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)

1 Edit summaries
2 The nature of rationality
3 Poetry
4 Minor edits
5 Philosophical explanation
6 Frogs Eat Butterflies. Snakes Eat Frogs. Hogs Eat Snakes. Men Eat Hogs
7 The Bird with the Coppery, Keen Claws
8 The Bird with the Coppery, Keen Claws

[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:

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. —Preceding unsigned comment 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)

[edit] Minor edits

Almost all of your work developing the Philosophical explanations page has been marked as a minor edit. I doubt it matters at all given that you developed the page and have been almost the sole editor, but it is probably smart for you to read the advice on what a minor edit is and to take a bit more time writing edit summaries. Anarchia 01:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Philosophical explanation

A tag has been placed on Philosophical Explanation, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

The author of this article wrote another one with the correct name of the book, Philosophical Explanations, and has left a note on the talk page of this article that this one should be deleted.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet very basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Anarchia 05:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC) on the User Talk page of the author.

[edit] Frogs Eat Butterflies. Snakes Eat Frogs. Hogs Eat Snakes. Men Eat Hogs

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Frogs Eat Butterflies. Snakes Eat Frogs. Hogs Eat Snakes. Men Eat Hogs, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.rattapallax.com/magazine_story6.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 16:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Bird with the Coppery, Keen Claws

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of The Bird with the Coppery, Keen Claws, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/Poetry/Stevens/The_Bird_with_the_Coppery_Keen_Claws.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.