Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:13, 23 February 2015

Formerly User:Truthkeeper88

Template:Archive box collapsible

WTF

Wot? Did I miss something? Read a small bit and know John is sound so, ummm whats up? Blocked my ar*** - its not just Manc lads that can swear, believe you me. I know the "l" word. Seriously. Ceoil (talk) 03:10, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Did you miss something? Dunno, maybe. It's not to do with John. It's to do with burnout mostly. I've just had enough. It happens. Victoria (tk) 04:31, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, I just want out. Right this moment I don't ever want to go through another FAC, I'm tired of writing articles and I'm tired of the sniping here and apparently I don't have the self-discipline to take myself away in a mature manner. Victoria (tk) 04:34, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Fine, but is getting blocked the solution. I do get it though. Its ok and frankly, healthy, to feel disaffected. here is something nice. Remembering you tested 280% athiest, that time, long go. Ceoil (talk) 04:42, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, it was 280% existentialist and tbh working on the Hemingway page (life = futility) has depressed me to no end, especially during this long and cold winter. Anyway, feeling much less gloomy today and I'll repair. Victoria (tk) 14:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

P.s, Thank you for putting my user page back to an earlier version. I'd forgotten about that version; it's nice. Victoria (tk) 14:20, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

And well earned. 280% existentialist? Thats 6% more existentialist that I. I thought I was the only 280% existentialist in the village. Hrmp. Never talking to you again. Ceoil (talk) 01:15, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Bty, it'll cost you to know what the "I" word is; all I can say is its unknown to god-fearing folks; common in Cork. Ceoil (talk) 02:14, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Hrmp, indeed. I'll do what I'm good at - research the word. Not paying, have no coin. Existentialism? It's mid-afternoon, blazing sun, and the temperature is hovering at a balmy 8 °F (−13 °C) and for the weekend highs will be below 0 °F (−18 °C). But, it's all meaningless, as they say. I suppose, since I care, I'm not as much an existentialist as I pretend to be. Or something. I'm very confused. And frozen! Victoria (tk) 19:14, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I found it; it's on my desktop dictionary. Victoria (tk) 19:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

February 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Toni Morrison may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• in 1953 with B.A. in English; she went on to earn a ] from ] 1955. She went taught English, first at ]
• 2, 1998| url =http://www.salon.com/1998/02/02/cov_si_02int/| accessdate =December 20, 2014}}<!-- {{quote|'''Why distance oneself from feminism?''' In order to be as free as I possibly can, in my own

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Tut tut. Messing with bot syntax again? dear oh dear; the road to hell. It'll be wp:rfa next. Here is a nice tune, meanwhile. Ceoil (talk) 00:55, 15 February 2015 (UTC) (I like this because it obv that the drummer is the brains). Ceoil (talk) 01:13, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Tut tut is right. I don't quite understand that bot msg, but it forgot to leave me thanks for getting rid of borderline copyvio. Oh well, no good deed and all. Thanks for the tune - v nice. Victoria (tk) 02:32, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Damn straight. Bots have thir own code; the fecking bastards. What ya gonna do. Better a basard than a trump. Ceoil (talk) 02:50, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited My Old Man (short story), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Auteuil (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) 08:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Why do I get the feeling ...

... that your newfound interest in me has something to do with this? Rationalobserver (talk) 18:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

My second guess was this edit, which you've confirmed is what sparked your interest. Do you realize that Sarah defended me against the last round of sock-puppet allegations? You are making a mistake here, but I sure hope it's being made in good-faith, and it's not some kind of tactic to drive me away from "your territory", or in retaliation for disagreeing with SV. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

No, I didn't know there were other SPIs. If I'm wrong, I'll be the first person to apologize, but I think it's best not to have suspicions. To answer the question you left on your page, I've been looking at this for a few days after I noticed the talk page conversation. I'd put Irataba on watch with the intention of reviewing but something about that conversation felt like deja vu. I did look at Waters and to do my job diligently will have to do the same thing there as on Rose-Baley Party. Let's let MRG decide what to do about the tagging there. Victoria (tk) 19:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

That's fine, but FTR, I've been involved in a couple of very extensive discussions with MRG regarding close paraphrasing, and she has made it quite clear to me that moderate close paraphrasing is acceptable here at Misplaced Pages, which does not require an academic standard for plagiarism. I think most of what you found at RBP is not problematic, but there are a few that I should re-write if I don't just quit after this witch-hunt. I think editors get traumatized by sock-trolls, and they start to see them everywhere. I was singled out right away because I "knew to much" about the processes here, but I first edited Misplaced Pages many years ago, and I edited anonymously off and on for a couple of years after that. Last summer I made my first registered account, but I used my real name for it so I retired that after several weeks and made this one, that's apparently useless now, as I'll never live down these accusations that keep coming up. Like I said, if this is an honest good-faith suspicion I don't blame you, but please consider the effect this can have on innocent people. I have now been accused of being four different people, but, unless they are all the same editor, how could that be that I seem "just like" so many editors? Rationalobserver (talk) 19:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

@Rationalobserver: Just walk away from this, there is no connection so don't let it bother you. I've been accused for being a sock as well that resulted in an apology in the person who was the accuser. Just let it go and edit on, no need to quit over something like this. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Victoria I just hope you have strong evidence here, if not you are pinning an innocent person, and possibly driving them off Misplaced Pages. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:57, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• Victoria, would you object to my taking a look at your writing for close paraphrasing? Rationalobserver (talk) 20:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

You made a mistake about me, and now you are putting me through stressful stuff just like ILT did to you. You are continuing the cycle of abuse. As I said before, I think this is good-faith, so I sympathize, but did you see that Copyright clerk agreed with me and suggested you had made a mistake, and the material you chose as evidence "does not remotely rise to the level of a copyright violation".? Rationalobserver (talk) 23:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey

Im sorry that things got so heated over at the SPI case, but in my opinion I feel RO is right about what she says when it comes to the Rose-Baley Party article. You are a great editor Victoria but given all that has happened I would just wait a week or so for things to cool down. Remember the SPI case you launched almost caused an innocent editor to quit Misplaced Pages and it took the efforts of editors to get her to stay. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:23, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I really don't have a response to this. A lot of unnecessary heat got added to the SPI, including comments from you. I tend to fly under the radar here, but when it comes to work with sourcing and referencing, particularly on the GA and FA level, I'm confident in my expertise. I think our review processes are flawed but I can say for certainty the higher up the ladder any article will get a greater level of scrutiny. Of course you're welcome to seek an official i-ban to keep me away from any article that RO contributes to, but that might not gain traction. I wouldn't object if that's what you're seeking. Victoria (tk) 19:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Im not questioning your expertise, im just saying give RO some time to work on the article for a bit. This doesn't have to turn into an IB once she calms down then im sure you two can find some common ground. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:35, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Victoria, all I'm asking is that you leave me alone and allow me to fix the article with help from others. There is no need for a formal IB if you are willing to voluntarily leave me alone. By thanking Montana for this vicious comment, you have completely negated your earlier apology. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:35, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Late to the party

Rationalobserver, might I suggest you behave rationally and also let Victoria alone? A "new" user shows up, yet behaves in ways that are not consistent with never having edited WP before. The SPI now has a note that you disclosed your previous account to ArbCom, which is fine. There also does not seem to be any dispute that there are concerns with close paraphrasing in some of your work. I think Victoria was well justified in filing an SPI. I do not see what Montana did as a "vicious comment". Given the damage ILT has done here, and the time spent to clean that up, the concern was warranted. I also know what it is like to be accused of being a sock (as my first edit here got me accused). That said, let's deescalate. If you (or anyone else) want(s) to continue this discussion, please do so on my talk page. If I were a police officer I might say "move along, nothing to see here folks". Ruhrfisch _><>° 22:04, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

NIce of you to offer to continue the conversation but it's best to let it die: I apologized in good faith, I made a good faith offer of help, in good faith I clarified a talk page comment, and when someone who has often been on the opposite side of another issue commented here, for the first time, I was welcoming - as one should be, imo. Anyway, I'm letting it be. No need to discuss forced mentoring b/c that wasn't intended, and I've already responded to Knowledgekid87 re I-ban. Victoria (tk) 18:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Victoria, I appreciate you pinging me on the above situation, and I want you to know that I happen to agree with your position that there is a WP:DUCK here, so feel free to give me a heads up any time you think you have another related problem. I also want to note that I find Dennis Brown to be a respected user and when he popped out of retirement to comment that he's seeing what you see, that is worth noting and says good things about you and your credibility. I guess for now we focus on behavior and take drama to ANI. But a pat on the back to you for having the courage to raise this issue. If it wasn't ILT, it's a twin with a shockingly similar behavioral profile. In either case, don't go into a sock drawer alone. Montanabw 18:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Montana, for stopping by and nice to see you on my talkpage for the first time ever! For someone who keeps away from the dramah boards that was an unexpected move on my part, but I decided I had to take full responsibility and let the chips fall. Whilst going through diffs in the past few days it struck me how many editors have drifted away, so it's nice to see you on my talkpage. Old-timers and all! Gah! Btw - while you're here, I thought about you the other day as I was working on My Old Man (short story) - a very early Hemingway story (actually one of his first) about horse racing, set in 1920s Italy and Paris. I've only started it, but could use some horse expertise if you're interested in taking a look. Victoria (tk) 19:25, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Will peek at the article. On other things, check your email. Montanabw 09:19, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

RE Hemingway, I'd like to link the hedges, whatever they're called, that the horse jump, because it's important in the story. I suppose I could find it in the steeplechase article, I realize as I'm typing this. Victoria (tk) 18:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

Hi Victoriaearle. This is a courtesy notice that a user has now mentioned you by name at the ANI thread, Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Ceoil. Best wishes, -- Diannaa (talk) 19:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice Diannaa. Victoria (tk) 20:32, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for what I caused

Victoriaearle, I feel responsible for escalating the SPI report by my inept sock hunting that I'm clearly not experience at. It was presumptuous of me to think I was in any way qualified to add to that SPI. I've added some problems/suggestions for improvement to Talk:Rose-Baley Party. Aside from the close paraphrasing concerns, there are more basic problems the GA reviewer missed. Like the link to Edward Fitzgerald Beale is clearly the wrong man and so is the image of him. The article is in category:Trains, the lede image is misleading and misdated: it's c. 1886, not 1866 and not relevant to article content. I'm still hung up on the single source issue; I see constantly rewriting material from a single source as bordering OR/SYN, if not already there. And the book was written by a man interested in his own family history; many of the party were his relatives. I hope the editor doesn't take my pointing out these problems in the wrong way, but it doesn't meet the standards of a GA: I liked your statement that you have no doubts about your competence in FA/GA evaluations. I see that you are widely admired and your reputation insures that no editors doubt your judgment. EChastain (talk)

See above. It's best that I don't comment about those issues. I will say this, fingers crossed that it's sufficiently generic, problems cropping up during the Wikicup is par for the course. Thanks for stopping by my talk page. Victoria (tk) 18:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Rose-Baley Party comments

Voceditenore, I'm leaving comments here because it's rude to ignore your messages to me. RO requests I leave Rose-Baley talk alone so I stopped by your page and decided it best not to post directly beneath RO. Re the tag, I said here I wouldn't object to removing and I'd planned to find a neutral admin to do so. You're absolutely right to point out about the close paraphrasing tag - I've edited that page and am aware of that. In fact that's what I was looking for, but the mistake I made was to grab the wrong tag on a template search, and here we are. I see it's been taken down, so that's good.

Moving forward, just so you know, I worked my way through more than one section but decided to only post one at a time. In the meantime things blew up a bit, re interaction ban, etc., which caused a chilling effect, but my question is this: why is any single editor or any single article exempt? The aggregate of the edits is concerning, not a few words found in a few sentences, just to be clear. Do you have a suggestion as how to handle that? Victoria (tk) 20:40, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Victoria. I'm a little confused. There's no interaction ban in place. Nor is there any reason why you couldn't have replied to me on that talk page. Sometimes when another editor is upset and blows off steam, it's more productive to just let it pass without comment and keep the conversation impersonal and on track. I don't think any editor or article should be exempt. My suggestion would be that if you are seriously concerned about any remaining instances of close paraphrasing, go through the article and quietly repair them. But as I pointed out, how close is too close is always a judgment call on which even experienced editors will not always agree. If the examples you cited were typical of what you consider so close as to be copyright violations, I'd have to say that I disagree on that assessment. Voceditenore (talk) 19:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)