User talk:Rats

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 summaries[edit]

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)[reply]

The nature of rationality[edit]

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)[reply]

Thank you very much! Rats 22:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poetry[edit]

Hi! A poem should actually be placed at Wikisource instead of Wikipedia. Hope this helps. - Lucky 6.9 02:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Minor edits[edit]

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)[reply]

Philosophical explanation[edit]

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.[reply]

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

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)[reply]

The Bird with the Coppery, Keen Claws[edit]

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.

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 (talk) 20:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Bird with the Coppery, Keen Claws[edit]

restored, please edit it to show the dates. Cheers. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Man whose Pharynx was bad[edit]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of The Man whose Pharynx was bad, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/Poetry/Stevens/The_Man_Whose_Pharynx_Was_Bad.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.

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 (talk) 19:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coren[edit]

Coren pops up when it locates a url or webpage with the same information posted into an article upon creation. I'm removing it from it from its main page. Try to source where the content comes from. Synergy 07:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Poems vol1 03 stevens.ogg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Poems vol1 03 stevens.ogg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 22:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Better source request[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Poems_vol1_18_stevens.ogg, File:Poems_vol1_35_stevens.ogg, and File:Poems_vol1_52_stevens.ogg. You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. Radiant chains (talk) 05:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Poems vol1 35 stevens.ogg[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:Poems vol1 35 stevens.ogg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Poems vol1 18 stevens.ogg[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:Poems vol1 18 stevens.ogg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Poems vol1 52 stevens.ogg[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:Poems vol1 52 stevens.ogg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophical_Explanations[edit]

Greetings. Have you read the book? if so, what did you concluded from it? Thanks.

Files missing description details[edit]

Dear uploader: The media files you uploaded as:

are missing a description and/or other details on their image description pages. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the images, and they will be more informative to readers.

If the information is not provided, the images may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 00:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

August 2013[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. However, please remember that editors do not own articles and should respect the work of their fellow contributors on Harmonium (poetry collection). If you create or edit an article, remember that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Stelpa (talk) 15:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]