User talk:Vickyvette

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Are you Vicky Vette? Unless you are, you are requested to cease and desist using this account as our username policy] prohibits the use of the name of any notable living or recently deceased person unless you are that person. Daniel Case (talk) 06:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I am Vicky Vette

Then please will you take a look at WP:COI and WP:AUTO? Editing under your own name is fine, but editing articles about yourself is strongly discouraged. Philip Trueman (talk) 14:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok... thank you for the heads up.

And adding promotional material about yourself and your businesses to various articles is simply unacceptable. If you continue to restore such material, your editing privileges may be suspended, particularly if your conduct is found to be edit warring. An editor identifying himself as one of your associates was sanctioned a while back for similar behavior. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And you are engaging in edit warring. Who are you referring to "an editor identifying himself as one of" my associates? I have no idea who or what you are talking about. YOU ARE STOPPING PEOPLE FROM FANS FROM POSTING ANYTHING NEW ABOUT ME. There is a difference between self promotion and FACTS. Facts in AVN or XBIZ are widely accepted on Wikipedia. You yourself have tried to have adult pages banned because you don't like stars like me. IF there is a FACT as opposed to ópinion.. that's not self promotion. It is a FACT. By what authority can you suspend anyone? You are part of a community and merely an editor who doesn't like girls like me. While editing an article about myself is discouraged, I am not adding anything but facts. I disagree with you. I disagree you can use your personal opinions to edit against girls like me. A FACT, that Doc Johnson releases toys.. is a FACT as opposed to "Vette has a line of super amazing toys". A FACT, that Vette is a spokesperson is recognition. A FACT that Vette webmasters is not saying "Vette is the best webmaster in the world with the best websites". These were facts. It's only AFTER I challenged two of your changes that you vindictively went back and even made MORE changes. I almost reported YOU for edit warring. My picture was approved WEEKS ago by the copyright part of Wikipedia. It's a picture BY a third party. What you care what picture is up there? I think you are just messing with me because you are pushing buttons - a grumpy guy who doesn't like girls in adult - a fact which is proven by your history of changes I am looking at. You have a problem with me being Norwegian when the papers in Norway say I am more popular than the prime minister? Lighten up. Vickyvette (talk) 03:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, and Working on a Wikipedia Article[edit]

Hi, I have seen this type of interaction quite a few times in my years on Wikipedia. We have a policy of trying to be accommodating to newcomers (summed up as WP:NOBITE, which can be at odds with our rules against self promotion (as well as many, many others, Wikipedia can be a bit contentious at times. One way to proceed is to use the article talk page to discuss issues instead of going back and forth, remembering that this is an encyclopedia and there is no urgency to get things up, only to get them right. This can be frustrating when the subject of a biographical article takes an interest in shaping it, but do try and realize that we are trying to construct a useful, neutral source of information.

On the subject of the image, any editor can request a verification of permission by going to the Wikimedia notice board and checking the permissions. I would encourage them to do so instead of reverting. I hope this helps a bit. SeaphotoTalk 03:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input. I have however studied the editor's history and he has a history of 'going after' girls in adult. What possible reason could there be to challenge a picture - taken at a convention - vs. another picture taken at a convention? What possible reason is there to challenge that I am Norwegian? Because I am not a famous politician? The line between promotion & facts is pretty simple to me. I appreciate your comment. Vickyvette (talk) 03:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The addition to the Norwegian list should be non-controversial - the criteria is 1. Is the subject notable (the existence of the article establishes that), and 2. Is the subject Norwegian (there is a reference). I am not sure why that is being taken down.
As for the other edits, I do see both sides. The photo is part of a a package of edits that includes not only that, but several references to the your website as well as the line of toys. While ideally this information would have been entered by a non involved third party to eliminate the charge of self promotion, the inclusion of the award citations makes the additions both notable and verifiable, and I see no reason to take them down at this point. Sometimes we can get caught up in "winning" while editing, another reason to discuss controversial edits on the talk page. SeaphotoTalk 04:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

December 2012[edit]

Your recent editing history at Vicky Vette shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. I don't believe you are the best person to determine whether your material is promotional. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have undone my reverts. That being said I believe that this editor is engaging in hostile editing towards me because of my profession. I wish to have him banned from editing my page. Vickyvette (talk) 04:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And MorbidThoughts... you are involved in the business ... with a conflict of interest. Why are you interjecting? Vickyvette (talk) 04:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really involved in your ventures. I'm not editing about my ventures either. Mr. Wolfowitz is not hostile towards your profession. He's hostile towards people participating in their articles and relying on promotional sources. He's had a long consistent history of reverting these kinds of edits on various topics outside of porn. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He has a long history of meddling & being the focal point of controvery - sometimes right and a LOT of time wrong. He does not think XBIZ or AVN is authority. You ARE involved in the business - why are you meddling in mine? There is no outright ban on supplying biographical data and facts. Why on earth would you for instance change my picture from a convention? Spite? You are as biased as he is AND YOU SHOULD HAVE OPENED UP A TALK PAGE/SUBJECT BEFORE SIMPLY GETTING INVOLVED. Vickyvette (talk) 04:34, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have put BACK in some of the information MorbidThoughts - thank you. Vickyvette (talk) 04:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been editing porn articles on wikipedia for many years for the purpose of improving the topic on wikipedia, not as promotion of porn. There is a ban on promotion and advertising including watermarks like lumdigital.com on that convention photo. XBIZ and AVN are trade journals that promote the industry so he views their articles, especially press releases skeptically. If the article is a rehash of your press release and talks about your products or ventures, that is too self-promotional. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This edit at Twitter suggests an ongoing attempt to get name checks for Vicky Vette on Wikipedia. This is obvious spamming and self promotion, so please don't do it.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Bobbi Eden Red Background.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Bobbi Eden Red Background.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

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

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 19:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You said here, "I set up a talk page". I'm not sure what you mean by "I set up a talk page" but there is an e-mail address to contact for you to give your permissions to for the photo's use. This is used whenever a commercial image that is obviously copyrighted by a professional is attempted to be used. Dismas|(talk) 20:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation[edit]

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Gmt2001 (talk) 10:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation[edit]

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 14:30, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation[edit]

You are accused at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Ilovepitts. Please review the policy on multiple accounts at WP:SOCK. If you are not abusing multiple accounts, I apologize for the error. Gigs (talk) 17:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vickyvette&oldid=1077685042"