User talk:Victor Victoria

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
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 Button sig.png 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
Getting help
Policies and guidelines

The community

Writing articles


August 2009[edit]

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: 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[edit]

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.


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);

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[edit]

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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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 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[edit]

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)
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
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:[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

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[edit]

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)


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[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

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[edit]

Information.svg 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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

"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[edit]

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.[edit]

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)


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)


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. (talk) 10:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Outcome of Administrators' noticeboard BLP review[edit]

Please see the AN/I discussion for more information.

The Willow Palin Facebook homophobia exchange shall be considered excluded from Wikipedia on the basis of an editorial decision of non-notability by community consensus[6] and its inclusion shall be considered a violation of Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons content policy. Victor_Victoria (talk · contribs), (talk · contribs) and any other involved parties are put on notice that, in the event of reinserting content describing this event, they may be banned on sight from editing articles related to the Palin family (Sarah Palin, Bristol Palin, and any other future articles) under the terms of the existing article probation; any uninvolved editor may remove the inserted content. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 14:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Deleation of my page, Francis Gary Powers, Jr.[edit]

PS. The reason I found out about this deletion of my wekipedi page is becuase someone emailed me a Facebook page "" that cited Wikipedia as the source of the information. Since the facebook page is still active with the source link, this begs the question as to why the Wiki page was deleted. In addition, it shows another example as to the amount of exposure / notoriety that I have gained over the years. Fianlly, the Wiki page was up for over 5 years so helped to prove in and of itself my wide exposer since Facebook picked it up.

Gary --Gpowersjr (talk) 02:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


I just found out today that my page, Francis Gary Powers, Jr, was deleted in December 2010. While I understand the reasoning behind the ultimate decision to delete the page based on the discussion page, I do not understand why I was not contacted other than though one message via Wikipedia, which I just received after the page was already deleted. I do not check Wikipedia often and an email could have been sent to me via the Cold War Museum or Gary Powers' website to notify me of this discussion so I could have replied and provided supporting documentation as to why it should have been kept or changed to meet the criteria.

I would like to know what I can do to have the page reactivated. I will be able to provide tons of international press interviews, articles, TV news interviews and related subject matter that will show I have gained notoriety in my profession as a Cold War expert and Founder of The Cold War Museum in addition to being the son of the U-2 pilot.

I am not very familiar with how the talk Pages work with Wikipedia so it may take me a while to figure out how to see your reply and or send one back.

Thanks for your assistance.

Gary --Gpowersjr (talk) 23:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Francis Gary Powers, Jr. Founder The Cold War Museum PO Box 861526 Vint Hill, VA 20187 (703) 273-2381 VM (703) 273-4903 FAX

The WP:AfD process is not perfect, as people are not perfect. If you would like to overturn the deletion, please go to the WP:Deletion Review page. Note that the fact that an article has been up for 5 years is not a valid reason to keep an article. Victor Victoria (talk) 07:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Page move of Fist Crushing a U.S. Fighter Plane[edit]

Moved to Talk:Fist Crushing a U.S. Fighter Plane#Sculpture in name of article

Barack Obama "Hope" poster‎[edit]

Let's back up and go through this slowly. You know what a reliable source is, yes? VernoWhitney (talk) 00:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Libyan jet article[edit]

Greetings, I'm not claiming ownership, my objection is that the article has been stable at a given title for weeks of high-profile coverage, and you are the only person who has raised any objection. The reason I posted on your page, vice the Discussion page, is because I felt that as the creator of the original title I've already "voted", so I shouldn't re-vote in a follow-on discussion. I feel the title should revert to its original, both because nobody has shown up to support your change, and because you have made the changes within hours of even floating the idea. Given that this is a "one editor's opinion vs. another editor's opinion", jumping in to say "making a change, anyone object?" and then moving shortly thereafter seems unduly hasty. So fundamentally, I disagree with the new name, I don't think there is any consensus since it's 1v1, and the readership has been given no time to opine. Therefore it should default to the name where it stably sat. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Hasty? I waited 3 days. I posted the question on the talk page on March 23 and then waited until March 26 to implement the change. I think 72 hours is a sufficient amount of time to raise objections. Victor Victoria (talk) 17:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Menshealth-cover-june2011.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Menshealth-cover-june2011.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 18:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Aaron Schock[edit]

I don't think we should retitle Schock's personal life into trivia. I don't think it's necessary.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 20:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Personal life is about his relationships. The section is NOT about his relationships. It's just trivia. Victor Victoria (talk)

Anthony Weiner photo scandal AfD[edit]

Hi, I've reverted your closure of this AfD. SNOW should be left to unanimous or near-unanimous opinions, while this AfD remains fairly divided. Plus, 35 hours simply isn't enough time to allow for all concerned editors to weigh in. There needs to be enough time to develop a broad consensus given that this is a controversial topic that deals with a biography. Regards, ˉˉanetode╦╩ 21:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

It appears that someone else reverted the closure slightly before I did. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 21:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Reading through the AfD, it appeared that there was a strong consensus for a keep. Enough editors weighed in on the AfD, that WP:SNOW was created for precisely this purpose. The amount of time is irrelevant. It's about the number of editors. Victor Victoria (talk) 21:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Note that many editors who participated in the AfD discussion are anon IPs or new accounts. Many AfD regulars and other experienced contributors should be given a chance to weigh in. The number of editors is just one of the factors one must consider. And again, there was nowhere near a unanimous consensus, remember that AfD isn't about vote counting but rather the merits of the respective arguments. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 21:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Grandstanding sheriff[edit]

That self-aggrandizing guy in Arizona has no jurisdiction, he's just posturing (as always). His press release did get some attention, but that information belongs in "elected officials" not in any place which implies that there is any legitimacy to his pretense of "investigation." --Orange Mike | Talk 18:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Menshealth-cover-june2011.jpg[edit]


Thanks for uploading File:Menshealth-cover-june2011.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 06:52, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

trayvon martin[edit]

I reverted your move. This has been discussed many times, and is the source of a lot of controversy in the article. Do not move it without consensus. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:54, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Lists of quotations[edit]

Hi Victor Victoria. I have undone the quotation lists you added to several U.S. presidential election articles. List of quotations are discouraged per WP:NOTDIR. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask. szyslak (t) 06:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia is not a directory, but why not capture the memorable quotes from the elections? Victor Victoria (talk) 06:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
We discourage lists of quotations in articles, no matter how "memorable" they are. Every election inspires buzz phrases like "Romnesia" and "I invented the Internet". If they merit any discussion at all, it should be integrated within the text of the articles rather than set off in a separate list. If you want to create lists of quotes, see our sister project Wikiquote. szyslak (t) 12:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
It seems to me that you are misinterpreting WP:NOTDIR. Yes, the first sentence says "Wikipedia articles are not lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations ..." but the next sentence says "Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic." It therefore seems appropriate to have a list of memorable quotes from an election. Victor Victoria (talk) 13:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Victor Victoria, Instead of a list, why not just add a paragraph discussing the fact that election like this produce memorable quotes and then cite your quotes as examples? Seems to me to be a nice compromise.--I am One of Many (talk) 08:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Not quite sure how to write it as a paragraph. You basically have different quotes/phrases that are unrelated to each other than they were all part of the election. Therefore, you introduce the quote and give a little information about it. I suppose you could put a header in front of the list saying something like: "the election produced the following memorable phrases", but that would not be very useful, and I'm not sure it would satisfy User:Szyslak who is objecting to listing quotes (with his objection being based on what I believe to be a misinterpretation of WP:NOTDIR - I am still awaiting his response). Victor Victoria (talk) 13:30, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
I did not misinterpret NOTDIR. The quote you pulled out of NOTDIR is about list articles. Not only that, the sentence right before that says "If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote". As in, don't put them on Wikipedia. Not only that, NOTDIR isn't the only issue here: That we don't list quotations in articles is a well-established convention on Wikipedia. For example, WP:LONGQUOTE (a section of WP:QUOTE on overuse of quotations) says "Do not insert any number of quotations in a stand-alone quote section". If you don't agree with this, and you tthink Wikipedia articles should include lists of quotations, maybe you could propose a policy/guideline change at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia talk:Quotations, or Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). This doesn't appear to be your only problem as a Wikipedia editor -- I've evaluated your contributions and talk page, and you need significant improvement in every aspect of your editing. I understand that you want to help out here, but you have a lot to learn. szyslak (t) 17:55, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I thank you for your offer to teach me, as I do indeed "have a lot to learn". Perhaps you can help me learn how you are interpreting the sentence "Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic." as applying only to list articles. Victor Victoria (talk) 18:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I have labeled the sections in all the articles in question as "Memorable expressions/phrases", because "quotes" is not the right description. Single words (Romnesia / Joementum / lockbox) are not quotes and neither are short phrases such as You didn't build that/lipstick on a pig/binders full of women. Thanks again for pointing out this error, even though you were unable to do that directly and were somewhat rude in the way you went about it. Victor Victoria (talk) 18:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


This was an inappropriate restoration of a potentially libellous claim about a living person. Per WP:BLPREMOVE, any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately. WP:BLP applies on any Wikipedia page, not just in article space. --AussieLegend () 16:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Just dropping by to back up what Aussie Legend said. If you haven't actually read WP:BLP, please do so. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that was a boneheaded move on my part. Victor Victoria (talk) 02:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


re "it would weaken the checks and balances system of government." I removed it because I didn't know where it was sourced to, it doesn't make sense by itself since Congress already authorized the Executive branch to issue such coins.--Milowenthasspoken 20:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean you didn't know where it was sourced to? it was sourced to the two commentators that are referenced in the article. Although they did not use the words "checks and balances", they said the same thing when using words such as "would effectively mark the demise of the three-branch system of government". Victor Victoria (talk) 20:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Binders full of women for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Binders full of women 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/Binders full of women 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 template from the top of the article.

Please reverse that page move[edit]

There is an active discussion on the talk page, which you must have seen when adding the afd tag, about what to do with the name. Your newe title is not among the proposed alternatives and is frankly even worse and more clumsy than the previous title, please reverse that move. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I did not see the discussion (I just pasted a template to the top of the discussion page), and I don't know how to reverse a move. Once a consensus is achieved, the page can be moved again. Victor Victoria (talk) 18:05, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
As you are not an admin I don't think you could have done it anyway, so I have reversed it myself and move-protected the page. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:07, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Deletion review for 2013 Cleveland, Ohio, missing trio[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of 2013 Cleveland, Ohio, missing trio. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. (talk) 18:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

And next time you speedy close an AfD, I suggest you attempt to at least be factually correct. [7] AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
My apologies. Hope you accept this correction. Victor Victoria (talk) 18:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Also, please see Administrators' noticeboard: 2013 Cleveland, Ohio missing trio --Guy Macon (talk) 18:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for your quick and logical close of this AfD. Your snow close was right on the money. No matter how long that AfD would've remained open, the keeps would have been close to 100%. Although I'm sure the nominator meant well, I must say that it was among the most inappropriate AfD nominations I've ever seen, which was supported solely by an inapplicable policy. Perhaps the nominator was unaware of the magnitude of the story and, therefore, its clear notability. In any case, thank you. Now, if the wacky title of the article could be changed, we'd be in good shape. Haha. Btw, are you an admin? -- (talk) 02:48, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Page moves[edit]

Could you please stop moving pages where the title of the article has previously been decided by consensus on its talk page, or discussion is under way on its title. I have reverted your page move of Kidnappings of Amanda Berry, Gina DeJesus, and Michelle Knight and request that you take any further moves on that article to talk. Also, when you move a page such as this one, can you make sure you move the relevant talk page archives, and update the archive bot.Martin451 (talk) 18:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:CCC. The current title is deceptive, but I do not feel strongly enough about this, so unless someone else wants to take up this fight, I'm going to leave it be. Victor Victoria (talk) 18:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Big Australia[edit]

Hi, I've started a discussion at Talk:Big Australia#Not a policy. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 00:42, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not from Australia, so I don't quite know what to call it. The only point I'm trying to make is that the first sentence should define the term, rather than delve into the background. Victor Victoria (talk) 00:44, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


Hi Victor Victoria, thanks for your note. The discussion you asked about is here. -Darouet (talk) 04:10, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Conejo Grade[edit]

Having just moved to the area, and noticing its impact on residences here, I started up the Conejo_Grade article as your notes hoped for two years ago. Cwolfsheep (talk) 07:56, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Lauren Green - plagiarism of a single sentence[edit]

Plagiarism of a single sentence is still plagiarism. Suggesting that it's permissible is inane. It was an easy problem to fix, so there's no reason to whine about having to fix a simple and obvious problem. If you think plagiarizing sources is ok you should seriously rethink being an editor of this project. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

You really should think about how to make your contributions positive, rather than negative. While I don't want to quibble with you how substantive something has to be in order for plagiarism to apply (can a single word be plagiarized?), if you see something that needs to be improved, don't delete it — improve it. Victor Victoria (talk) 18:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
If you're seriously going to sit there and defend plagiarism then you don't belong in this project. It's not my responsibility to clean up someone's crappy editing; it was this person's responsibility not to add that shit in the first place. I just care about removing plagiarism when I see it, I don't care if it's removed by deleting the text or rewriting the text. If you care that strongly about retaining the text, then the solution is simple: take the 5 seconds to fix the problem, instead of whining about how someone had the gall to point out the terrible editing in your article. rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
If you're going to use such foul language, you really should sit this one out. This is a collaborative project. If you cannot use proper language, I don't care how good your contributions are (and from what I've seen they're not all that spectacular), you don't belong in a collaborative project. Go work your own project. Victor Victoria (talk) 21:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Lauren Green - deletion of interview w/ Reza Aslan[edit]

The violations that I referenced have nothing to do with being properly cited. 1.) You need to be extra special careful with dealing with the biographies of living persons. You've been around for awhile, and you should know that. 2.) Everything that is there is very, very recent, and my guess is that in 6 months (maybe 6 weeks?) nobody will even remember it. It's pointless to have that much detail about something that is that trivial. 3.) The amount of data added to her bio increased it by at least 35%, easily making this out to be the most important issue in her life, and that completely violates WP:UNDUE. Ask yourself this: If you wanted to make an article about the scandle itself, would it be notable enough to stand on it's own? If not, then it certainly isn't notable enough to be the most important thing in an article about a notable individual. That's the was the Project works. I'm going to ask that you remove the section voluntarily. SeanNovack (talk) 17:19, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Looks like we have a difference of opinions: A) I don't see how "nobody will even remember it" in 6 months has any relevance what so ever. This is the point of Wikipedia -- preserve human knowledge. B) I interpret WP:UNDUE that if there is little coverage of a topic outside Wikipedia, then there should be little coverage of it within Wikipedia (see the flat earth example in the policy). The interview w/ Reza Aslan received lots of coverage, so in my opinion the weight of coverage in her bio is very much due. Victor Victoria (talk) 04:14, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 20[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Larry Klayman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lafayette Square (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Malaysia 370[edit]

G'day from Oz; you edited the Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 adding info about the fuel left remaining, but didn't include a source. Could you possibly go back and add one? With the level of scrutiny on that article, it is probably just a matter of time before someone removes the info. Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 00:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


Gah, pseudonym was the term I was looking for, you were right (I was trying to think but I got froze up and went with stage name). Thanks so much. Nate (chatter) 04:29, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

DYK for 2015 State of the Union Address[edit]

Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

2016 Republican Primaries[edit]

Thank you for your edits on Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016. However, the inclusion of a table here is redundant, because the article: Republican Party presidential candidates, 2016 exists for the explicit purpose. The inclusion of a nearly identical table of candidates in each article is redundant, but each page is not and ought not be redundant. Primaries is for the results of primaries, beginning with Iowa in Januar 2016. Each logo in the campaign gallery represents candidates in the field; the 'candidates' article doesn't include the logos, because they are displayed here, in gallery form. It ensures each page has a specific focus, and don't create redundancy. The Series box for the 2016 Election navigates the reader to relevant pages, and links exist under each logo to guide them to the proper candidate. Thanks. Spartan7W § 22:12, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits[edit]

Hi Victor Victoria. Thank you for your enthusiastic help with the new article Kim Davis (clerk). I'm concerned because you are making some bold changes that contravene our guidelines and already established consensus. For example, you moved the article to Kim Davis (Kentucky politician), which is not in accord with article naming conventions or proper disambiguation. You also changed the subject's entry on Kim Davis (disambiguation) to an obscure reference which doesn't align with how sources have covered the subject. Finally, you have added content contrary to the consensus on the talk page here, and your edit summary doesn't make sense: The content that you added is in the 'Personal life' section. What's important though is that current consensus is to leave that content out.

I would like to ask you slow down a bit and discuss such changes on the talk page. There is currently an open section about the subject's divorces and family, and a section discussing the page move. I hope that you will join these discussions. - MrX 13:19, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

The content is well referenced. It is in the title of an article in US News and World Report. Victor Victoria (talk) 13:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
I know that the content was well-referenced. The point is that other editors object to it and reach a consensus. The consensus can change, but that involves discussion. - MrX 13:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)