Victorcoutin

Working on Ammonia Motors

What a cute bunny!

King of All Nurds!

May 2008

Regarding your comments on Talk:Tom Leykis: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. -MBK₀₀₄ 22:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:DavidBanksPortrait.jpg

A tag has been placed on Image:DavidBanksPortrait.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:DavidBanksPortrait.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Kelly ^hi! 14:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Victor! I got your message about the above image...sorry for the misunderstanding - you would not believe how many copyright problems we have here. Please have Mr. Banks send an e-mail with license permission, following the form of this declaration of consent, providing a link to the now-deleted image link. The e-mail should be sent to permissions-enwikimedia.org. Let me know if you or Mr. Banks have any problems. Kelly ^hi! 17:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article David Banks (American actor), you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam); and,
4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for businesses. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

So as not to carry on an arguement on another users talk page - replying to your comments at User_talk:Orangemike here:

WP:COI policy deals not only with financial interest but also areas where the editor writes about themselves, their family or friends. Conflict of interest can be personal, religious, political, academic, financial, and legal. You stated that the entire page was posted under the subjects supervision, which also likely places it under WP:AUTO, and as the article does not show that this person passes WP:BIO by having been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. Then other editors would have every reason to question its inclusion. -Hunting dog (talk) 22:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Spam Inappropriate link

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Barbara Billingsley. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

As the template says, links that promote a product don't belong in the body of an article. This might be acceptable as a footnote, but not as a live link in the middle of the article. (I'd reject it as a footnote, however, as the restaurant is not particularly notable.) I'm willing to AGF, though, and strikeout my original heading in favor of a more neutral term. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

Your article on your friend David Banks has been deleted because... well, because it didn't say anything about why he himself is (at this time) notable. The deletion rationale I used is "not yet notable".

He studied at the Groundlings? He's appeared in commercials? He won an award at the 48-hour film festival? Supporting role in what appears to be a minor movie? Nope.

Leading role in a movie which is still shooting? That might be enough; we'll see when the movie comes out.

Good luck to him. DS (talk) 02:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll look into it later today. DS (talk) 21:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, tell you what. I'll restore it and put it in a subpage of your userspace; when it's ready, you can move it back out into mainspace. Sound good?(oh, and sorry for the delay) DS (talk) 21:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Blah. Sorry, go here. DS (talk) 13:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The nobleman

RE: "We aren't posting here to dispute the positions of others, or to argue against the votes of others. If this assumption is correct, then consider this a request to bite your collective tongues, state your positions, then refrain from disputing the statements of others. The time for discussion (I believe) has just ended and we are here only to post briefly what our stance on this issue is, not to issue comments or to disparage the stance of other participants. Again, if I'm mistaken, please ignore this.)"

Noble, but... There have been studies done of wikipedia that those who create the article first, set the tone of the article.

I think the same thing can be said of any wikipedia vote, such as a RfC.

I am not there to argue with the bit players in this, whose mind is already made up, I am there try to influence those who come to this RFC as casual wikipedians and have not yet decided whether to include or exclude the material.

Anyway, if I didn't start arguing with others (it was started with Arzel), guaranteed the other side would, possibly influencing people the other way.

The whole collective process is complete bullshit anyway. I wish wikipedia was the way you describe it.

That said, help me refute. Inclusionist (talk) 17:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Idealists get chewed up and spit out on wikipedia

I notice, another noble gesture:

Talk:Joe_the_Plumber#Acknowledge_Here_that_We_Need_to_Abstain_From_Editing

In every edit war on wikipedia their is a peace maker who is roundly ignored. I have been editing wikipedia for 3 years in October, with over 28,000 edits. To give you a sense of the arguments I have been in, 2,800 of my edits have been deleted.

I see that you have edited wikipedia for 250 to 500 edits. I am just trying to help you avoid disillusionment about the fundamental good of wikipedians, in general: it doesn't exist.

If you want to associate with people who are generally good and kind join a Unitarian church, don't expect to find rationality and kinship here, especially on hot topic current events like Joe_the_Plumber.

See User:Inclusionist#Opinion for my take on the way wikipedia works.

See User:Inclusionist#A_surprisingly_frank_admission_by_a_former_Wikipedian About how many edit warriors get enjoy the "aggression and adrenaline" of edit warring, and destroying other people's contributions.

"Hope dies last" The Russians have a saying: "A pessimist is an informed optimist." Inclusionist (talk) 00:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I should have said

I should have added above: peace makers comments are usually never commented on, whereas the edit wars continue around the peace makers comments. As you can see, that is the case. Inclusionist (talk) 04:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI: someone altered a part of your post on Talk:Joe the Plumber

[1]. The change seems to be against the guidelines for talk pages Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Others.27_comments. "not a forum" is not a good reason to change some other editor's post. I'm not going to do anything about it myself because I'm about to go an wiki-break. VG ☎ 19:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Victorcoutin, can I have permission to remove the part of your comment about "not paying taxes" on the Joe the Plunber talk page? TIA --Tom 23:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Not just yet. I'd be glad to give you permission, but again - what's the point? What are your reasons? State them please. Give me a point by point list of reasons to edit the commentary. Then, let's look at them. We'll have to see some justification before we decide what the best action is in this situation. VictorC (talk) 01:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Joe the Plumber, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Inclusionist (talk) 04:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC) Inclusionist (talk) 04:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

BLP privacy policy for limited public figures

I think that the current deadlock on Joe the plumber is due to unclear BLP policy on limited public figures. I've made a proposal to clarify the policy here. Since you are one of the parties involved in the dispute, this is a notification for your input on the proposed policy clarification. VG ☎ 10:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Joe the Plumber. For the Mediation Committee, WJBscribe (talk) 14:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Stop  !!!!!

Don't bother with the editor who deleted that William Shruggs guy.[2] It was an article which was never created. Just create the article, and ignore the person who deleted it from Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Biographies. Inclusionist (talk) 20:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Joe the Plumber

Thanks. By the way, my mother and my grandmother were both Rosie the Riveter. Edison (talk) 02:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Joe the Plumber tangential conversation moved to user talk per WP:TPG

(oops, I misformatted the link in the edit summary at the JtP talk page to go to your user page and not this talk page. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC))

I'd be interested in seeing what his IQ is. I'd like to see what his educational background is. I'd like to know what are the last five books he's read are. That would absolutely broaden my perspective of him as a potential legislator. Being a Republican, I want to have the best and most qualified people on our side (instead of the Democratic side), but in any case these points pertain to any potential legislator. --VictorC (talk) 21:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I suppose if he actually runs, that will be your chance to find out. Once the election is over, I suspect that JW will fade from the limelight unless he decides to do something like run for office.Mattnad (talk) 21:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Your personal interest in Mr. W.'s intellegence is irrel. The entire topic on "qualifications" on the article talk page is shakey at best and is not an invitation for you to digress from article content. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Article talk page guidelines WP:TPG

"Editing comments

Others' comments... Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments:

• Deleting material not relevant to improving the article (per the above subsection #How to use article talk pages). "

I moved the conversation here, where tangential discussions not related to improving the article are appropriate. If you wish to delete the conversation and not continue. You are certainly free to do that as well. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

From Talk:Joe the Plumber misct discussion re: plumber salaries etc.

Per WP:TPG, the discussion not directly related to improving the article has been moved to user talk pages

We are discussing the pertinency of this topic which has to do with one of the topics in the article. Article content. The fact that the subject of the article is a plumber, one of the topics in the article has to do with the subject's professional life, the discussion on whether or not it is silly to discuss facets of the profession of the subject of this article has to do with the improvement of the article. I'm frankly surprised that you (REDPEN) are even making this interpretation. It seems clear. I admire your zealousness, but I see it as very misplaced. --VictorC (talk) 23:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The distinction between "plumber" (meaning master plumber) and "plumber's helper" is significant. I disagree that we should say Joe is NOT a plumber, but he certainly isn't a "master" plumber. He is clearly a "plumber's helper," and might be termed to be an "assistant plumber." Here are two links to job descriptions which provide some clarity as to the distinction (from a plumber or "master" plumber) and pay that a plumber's helper might receive:
PLUMBER'S HELPER (1) Annual Gross Salary: $58,100

PLUMBER'S HELPER (2) Annual Gross Salary: $57,700 --VictorC (talk) 11:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

All plumbers are "plumbers." Not all plumbers are "master plumbers." There is no rational case to be made that this is important in the case at hand. By the way, "plumber's helper" has a specific meaning in the US which is totally inapplicable here. Collect (talk) 13:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Article talk pages must focus on improving the article

I will not get into an edit war with you, but your return of off topic material to Talk:Joe the Plumber is incorrect for a number of reasons. 1) WP:VAGUEWAVE is about article deletion discussions, (scroll to the top of the page) not talk page guidance. 2) the removal was not VAGUE at all, the appropriate section of our WP:TPG was listed both in the summary and here on your page. And I will quote it again:

Talk Page Guidelines

Editing comments

Others' comments It is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards, so there is no need to correct typing/spelling errors, grammar, etc. It tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Do not strike out the comments of other editors without their permission.

Never edit someone's words to change their meaning, even on your own talk page. Editing others' comments is sometimes allowed, but you should exercise caution in doing so. Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments:

• Deleting material not relevant to improving the article (per the above subsection #How to use article talk pages).

Discussions about pipefitters are not relevant to improving the article JtP. Discussions of plumber's salaries are relevant to improving the article. Your statements that you personally want to know if Mr. W is "qualified to run for office" are not relevant to improving the article. If talk page discussions wander from direct discussion of how to improve the article, they will again be removed. Wikipedia is NOT a chat forum for general discussions. -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Whatever this is about, it's the matter of refactoring, deleting, or altering discussions on talk pages that's the issue. You are not adhering to Wikipedia's way of doing things. As I understand it, the best way for you to deal with this is to state your position on the talk page. It is frowned upon to delete or move "refactor" conversations on Wikipedia's talk pages (you altered the Talk:Joe the Plumber page TWICE & our discussion on your User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom page TWICE). I know you are very zealous, and that's great. I hope you keep up the good work. Thanks for all your help with the Joe the Plumber page. --VictorC (talk) 13:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

New Zealand women in South Africa in 1971–72

Thanks for the update. No problem. All the best. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 06:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Muscovy Duck

Oops, did I delete this? Hm, you can restore it if you like... I also have some source flying around somewhere, so it'll get restored eventually. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 12:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Nashville vs Nashville, Tennessee

Hi VictorC! Thanks for dropping a note. Actually, the links do not point to the same page. The link [[Nashville, Tennessee]] points directly to the article, which is properly named "Nashville, Tennessee", following the [[City, State]] naming convention. [[Nashville]] is a redirect page that points to [[Nashville, Tennessee]], which calls the article onto your screen, adding one more step to the chain of links. All Wikilinks, in general, should point directly to the article they want to link, not a redirect page, nor a disambiguation page. Redirect and disambiguation pages, in general, should be free from links that were intended for their target article instead.

For the casual editor, and - that is most important - for the casual reader of Wikipedia, it does not make a difference which is used, eventually, you get to see what you clicked on, anyway. It does make a difference, however, when you look at the statistics. One measurement of article popularity is the traffic it gets; the above mentioned links make no difference for the traffic as they all end up at the target. Another measurement of article popularity is how it is interlinked with other Wikipedia articles, and here is the point that does make a difference. If some articles link to [[Nashville, Tennessee]], others to [[Nashville, TN]] and again other to [[Nashville]], the interlink statistics get split and unsharp.

Linking to a redirect page should be considered temporary. If you create an article and use a link like that, that is fine. The link will work properly in your article and the reader will see what he or she wanted to without holding an editors creativity back by making him or her search for the exact, appropriate and final link. doxTxob \ ^talk 04:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:David Banks (Actor)

Hello, Victorcoutin. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "David Banks".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Legacypac (talk) 02:30, 27 January 2018 (UTC)