User talk:Rats
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.
Here are some tips to help you get started:
- To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
- Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
- If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
- Follow the Wikipedia:Simplified Ruleset
- Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
- Remember Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
- Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!
Good luck!
Meelar (talk) 15:17, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Edit summaries
When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labelled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:
The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.
When you leave the edit summary blank, some of your edits could be mistaken for vandalism and may be reverted, so please always briefly summarize your edits, especially when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. --Ryan Delaney talk 04:34, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] The nature of rationality
Got your message about the work-in-progress nature of this article. It's helpful to keep in mind that Newpage Patrollers are pretty much reading everything within a minute or two of its creation. In cases like these, you might want to consider adding the following tag at the top:
{{inuse}}
Hope that's helpful. Good luck with your very ambitious project! --Pleather 21:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much! Rats 22:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Poetry
Hi! A poem should actually be placed at Wikisource instead of Wikipedia. Hope this helps. - Lucky 6.9 02:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Chapman's Homer should have shown you that *1*. The text of Peter Quince at the Clavier goes in Wikisource. Here you write an article about the poem. -- RHaworth 03:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
On further checking, since Stevens lived until 1955, his work is still copyright in the US surely? We must not put up the text: just link to any of several copies on the web. -- RHaworth 03:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- I'd expanded the stub on Harmonium with a few paragraphs and the controversial "Earthy Anecdote". I thought it was good for the reader to see the poem while it was being discussed *2*. I'd begun discussion of other poems in Harmonium with the same idea, when my opening sentences on "Peter Quince" were blocked by an editing conflict. If the editors want the poems elsewhere, I can live with that. But I don't understand why my little project involves something different from the page on "Chapman's Homer". It's in Wikipedia, right?, not Wikisource. I think the copyright clock starts ticking with the date of publication, so Harmonium's copyright is over, no? It was published in 1923. I may be totally confused about everything. Do what you will. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rats (talk • contribs).
I am very sorry if you lost anything due to the edit conflict. But you did not need to lose anything: when you get the dreaded message there is a diff display to help you. But if that is confusing, be bold - force your version then check at you leisure to see what you have thrown away.
It always helps if you put links in talk page comments. Having looked at United States copyright law, I think we will be safe to assume that Peter Quince is now public domain.
Sorry if my comment at *1* above was confusing - on a quick inspection, I assumed that the text quoted in the Chapman's Homer was just an extract. On closer examination, I see the word "sonnet"! The difference with Peter Quince is simply that the poem is longer. I feel it is too long to be included in the article but I won't force the matter. But I would reverse your comment at *2* above: it is better to make as few assumptions as possible as to how a user is viewing a page - screen size in pixels, font size, etc. If the user wants to have both text and your review available, they can open two windows and size them how they will.
But let me say how refreshing it is to see some proper literary criticism in Wikipedia. All too often, I feel articles here, especially of movies, give the cast and plot but stop just when it is getting interesting - the actual critique of the work. -- RHaworth 06:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
