User talk:Quillercouch

From Wikisource
(Redirected from User talk:Poetlister)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Hello, Poetlister, welcome to Wikisource! Thanks for your interest in the project; we hope you'll enjoy the community and your work here. If you need help, see our help pages (especially Adding texts and Wikisource's style guide). You can discuss or ask questions from the community in general at the Scriptorium. The Community Portal lists tasks you can help with if you wish. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me on my talk page. FloNight 19:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved Before a Midnight Breaks in Storm to Before a Midnight Breaks in Storm (i.e. removed the quotes). Was that the right thing to do? or are those quotes an important part of the title? John Vandenberg 22:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for checking. The other reason to not have quotes in the name of the page is that the "link" looks ugly - compared these two:

I've added the quotes to the title in page, and kept them in the Kipling poem list. John Vandenberg 23:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Banquet Night"[edit]

This particular poem has come up in "copyright violation" discussions this year, and the outcome was to remove it.

Take a look at this: Wikisource:Possible copyright violations/Archives/2007-08#"Banquet Night".

There it is mentioned that it is actually still copyright in the U.S., because of (Renewal: R117669). If you are aware that this poem was published earlier, that renewal may not be sufficient to cover it. John Vandenberg 23:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure it wasnt published in a magazine before it was collected into "Debits and Credits"? John Vandenberg 23:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Bribe.png This user has been bribed to say nice things about Sherurcij's adminship.

Quite the opposite, it is very helpful. THank you!Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Arthur Schopenhauer 20:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, Thank you for your support. I like Wikiquote too and plan to keep working there also. I like to add poetry here and find lines to add to Wikiquote. I found a nice line about love that I added recently to the Love page with an image.

You're doing some work here that is very much needed as many of the entries are not well formated making them difficult to find and read. Thanks for your good work. Take care, FloNight 21:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, Giselle! I'm just checking in with you. I'm going to be adding my own translations of Catullus' poetry. Since I'm doing the translating, and my translations haven't been published, I understand that I can add these. Check up on me if you see fit. I'm new to this, so I'm bound to make some mistakes, but I'm trying. Belial 03:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, what up, G? Thanks for suggesting that template. It looks appropriate, because it allows me to retain authorship while giving away the work itself. Am I correct in that assumption? If so, should my name be listed on the translation in the header? I had my name there before, but John Vandenburg suggested that it be labeled a "Wikisource translation" and I complied. What should I do if I use the template you suggested? Also, I read that I have to link it to the original Latin or put the Latin on the page. Which is better? I have the Latin translation, but it's the Oxford Classical Text of Carmina Catulli, which is, I think, a copyrighted work, because it has an apparatus criticus and an editor. I guess I need to link it to a public source online, right? Belial 16:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Greetings poetlister! I think we have met in another place, but let us not mention that. I have come here to do some Catullus parallel Latin-English translation (I have contacted some other people who may help) and I found your page after a search on Catullus. Some of the poems are already there but I see the unspeakably filthy XVI is not. Best Ockham 08:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correction, 16 is there, but in English only. The Latin exists in the Italian version, so could easily be cut and pasted into here and a parallel version created. Though it would be preferable to have original translations if possible. I remember 16 presented some difficulties owing to certain sexual terms words being almost untranslatable. Ockham 09:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Bell-Buoy[edit]

I have just made a number of corrections to this Kipling poem based on the way it appeared in McClure's. Do you have details about the edition from which you took your version? It is difficult to know how much weight to give to a text without knowing its provenance. Eclecticology 21:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying. There is more to the question than which is right and which is wrong. I don't dispute for a moment that you faithfully reproduced your source, just as I have been faithful in reproducing my source. The McClure's publication is, AFAIK, the first U.S. publication of the poem, and I presume that S. S. McClure or his staff would have been working directly from a manuscript provided by Kipling himself. I don't know if McClure's archives have been preserved. It's not you that I question; it's your source.
The first thing that made me suspicious, and which suggested a modern bowdlerization was the change of "pimping" to "godly". The use of pimping here, has nothing to do with the more popular association with pandering. I can reason away your explanations, though I realize that that would solve nothing. A "nearing" light atop a buoy makes perfect sense when you consider that the ship is approaching the buoy which marks the shoal. If Kipling uses "blurr" (perhaps as a portmanteau, or just as a nonce) then it exists by virtue of the very fact that he uses it. Does the synaesthesia escape you?
The more important question is what brought about the change between my 1897 version and your 1990 version? How do we best account for those changes? Eclecticology 03:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please let's not make this a case of my version vs. your version. I am not averse to including both, and will gladly restore your version as an alternative right down to the removal of the italics in the last line of each stanza. Once this is done please feel free to add the necessary sourcing data, the absence of which was the basis for my original complaint.
If you have access the first publication in Saturday Review please feel free to reconcile with that. Mary Hamer in her commentary at did not have access to it. Notable British authors at the time were very aware that their works were easily pirated by American publishers if they were not in strict compliance with U.S. copyright rules. "Bell-buoy" does appear in various places with and without the hyphen. The only other quick reference that I found from Kipling is in the first chapter of The Light that Failed where he does use the hyphen.
Establishing what is a definitive edition of a poem is not an easy task. Eclecticology 20:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I indicated before, both versions are now there. That should settle it. I accept that they are both Kipling's versions. His re-editing to put the poem in a collected edition does not change the fact that it was once published in a different version. Writers do that all the time. Eclecticology 00:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Limbo (Brathwaite poem)[edit]

Thanks, I was involved in the previous deletion but I forgot to turn on the brain when patrolling this page. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping me with my template[edit]

John Cross 18:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Captive[edit]

The Captive which was deleted was discussed at WS:COPYVIO(2007-10)#The_Captive; ive checked the deleted text and it was by Author:Marcel Proust. That page needs to be a dab page, as John Gay also wrote a work by that name. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC) (and we also have Captive) John Vandenberg (chat) 00:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Collaboration project[edit]

This weeks collaboration project is G. W. Bush. Please take the time this week to identify and/or transcribe one important work by, or involving, this very prominent person who is relevant to us all. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Hugh Clough[edit]

Thanks for your contributions on Arthur Hugh Clough. I have acquired a copy of 21 Tales (Kipling's poetry) that I hope to start work on sometime soon.

John Cross 14:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kipling's verse[edit]

I unfortunately was limited in my online activity when this discussion was active, but I have added my thoughts in the Scriptorium and the The Bell-Buoy's talk page. I have looked in Kipling in the past and even have local university with a copy of the Old Reader's Guide I have gotten access to. So I had a lot of preconceived ideas about the issue and only skimmed the discussion from earlier. I think the later revisions are a copyright concern in the US and we should avoid the Definitive Edition, as well as Sussex/Burwash (which I personally prefer to DE). I think John's djvu file is a solid edition to use. While not as significant as the first edition (nor the last) it is an authorized version and is the revision done at the height of his career and is listed by the Kipling Society as one of the principal editions of his verse. There are certainly truly poor editions out there , especially in the US but John's edition is actually my second choice for Wikisource's use after the periodical edition. And truthfully I would likely want to keep it even if we found a periodical edition and simply disambiguate by date (depending on what kind of differences exist between the two).--BirgitteSB 02:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I guess the larger concern is how you feel about the general completion Index:Rudyard Kipling's verse - Inclusive Edition 1885-1918.djvu. If there aren't any differences, do you object to coverting the applicable poems to the Page: format? Will you have a problem if I start working on it or do we need to have a disscussion?--BirgitteSB 19:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I have nominated you for adminship. pls accept. :-) John Vandenberg (chat) 04:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, Poetlister, you now have admin rights.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 14:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see I missed your RFA. So, extremely belated congrats. ;-) FloNight 16:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Author:Percival Lowell will be our collaboration starting tomorrow night, so if you wanted to take a moment in the next 24 hours just to help me find online sources of his work and put the links on the author page to help CotW-members in the coming week, I'd appreciate it. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Wikisource:Confucianism 19:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*nag* Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Percival Lowell 21:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No trouble, I see Mars[1] and The Soul of the Far East[2] both still need doing, depending whether it's his astronomy or his travels that interest you. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Percival Lowell 20:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re. Tennyson[edit]

Thanks for the comment! I wasn't sure where to put him so I just browsed around Category:Poems by era until I found something that looked suitable... yours is better though. :-) giggy (:O) 09:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I am sorry to have been neglecting these; I will ensure that all my future work has a description of the edition meant. Cheers, and happy sourcing. ---- Anonymous DissidentTalk 00:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dover Beach[edit]

Hello, Poetlister; would you kindly unlock the Dover Beach source so that peacock wording may be removed from the introductory passage? Robert K S 19:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted Poetlisters removal of peakcock wording, because Poetlister removed the {{wikipediaref}}, and also because the current wording is exactly what Wikipedia says. If the wording needs to change, it should change on Wikipedia first, and be updated here if/when the Wikipedia changes have settled down. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I wrote to you on my talk page. I want to include Category:Hymns also into Category:Poems by form as genre of poetry (now it is only included into Category:Song lyrics as part of music, which is OK but not enough). Please approve this action. Dmitrismirnov 10:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it would be better to include the Category:Hymns (as well as Category:Elegies) into Category:Poems by genre rather than Category:Poems by form. Do you agree? Yours, Dmitrismirnov 10:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for the welcome! Good to see you here. Note, if you see any users called SunStar Net, they are not affiliated with me, the accounts always have a lowercase s. Thanks, AC aka --Sunstar NW XP 18:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vote of confidence[edit]

Please see Wikisource:Scriptorium#Poetlister. --John Vandenberg (chat) 03:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on "I Heard the bells on Christmas Day"[edit]

It seems to me that the referenced source is not to Longfellow's poem at all, but only the modified lyrics of the hymn.

I understand the actual poem reads as follows:''

I heard the bells on Christmas Day Their old familiar carols play, And wild and sweet The words repeat Of peace on earth, good-will to men!

And thought how, as the day had come, The belfries of all Christendom Had rolled along The unbroken song Of peace on earth, good-will to men!

Till, ringing, singing on its way, The world revolved from night to day, A voice, a chime, A chant sublime Of peace on earth, good-will to men!

Then from each black, accursed mouth The cannon thundered in the South, And with the sound The carols drowned Of peace on earth, good-will to men!

It was as if an earthquake rent The hearth-stones of a continent, And made forlorn The households born Of peace on earth, good-will to men!

And in despair I bowed my head; "There is no peace on earth," I said, "For hate is strong, And mocks the song Of peace on earth, good will to men!"

Then pealed the bells more loud and deep; God is not dead; nor doth he sleep! The Wrong shall fail, The Right prevail, With peace on earth, good-will to men!

I kinda like the actual poem better, and it makes much more sense as to the anti-war aspect of the piece.