User talk:Aratuk

I'll wait and see how it goes. Style-wise, you should switch from that blue box to a blockquote-type thing, like on Journey's End (Doctor Who). — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 21:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think a box quote is a little more appropriate when you're producing a statement that has overall value to the section, rather than one that flows naturally with the descriptions in the section. For instance, in the "Plot" box quote, it somewhat interrupts the synopsis to provide an insight from the writer. In that sense, it behaves more like an image. Are there style guidelines for this? If so, I'd appreciate it if you could link me to them. Aratuk (talk) 23:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text formatting) should have something. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 23:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind, though I believe it's awkward. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 01:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's slightly less of an eyesore. The blue box is a big old "look at me" sort of thing dragging off reader attention. This is slightly less so. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 07:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Oroonoko, the statement is undoubtedly true. I was at pains to dismiss the folderol that it's the first novel by a woman. There is no claim that it is. Instead, it says that it is among the first novels and among the first by a woman. There is a lot to discuss there, for those so inclined.

1. The statement that it's the "first novel" is a mid-20th c. chestnut, and it's derived from the idea of a 3rd p. POV narrator and a biographical model for the tale.
2. If we take away those requirements, we allow in the epistolary novels that occurred earlier, as well as the picaresque novels that occurred earlier.
3. If we do that, we have many candidates earlier, not just the one you mention.
4. In fact, we can count many of the Romances as "novels," as well as the Hellenistic novels.

Therefore, the Oroonoko article needed to indicate its status: it's among the first to take up that bildungsroman model that mid-20th c. critics thought defined the novel (in contrast to Behn's own earlier novel), but it's not the first. It's among the first of that model to become successful and inspire imitation (a "mother of the novel"). It's also one of the first to essentially present a stage play as a prose novel, which, after 1737, would become more and more common.

The article did not claim it as first. It claimed that it was among the first, and it did this because the shelves of libraries around the US, UK, and Canada groan with reference books that will call it "the first novel" and "the first novel by a woman." For a general reader, they need to know that such reference works were not insane, but they are not right. Simply striking the statement does our readers a grave disservice, as well as Mrs. Behn. Geogre (talk) 12:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing the links to the newspaper in the Harvard article. I'm currently going through and cleaning up FCS (I-AA) teams and completely missed them! --Geologik (talk) 01:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you are part of Category:Wikipedians against notability.

I would like to invite you to join the Article Rescue Squadron. Although Rescue Squadron members do not share any official position on notability, and are simply focused on rescuing articles for deletion, you may find our project matches your vision of Wikipedia.

Caveat: I am writing this as a wikipedian, not as a representative of Article Rescue Squadron. Ikip (talk) 19:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:WorldMilitarySpending.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:03, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Vquote has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:27, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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) 22:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]