now I see you have nominated Korean maritime border incidents for deletion, just what is your objection here? Mztourist (talk) 02:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

My objection is described in the nomination section of the AfD, so there is no need for me to repeat here. Victor Victoria (talk) 02:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:ANI.

Just a heads-up that I've started a discussion relating to you at WP:ANI#Sarah Palin community article probation. Kelly ^hi! 03:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

WQA

Hello, Victor Victoria. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Doc talk 09:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "User:Gods10rules, User:KeptSouth, User:Kelly, and User:Johnuniq".The discussion is about the topic Bristol Palin.Thank you. 184.59.23.225 (talk) 10:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)