User talk:Victoriaearle

Template:Archive box collapsible

Made me smile

		Home-Made Barnstar
		Truthkeeper88, you don't know me from Adam, but I read a recent talk page post of yours and it made me smile. Please accept this hokey but sincere bairnstur. The Interior (Talk) 07:25, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Kafka PR

I had already notice the issue with the ebook you mention and plan to clean it up tomorrow. When you say NTY did you mean NYT? That is a reliable source for sure, but I will try to find more refs to add for that. I will also try to find a PDF or Kindle version of that book you mention--that's a good tip, thanks. PumpkinSky talk 00:34, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I fixed it; definitely try to get your hands on Stach and a Cambridge Companion; NYT is a reliable source, but not the best scholarly for Kafka, unfortunately. Tricky business writing author bios, particularly the modernists. That's why Ezra has been sitting for two years. So close. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Re the e-book: Probably best to run that by MRG because it's a strange situation. I haven't looked too closely but it seems we're citing an earlier mirrored uncited version of the page. The cites might exist in history; if not some sections might need to be excised or re-cited. She's the expert on stuff like this. Truthkeeper (talk) 12:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

TK-YGM. I've closed the formal PR but would like to work on a few things you mentioned still. I'd also like to take you up on your offer to help on finding Cambridge Companion copies, and lit search for your last comment about modernists. I'll work Stach, the iffy ebook, and contact MRG. Thanks for helping review. When we're done, I have a good copyeditor lined up to do a copyedit before listing at FAC. PumpkinSky talk 23:16, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah, no YGM because you don't have it turned on. Oh well. PumpkinSky talk 23:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

See User_talk:Moonriddengirl#Franz_Kafka_copying PumpkinSky talk 23:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Probably helpful for her to have this link to the book to see what they mirrored. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest and supportive comments on Kafka. Due to other priorities, I did not follow in detail, I will be back to Kafka in a few weeks, please understand. However, I trust without looking that your expert knowledge is good for the article, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:10, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I second what Gerda said. In the article, in the "Translations" section, the same ref is used at the end of the 2nd and 3rd paragraph. It's the only remnant of the eEdenBook source. I'm having trouble finding a really good source for this info (I have little doubt that the statements aren't valid, but we need better source(s)). If you could help on this, it'd be greatly appreciated. PumpkinSky talk 10:18, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

MRG has posted her analysis on Talk:Franz Kafka. PumpkinSky talk 10:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Found good refs so eEdenBooks is gone now. Will work on Stach now. PumpkinSky talk 23:37, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to both you. Apologies PS (and Gerda) for being cranky last night; when you abruptly closed the PR I mistakenly assumed you didn't want any more comments. Ask MRG whether you need to add the {{Backwardscopy}} to the talk page. As for the translations - I took a quick look. First, this source is not RS. It's a self-published website - regardless of the fact that it's hosted by a community college. If the author is published (see discussion below with Sophie) then we could use her published work to source the section - but this website in my view is a bit dodgy. I also took a quick look at the Kafka Combridge Companion [1] and though I can't see the pages, it looks like an entire chapter is devoted to the translations. That's really what you need to use. Costs $8 or so on Amazon. Once you get your hands on that book, if you do, it's best to follow the sources - in other words instead of using the source to cite what's already written in the article, read the source and rewrite as necessary to reflect the source. There are articles on Jstor too in regards to translations if you want to go that route. I'm thinking you might want to restructure to make the publications of translations as part of a "Publications history" section - the page could certainly support that because the publication history is interesting to say the least and it includes the ongoing court battle over who owns the notebooks, etc. The issue of translating the language, in my view, is separate, but I can't give guidance until I get into some sources (no time at the moment, sorry). A final point: Cambridge Companions consist of chapters that needs to be cited separately. Apologies for the length. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:33, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I was going to email the reason I closed the PR, but you don't have that turned on. It's got nothing to do with you. No worries on last night. PumpkinSky talk 02:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Also...answer the inline and probably get rid of Cliff Notes ref.PumpkinSky talk 09:53, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, I think I got all the above except the Cambridge stuff. I have ordered a hard copy of Stach's book. Also note on Kafka talk page that a copyedit has started. PumpkinSky talk 23:52, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Noticed all of that. You have a new problem now though: This is also a mirror site. Compare with this version of our page, so it's another one to run by MRG.This edit I made last night doesn't have to stand; it took out a lot. I was playing around. If it does stay, needs linking, etc. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

She said it's backcopyvio, and put a tag on the article. She also said just to remove the ref and keep the content if I find a good ref. Good catch.PumpkinSky talk 13:55, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Core Contest Winner!

	First Prize - Core Contest
	Congratulations for winning the August 2012 incarnation of the Core Contest! Your voucher will be on its way soon.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Congrats TK! Well done! PumpkinSky talk 15:34, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Incredible job, not just on quantity (of which there was an amazing amount) but of quality of prose and references. Superb work! Binksternet (talk) 15:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

You matched the topic in height, congrats, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:52, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Very nice!! Congrats, Dana boomer (talk) 16:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• Congratulations, well deserved!·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I suggest Good, Bad and Ugly for your next article. Three for the price of one. Yomangani^talk 17:08, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Way to go!..Modernist (talk) 17:14, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Beautiful article --Epipelagic (talk) 17:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks all! Very pleased. Truthkeeper (talk) 11:21, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Murasaki Shikibu Diary Emaki ce

Thank you for the copyedits. Regarding your inline comment, the source has it as "canopied King and Queen" (meaning Emperor/Empress), so not sure what you think is missing. I believe the meaning is that Emperor and Empress were seated (on dais) under a canopy. bamse (talk) 21:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I tried another way of wording it but revert if it's wrong. I noticed a few days ago you put it up for review and today had a little time to spare so worked on a single section. I enjoy working on your pages, and happy to see you back by the way, so will try to get through it as I have time. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:27, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

New version looks good, thanks. Yes, I fortunately have some more time to read and write. BTW, I recently completed Fujiwara no Hirotsugu Rebellion which could be a future GA candidate. It received a first copyedit (mostly by User:Boneyard90), but still needs some work from me and from somebody who knows English... It is not about art, but has relatively few battle scenes (due to lack of sources) and has ghosts! So if you are interested feel free to have a look whenever you wish, no need to rush. It is going to be on the main page as DYK which will probably fix some of its copyediting issues already. Next one will be User:Bamse/Fujiwara no Nakamaro Rebellion (one day...), with a love affair between a monk and the Empress! bamse (talk) 21:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Sounds interesting; I'll take a look when I have time. Truthkeeper (talk) 12:41, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. bamse (talk) 21:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

A WikiOtter for You

	Time to Go Running With WikiOtters
	Sometimes the funness of the Encyclopedia wears away, but don't be afraid there is always a chance to go running with the Wikiotters! Hope everything is going well, because you do such a great job! Sadads (talk) 21:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Sadads. Nice to see you around again - I hope everything is well with you. Truthkeeper (talk) 12:41, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, pretty good. The last 5-6 months have been kindof hectic, and I finally feel like I have some sense of control over the craziness of grad school and teaching now :P Hopefully, you will see me around more often! Feel free to ping me if you need anything. How are all the things treating you? Sadads (talk) 14:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Links to Google Books

If you don't think they are needed, Perhaps you'd like to review these? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinkSearch&target=http%3A%2F%2Fbooks.google.com Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Miss Moppet revert

I've reverted your removal of this article from TFAR. You may be correct in that it should not run, but you shouldn't remove someone else's nomination without a clear explanation as to why. Please explain in detail instead of leaving hints. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:43, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I did boldly revert for a very good reason. A lot of time could have been saved had it been left alone. I will explain more later. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:05, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think I have clearer picture given your (and Iri's) subsequent comments, thanks. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:23, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I took what was to be a quick break from work - but it's turned into shoving off more work until tomorrow - and didn't want to take the time to explain at that moment. I will post a bunch of diffs here soonish - will take a bit of time to find them - so you understand more clearly. Could you do me a favor and turn off the citation bot that's been hitting the Potter pages - all those pages need to have the edits checked manually and I've been edit warring with the bot. Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. It's fascinating to me to learn about wiki-history. To be honest, I'm not sure how to stop the citation bot, but I'll look into it. If it's showing "user activated" it means that someone is manually triggering it to run on those pages though. P.S. reverting bots is an exemption from 3RR :) Mark Arsten (talk) 22:41, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, turns out it's not hard. I added some code to the pages I saw you revert citation bot on... so this should most likely stop it on those. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:47, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

My objections to having Miss Moppet on the main page

Archived discussion at TFAR, and the discussion has moved to five more pages, [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. I will explain this situation in detail as soon as I can with diffs. Please be patient and give me some time. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

As requested on my talk page, I encourage those who are not aware of User:ItsLassieTime to please take a look at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/ItsLassieTime, more particular, here, where the Miss Moppet article is listed. As noted, all edits made by User:Susanne2009NYC were confirmed as copyright violations and thus RevDeleted. And while I did not block the user (User:Laser brain did), the MO here (focus on children's books and mass quantities of copyvios and plagiarism) leads me to believe that the block for ban evasion was the correct one. To say the least, especially for those who don't believe that this user is a sock, I still think a block was and is necessary because of the mass quantities of copyvios and plagiarism alone.

That being said, if all edits from that user on the Miss Moppet article have been RevDeleted, then there theoretically shouldn't be any plagiarism remaining, unless 1) an edit inbetween the RevDeleted edits was missed, or 2) somebody else is also plagiarizing sources (I find the latter to be unlikely, but you never know). --MuZemike 23:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for this, it saves me from looking for the CCI report. I do think that Ruhrfisch and I scrubbed Miss Moppet very well and that Ruhrfisch took care of the history, but I'd defer to MRG on this. I'm much more concerned about all the pages that are linked to - most of those do have corrupt history. For those reading, here's a list of ILT socks, [7], as I slowly start pulling together the diffs for this. I'll be adding more. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:41, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The not so savoury tale of Miss Moppet

• ILT socks: [8]
• Miss Moppet FAC: [9]
• Jeremy Fisher FAC: [10]
• List of Potter related and other articles by Susanne2009NYC to be checked: (very little of this work has been checked) [11]
• Decision to start scrubbing: [12]
• Rewriting process (the entire archive): [Talk:The Story of Miss Moppet/Archive 1], and more here: [13]
  • Breakdown: source checking [14], partial description of edits and confirmed copyvio/close paraphrasing [15], post-FAC review [16]
• Decision to revdel: [17], [18]
• More socks revealed: [19]
• ILT abuse on my page (only samples, much has been removed): [20],[21]
• My decision to have the star stripped, [22] in response to this at AN/I [23] (more personal attacks, more socks identified)
• Decision whether to FAR or not (and my obvious lack of knowledge of FAR) [24] and accusation that I wanted the star stripped so I could take it to FAC and get the star for myself [25]. I decided not to go to FAR.
• More: some scrubs of Beatrix Potter (which have subsequently been rewritten by others): [26], and sample scrubbing of The Tale of Mr. Jeremy Fisher [27]

Some sort of history and timeline here that doesn't necessarily need to be dredged up, but the value of institutional memory is that all of us know about these things and understand the history behind certain decisions. There are more diffs to be added (eg. I've seen more AN/I reports) but this is a good synopsis. When I have time I'll copy this to a subpage and keep a link handy. We need to keep this history. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:10, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• • Thanks for the heads up - I have always felt that Miss Moppet should go through FAR to check the clean up we did (I think you did the hard work). I do not think it should be on the Main Page until it has been carefully checked - we did our best, but I think it needs to be checked by third parties. To be honest, the whole saga is what turned me off on FAC and I have not brought an article there since, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• • • First, I'm very sad to hear that it was this sorry experience that's stopped you from going to FAC. That said, I realized as I was putting this together last night, that I've only been to FAC myself once since the end of the experience, so I guess we both reacted similarly. I can certainly submit this to FAR this evening; it would be simply a question of having it delisted, I would think. But as I've mentioned at the TFAR page, I'm not sure how we prevent this (or all the other ILT pages, many of which are in very good shape) from being brought to FA. I do feel strongly that any page that has an edit history that contains copyvio should probably be kept off the main page, but maybe I'm being too harsh. Dunno what to do. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:45, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello TK, you've got mail

No need to respond, just want you to see it fairly soon. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

And from me as well, again, not urgent. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

interesting that both of you can't conduct your business with TK in public. MathewTownsend (talk) 23:37, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Not particularly interesting, no. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

The Sooper-Sekrit Barnstar, for all the work you put into this project that often goes unappreciated. Of course, by the way. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Can you make it to the cabal clubhouse at midnight, TK? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:07, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

HI Mathew - the value of what happened today is that something that has required documentation and explanation for a long time is now to some extent documented above. This is not about FAC being corrupt as you mentioned [28], it's about the unfortunate fact that people sometimes cheat and stuff gets by the best of us, which was the case here. Since that time we've been spot-checking all FACs and personally I'm strongly opposed to seeing any article promoted to FA status without spotchecks and source reviews, because of situations like this which cause an enormous amount of energy and time to take care of and clean up, and as you've seen, which cause problems and confusion as happened today. The pages I've had go through FAC since that time have been spotchecked, and I've spotchecked a number of other pages during - I once spotchecked a page written by Ian Rose, currently a FAC delegate. But the reality is that we don't have enough reviewers and when the system is stressed, problems occur.

In regards to the email, I made a comment at a time when I freely admit I probably shouldn't have been editing. It was unwise, I was deeply embarrassed, requested oversight which was denied (others had already responded to the thread), and I've been trying to limit my activity here. The email I received tonight didn't contain anything I didn't already know in regards to oversighting. I'd be very grateful if you could let it go, but having made the comment in public of course I have to take responsibility for it. I hope all the diffs above clear up some of the confusion and at some point when I have time I will write up the history of the Potter pages, all of which are affected. I apologize if I was rude - I was rushed and should have waited. But as I said, this forced me document something that does need to be documented. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:10, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• is there a reason to carry on this discussion on five more pages besides the TFA? What is the point? The article is ok now, so it seems. (hope this isn't one of the pages I've been forbidden to post on, since my views are apparently unpopular among the old crew.) MathewTownsend (talk) 18:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• I've been trying very hard to keep the discussion in one place. I'm not an expert in terms of technical stuff but if Iridescent says the edit history still has copyvio, then there's a possibility it does. Dunno Mathew, just don't know what to say anymore. I'm not part of a crew - I scrubbed some pages. Hundreds more need either scrubbing (big big task because they're all actually quite well done) or deleting. Other people need to make these decisions. But in my view it is unwise to run something on the main page that we know had copyvio. Again just my opinion and we use consensus to reach decisions. And no, I don't mind if you post here. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• but how do the rest of us "know" it has copyvio. It's listed as an FA. Can you come up with a plan that allows newbies a voice and doesn't depend on the "old crew" with subjective "institutional memory"? Moonriddengirl said the actual "edit history" doesn't count! MathewTownsend (talk) 21:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)