Talk:Victoria Zdrok

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Victoria Zdrok article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article was nominated for deletion on 25 May 2017. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Women

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles

Biography: Arts and Entertainment

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Low-importance).
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Pornography Mid‑importance

	Erotica and pornography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pornography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of pornography-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PornographyWikipedia:WikiProject PornographyTemplate:WikiProject PornographyPornography articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women writers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

We can remove some of these pics...

I've just been reading over this page and find that there are multiple photos of Victoria. While I personally don't mind the photos, one is enough (and we can keep the one w/the cover of Philadelphia). Anything else just detracts from the written content -- that content is pretty well researched. Of course, if no one objects, can we just reduce the quantity of images to just one? (Again, we don't need to remove the one with the magazine cover.)

Question is, which photos do we use as a primary photo -- and where do they come from, precisely, because while they're tagged as {{fairuse}} we don't know where exactly they originate. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. 5 July 2005 22:42 (UTC)

I think it is just fine as it is. The pictures are appropriate for showing her life today and as she was. Appropriate pictures never detract from any article, they complete the picture as it were. --Noitall July 6, 2005 08:16 (UTC)

Appropriate ones, yes. A question from my inquiring mind though: Are they? When I check their own Image pages, all I see is that they are tagged with {{fairuse}} -- I (nor anyone else looking for that matter, though far be it for me to talk on the behalf of others) are left in the dark as to where they originated or why they are significant to the article. Also, you can use the thumbnail description of the images to go into further detail about the picture, such as the infamous 5 W's of it: who, what, where, when, and why.

Also, I have a question about their source. Since there is no source information for them, I've tagged all the images as {{unverified}} as per the policy for tagging images appropriately until their source can be confirmed. If we can't find a source for them, then they'll have to be deleted as that is policy. Of course, the magazine cover is O.K., as that's clearly a magazine cover and it is tagged appropriately. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. 7 July 2005 02:55 (UTC)

Without addressing your point further as to specifics, let me address your point in general. You are new to Wiki and have taken it upon yourself to remove properly tagged pictures. This is incorrect. You have improperly cited the rule. Only untagged pictures may be removed. What you cite are helpful guidelines for tagging pictures, not removing them. In this case, the pictures were properly tagged, even if they do not meet your personal standard. Do not change the tag on the pictures. Thank you. --Noitall July 7, 2005 03:34 (UTC)

Noitall, I'm sorry if I've stepped on your toes in this matter. Correct me if I am wrong, but if you're going to claim them as fair use, we should at the very least have a URL to the source (so as to verify). According to the image copyright tags page, "Along with a tag, specify the source or copyright holder information. Provide as much detail as possible."

The additional reason I'm bringing this up is because, I'm just trying to follow the standard procedure on the proper use of the Image description page. The fact that there is no source URL listed is the only reason I changed the tag on the pictures, regardless of what I may personally think. And believe me, while I may be "new" to contributing to the wiki, I've been keeping my eye on the Wikipedia for nigh on several months now and reading over all the policies before I futz around. This is because I think that by not familiarizing myself with the policies, it is unfair to viewers and contributors alike. :-) -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. 7 July 2005 05:12 (UTC)

No problem. After writing much of the article, I emailed Victoria (after the User did above) and provided the Wiki link to her page. She emailed me back stating she had not seen it before and thanked me for writing it. --Noitall July 7, 2005 17:53 (UTC)

It's nice to see that even stars are exposed to the Wikipedia. Only raises the project's visibility. :-)

BTW, I tagged one of the pictures with the source URL, as it apparently came off of Victoria's website. I still can't find the source for the other ones, so if you can provide the source for those, that would be wonderful. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. 7 July 2005 22:07 (UTC)

Nude pic?

Can someone explain to me why the bomis pic keeps getting removed? Personally, I don't see why it's being removed. Afterall, it's not that obvious that she's not wearing any panties and being a nude model is a major part of her professional life. Is this someone's grudge against the user or is it the actually the pic that offends you? Dismas 12:10, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is unnecessary and unencyclopedic. The user is adding it not to improve the article but simply because the User believes that there should be a nude picture in every article. This is unencyclopedic and juvenile. --Noitall 13:45, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

How is it unencyclopedic? Dismas 14:03, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How can you ask him such difficult questions ? He´s impertinent , that´s all. See his statements above about Free Use pics.Ridiculous. MutterErde 20:50, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello???? They left out that she was a mail-order bride and her husband paid for EVERYTHING. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.125.56 (talk) 13:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Name

I assume that Victoria goes by another name. Her JD degree says "Victoria A. Zdrok", see [1] Anyone else know anything? --Noitall 06:33, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

I see that another degree has her as "Victoria Alexandrova Zdrok" [2] --Noitall 06:36, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Also, her infobox says her birthname is "Victoria Nika Zdrok", while the article says she married Alexander Zdrok. Is Nika her maiden name or middle name? Olessi 10:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Elaborateness of videos?

The article claims that she stars in "elaborate adult videos". I'm not criticising this as such; I'd just like to know what's so elaborate about them, as compared with other adult videos.

>>> A quasi-coherent plot? Oh to hell with 'plot' Victoria....just strip and smile while you get your facial!

Personal life section

Her published PhD thesis (http://idea.library.drexel.edu/bitstream/1860/160/4/zdrok_thesis.pdf - referenced in the article) is dedicated "To my daughter, Silvana Maria Wilson", and the acknowledgements end with "John Wilson’s love, care and belief in me sustained me through the many years of my education. He is indeed the wind beneath my wings."

The Wilsons - senior and junior - should be mentioned in the Personal Life section of this article. 141.243.9.139 (talk) 00:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it should be included in the "Personal life" section. I honestly didn't know she had a daughter. Is this John Wilson guy married to Victoria? I've never seen anything written about that. Caden ^cool 15:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who in the hell is John Wilson?? Link/Indentification needs to be supplied or the name removed, "spongebob" would be more infamous. As the article is currently written, where this "phantom" John Wilson appears, and said article is over, this makes no sense. Who is John Wilson? 71.236.181.161 (talk) 04:44, August 9, 2011

Quite an ironic statement coming from someone who couldn't be bothered to sign their own talk page post.

It doesn't matter who Wilson is, beyond the father of her child. The source is supplied, and I formatted the publication info of the source a bit more properly, and that's enough. He does not need to be "infamous" nor identified beyond that, nor is the article rendered unintelligible without such details. Nightscream (talk) 10:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Zdrok's Career as an Escort

It is blatantly mentioned by Zdrok herself online at UK Sugar Babes http://www.uksugarbabes.com/victoriazdrok_londonkensington_312.html and other sources. Why can't it be noted here? Can someone answer? 108.41.21.156 (talk) 14:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that would be considered a reliable secondary source per WP:IRS and WP:PSTS. Nightscream (talk) 17:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To whom it concerns.

The area where law and psychology intersect is inferior region of symphysis pubis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.122.6.60 (talk) 14:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Softcore?

Victoria Zdrok appears to have been a hardcore porn actress. It is puzzling to see her described as a 'soft porn film actress' (the recognized term in American English would probably be 'softcore' in any case). To give an example, the article currently mentions her as acting in Assturbators 2. This is definitely a hardcore porn production according to its page on IMDB. I'm not sure if it's possible to be a softcore actress in a hardcore production, but in any case according to the Internet Adult Film Database Victoria Zdrok has a scene to herself in Assturbators 2, which is unlikely to be softcore in an anal-focused production. Centrepull (talk) 11:48, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Victoria Zdrok. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:37, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]