Welcome!

Hello, PNW Raven, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

Thank you for all your fine work on this article. Please note, however, that I had changed all references to the characters to denote the last name per this style guideline. Although the guideline does not appear to address fictional characters specifically, the guideline does state that the "use of the first name gives the impression that the writer knows the subject personally, which, even if true, is not relevant." Thanks again, and happy editing. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 16:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This guideline in general does not apply to fictional characters, only to real people. However, secondary character should be referred to by their last name to avoid confusion, but principal characters, for example, Harry Potter, can be referred to by their first name because readers have become closely familiar with them. PNW Raven 12:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For a while now you've been eagerly editing many of the Pirates of the Caribbean pages, and I commend you for that. However, for some time, I and others have had to revert many of your edits because you have insisted that the word Kraken is not capitalised, when in fact it is. Just a little heads-up note that it is generally regarded as having a capital letter and that is how we are spelling it. Thanks for the edits! Happy editing. Dac 05:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the need to again remind you that the word Kraken is capitalised, as you have recently re-edited it as not being. It is. Thanks! Dac 13:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not see these messages until recently. There is still much I have to learn about Wikipedia and how to navigate through it. Anyway, I've done some researching, and it seems Kraken is generally captilized, even though it is not a proper name, so that is the style I will go with. PNW Raven 01:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your edits to "It Takes a Thief", however, I should point out that you've edited the article dozens of times in the last 2-3 days, all with minor edits.[1] I would recommend that you make all your edits at once (maybe even doing your editing in Word or WordPad or such, then pasting them in) -- that way, the edit history doesn't get clogged up, and it's easier for everyone to see the diffs if necessary. Thanks a bunch! Amnewsboy 15:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your diligent work on Mythbusters, a page that seems to atract a lot of traffic. One note, though - please see this style guideline, and note that commas and periods are placed outside of quotation marks when they are not part of what is being quoted. Otherwise, I have appreciated your efforts to clean up this article - it can certainly use it! Pawl 15:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I learned in my general and technical writing classes is that punctuation is always inside the quotation marks. There will probably always be discrepencies in these style issues among various regional institutions/organizations. I'll look over the Wikipedia guidelines, however.PNW Raven 14:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's the way I learned it, too. It wasn't until I started editing wikipedia that I found out that the British English style is to do it the other way, apparently. In this area, wikipedia follows the BE style. -- Pawl 16:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, the Brits are confused. ;-) PNW Raven 01:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please check that there isn't any vandalism in the articles before copyediting it. Your contributions are useful, but it is annoying to have to search out such examples of vandalism. Michaelsanders 18:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why has my IP address been blocked? I got a message that it was blocked because of "abuse." What is going on? There's been no vandalism or abuse by me. Please check this out and unlock my account.

The block was removed and then reinstated again. I am tired of being blocked for someone else's vandalism. I was blocked by Essjay. The latest "vandalism" was someone changed the last name of the Pirates of the Caribbean producer!??? If you're going to block someone, then block the person who did the actual vandalism.

RHB(AWB) 23:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC), on behalf of WPHarry Potter[reply]

Hello. The reason I took out that line was because the scene is not as simple as it appears. I have no doubt we will be returning to it in the final book. The line is not wrong, but its not exactly right, either. Perhaps you might care to read the scene again yourself, a few times. The thing is, I'm not sure exactly to what extent Lily was helping, or to what extent she expected him to be grateful. I suspect Lily was thoroughly annoyed at James, and her intervention was aimed at attacking him, as much as defending Severus. I don't see any way to read it except that James was persistently trying to get her attention, and since he had not succeeded, also that she had refused. So by now she was sick of it. Now, there is an ongoing complicated situation in the books, where we do not have enough information to make a clear explanation of the relationship between Lily and Severus. Presumably she invented the potions tips and he invented the spells, all of which were written by one of them into the old potions textbook.

My reading of the pensieve scene is that there is already an ongoing row between Lily and Severus, James knows this and sees it as an opportunity to ingratiate himself with Lily. Lily is doubly unamused by James once again interfering with her life. The notion of friends rowing and refusing to talk to each other has been used by Rowling repeatedly in Harry's generation, and I think Rowling intends the analogy to apply here. Lily and Severus are 'not talking' even before the scene begins. Also, the 'mudblood' insult (spoken to James, not Lily), which while it does upset Lily seems more designed to upset James, and only accidentally gets at Lily. In the modern generation, Harry and Hermione are rather unaffected by this insult, not really seeing it as an insult. It is the 'purebloods' (both those who favour and oppose use of the word)who get extremely upset about it.

I further suspect that James prime motivation for hating Snape will turn out to be jealousy. Whichever one, Sirius or Remus, at one point claims Snape was jealous of James. I'm afraid I don't see it. I think Snape was the sort to be contented within his own academic world and did not seek fame. The reasons given why Snape might have been jealous, all seem to me reasons which might have appealed to an entirely different type of person, such as James himself. So James is totally baffled when he has all of what he sees as the good points, yet Lily spends her time with this duffer Snape. So he hates Snape. All this is going on in the background.

Now, we are constrained in what we can publish here. The above is fascinating, but rather too strong for wiki. But I draw the line at including things which might be within the bounds of immediate face value facts, but which I perceive as being in some way misleading. So it is not so much an issue of including the facts or not, but of the way it is phrased. Sandpiper 21:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I would like to thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. However, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thanks again.

John Reaves 14:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The same goes for you. You, and 'wizardone', have to stop reverting it to the version you like. If you have a problem with it, then we should discuss it on the discussion page - as I have repeatedly asked of you. If you are willing to talk it over there, we can discuss the issue, where everyone can contribute. Michaelsanders 15:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In case your not aware, wikipedia has a WP:3RR policy that says that editors can be blocked if they revert a single article more than three times in 24 hours. It's something to keep in mind when you revert, and you can report other users who violate it.. --Milo H Minderbinder 15:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have written some suggestions on the talk page based on Peacent's edit. Look at them and discuss. Michaelsanders 16:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To Milo: I'll make sure not to exceed the edit limit. Michael: I'll take at look at the Discussion page, and I'm sure we can come to a mutual agreement about this. Peacent's edits look good and seems to be a good compromise. -PNW Raven

Thankyou. I also agree with most of Peacent's changes: you can comment on the changes I think are needed on the talk page there. Michaelsanders 18:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must say, while I find some of your edits to be valid, most (at least to me) appear to be quite clumsy and more a case of turf protection than anything else. I try to make the synopsis make more sense, your edits do not seem to aid that. For instance, since Bill is a Weasley, it is ridiculous to say "To the displeasure of the Weasley family, Bill is marrying Fleur..." to be clear, it should read "To the displeasure of the rest of the Weasley family....". It's just common sense...Bill is a Weasley, therefore, HE is not displeased. Also, am not sure about the whole "promotion improving their finances" bit. In fact, that is an assumption, since I cannot find a mention in the book that their financial situation has improved...I mean, we can assume it, but... Ccrashh 21:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also find most of your edits clumsy and more typical of how novice writers use prose. This also seems a case of turf protection on your part. The sentence "To the displeasure of the other Weasley family . . ." is a clunky prepositional phrase that should be avoided whenever possible. They weaken sentence structure. It's also unnecessary to differentiate between Bill and the "other" Weasleys. Of course it's the other Weasleys! We know that. I agree about the finances thing. I never wrote that. I just shorted it, but it would be better to take it out completely. PNW Raven 21:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's necessary to distinguish, but since you feel that prepositional phrasing must never be used, in any situation, we can leave it. I am also unsure how you physically edit, but you seem to revert to versions which have been corrected typographically. Regardless, you have an issue with prepositional phrasing, and I have one for words like "unfooled" and "paralizing". Ccrashh 22:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... the more I read that line, the better is does seem (without the prepositional phrasing). You are right. Good point. Ccrashh 22:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, the "paralizing" was totally accidental. I always copy my most recent edits before I hit "submit" so they don't get lost in case someone else is editing at the same time. I didn't see the typo, so it kept getting put back in as I made further revisions. I didn't see your editing comments right away as I don't always check the "History" page immediately after each edit. Regarding words like "unfooled," I was taught in technical writing courses to avoid using negatives whenever possible. Basically, do not use "not." I don't always adhere to that rule if it makes the sentence sound pretenious. It's always a judgment call. Thanks for your comments! :-) PNW Raven 22:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you fancy rewriting this article with me? I did a lot of rewriting last night to make various content issues read clearer, but looking at it now, it's obvious that a lot of information is duplicated and poorly assigned (partly due to my efforts last night, partly due to the manner in which it has been written over the course of time by everyone), and it's all in need of serious revising. Interested? Michaelsanders 18:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would certainly enjoy working on this with you. I'll take a look and see what I think it needs. (I also answered on your Talk Page)PNW Raven 15:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I've started out on a rewrite - I'll try to post it on the Sirius Black talk page, and we can pick it apart there, and continue from that point/toss it out and start again/give up. Michaelsanders 17:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've finished my main part - now it's your main task, should you wish to accept it: you'll find the proposed replacement linked on the article talk page, so if you are willing to undertake it, it'll be your job to pull the sentences apart and fix them. Do anything that'll make it read better - once that's done, we'll get down to the tedium of discussing anything needing to be added/changed/removed, but for now it just needs to be seriously improved. Hope you're willing to do it (because if you aren't, I'll have to find someone else to do it, and I have no idea who). Michaelsanders 21:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, I will do it! We'll be discussing it after I've worked on it.PNW Raven 00:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was Harry cheating? In terms of class-work, yes he was - he was being praised for 'instinctive ability' and 'natural talent', when in fact he was simply getting praise off the back of another student's work. I'd dispute whether he 'learned' anything (he reverted to mediocre after he hid the book), but that's not the issue - the issue is that the students were meant to be using the instructions from the set text. Harry was getting better results by taking the shortcut of using another person's work, rather than by making the potions properly himself. That's cheating (just as, if you were to be given an exam paper which had extra information to help you reach the answers scribbled on it, it would be cheating). And yes, of course Hermione was jealous - jealousy is part and parcel of her nature (but note that in DADA, where Harry legitimately trounces her several years running through his own ability and hard work, she expresses no jealousy - instead praising and admiring him, and demanding that he teach her). Michael Sanders 18:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the filling-out of edit summaries as you edit. There's a few people who watch the article closely, so for busy articles like these, it's best to justify the edits that you make. Keep up the good copy-editing! —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I usually do that, but sometimes I get going so fast I hit submit before adding the comments or my dial-up internet is about to konk out and loses my edits. I'll start adding my comments first thing. PNW Raven 22:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good job on the copyedits! Alientraveller 19:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! PNW Raven

Whew, I appreciate all your good work. Mind, we really have to watch how big that plot gets, but the big paragraphs and your prose hopefully mean it isn't difficult to read. Alientraveller 17:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, thanks! I also don't want it to get too big, but the plot is so damn complicated, and people keep adding more stuff. I hope I wasn't too harsh on whoever wrote all the romantic stuff about Will and Elizabeth, but it was totally out-of-place. I'm still working on trimming things and summing up general plot line more simply.

I rewrote the article here, and I invite you to copyedit my rewrite so I can bring it to GA or FA. Thank you. Alientraveller 18:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do that. One thing I noticed, Norrington was not sacked. He actually resigned his commission because he felt he disgraced himself. Update: I've made some changes, but I'm still working on this. There are some factual and timeline inconsistencies. PNW Raven

Just a note to refer to Jack throughout as "Sparrow" for formalness, which will help during FAC. Only Will and Elizabeth are really allowed as a first-name basis, given they are the main characters. Keep up the good work! Alientraveller 09:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it flows fine too now. Alientraveller 15:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know you disagree about Beckett, but I think it's really important to introduce his character with a bit of explanation. He is a huge factor regarding why Jack turned pirate. And even though it's part of the back story, it is alluded to in the film. Beckett does much to drive the plot in this film, and it leads into World's End where the storyline is totally driven by his motivations and actions. PNW Raven 22:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mate, assumed good faith. I'm not thinking the Jack Sparrow article is my property even if I rewrote it from scratch. OK, if you think my prose is clunky, then just say so. Alientraveller 19:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do say so! All the time, but in a nice way. I give comments (to everyone) like "improved the text flow," or "reworked prepositional phrasing," or "deleted redundant passages," etc. And it seems obvious that you are being very possessive over this article, reverting anyone's edits to EXACTLY what was there before. You did a great job on the rewrite, but the overall prose needed improving. I've been at this for twenty years, and I was taught to write in a lean, mean, streamlined manner to create flowing, rhythmic prose. I'm not saying yours is bad, it isn't, but it like most novice writers, it is written in a rather typical and ponderous style (with many prepositional phrases that weaken sentence structure). Strip down every sentence and remove any extraneous words. Suggestion: Print out hard copies of other people's work (not your own), then take a red pen to it and edit out all the crap. It's the best way to learn. PNW Raven 20:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thing is, I adore what you and Wizard One have been doing: just a few times, I prefer the old way. It's a collaboration afterall. Maybe I have the wrong tone in my head reading your summaries. Cheerio. Alientraveller 20:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is FYI, but perhaps it will give you a better understanding of where I'm coming from style-wise. These are a few rules that were literally HAMMERED into me in my technical writing courses:

1. Use as few words as possible without sacrificing clairty. If you can write it with two words rather than three, do it. That doesn't mean sentences should be overly short and choppy, but make them economical. Look at every sentence and determine what can be eliminated. For examaple: Rather than the phrase, "determine what can be taken out," I wrote, "determnine what can be elminated." That's one less word!!

2. Create fluid, rhythmic sentences that sound pleasing to the reader's ear. Vary sentence structure. Novices tend to write many sentences the same way.

3. Avoid negative sentence structure whenever possible (Do NOT use "not.") This is actually the hardest thing for me to avoid. Note I said, "whenever possible." If the sentence becomes stilted or sounds pretentious, then use the negative form.

4. Avoid prepositional phrases. They weaken sentence structure. I particularly detest "of", and I always do a "search and destroy" mission to delete these phrases. These cannot always be eliminated and can provide clarity, but do so whenever possible to create better text flow.

Example:

From: To the dismay of the other Weasley family members, Bill Weasley became engaged to Fleur Delacour who was the Triwizard Tournament champion of Beauxbatons Academy.

Changed to: To his family's dismay, Bill Weasley became engaged to Fleur Delacour, the Beauxbatons champion in the Triwizard Tournament.

5. Avoid any familiar or cliched phrases. If it sounds even remotely familiar, toss it. Avoid tired phrases such as, "due to the fact that," "then managed to," or "in that event." These only add "dead weight" to sentences.

6. Avoid overusing semicolons, colons, em dashes, etc. Use only one or two per article. They are effective literary devices—but only when used sparingly. And the same rule applies for starting sentences with an article.

7. Avoid overusing adjectives and adverbs.

8. Write in an "active voice" and use action verbs.

9. Avoid noun stacking and redundant pairs.

Noun stacking: Fleur Delacour was the Beauxbatons Academy Triwizard Tournament champion.

Better: Fleur Delacour was the Triwizard Tournament champion from Beauxbatons Academy. (In this case, using a prepositional phrase provides better clarity.)

Redundant pairs (words that repeat each other): •past memories •various differences •true facts •future plans •final outcome •free gift •past history •unexpected surprise

These rules really were drilled into me. I always try to implement them, and I'm my own harshest critic. I never write something once and leave it be. I'll edit it over and over to improve the prose as much as possible. I hope that provides a better understanding about my writing style. PNW Raven 20:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you've made the other stuff lowercase, should Pirate King be in lowercase form too? Therequiembellishere 03:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it's referring to the specific title, then it's capitalized. If it is general noun, then no. Ex. 1: The pirate lords elected a new pirate king. Ex. 2: Elizabeth Swann was elected Pirate King of the Brethren Court. Clear as mud, eh? ;-) PNW Raven 03:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would love your opinion on a couple of HP articles I am starting to clean up (removing in-universe style). Specifically, Pansy Parkinson and Nymphadora Tonks. Could you have a look and let me know what you think? Thanks. Ccrashh 15:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to! I espcially think there needs to be one on Tonks (a character I love).PNW Raven 16:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Loved your edits. I knew after I spun that first section off this morning that you would edit the prepositional phrases. Heh. I cringed when I realized how many there were. I hadn't even begun to tackle the "role in the series" section, so I am glad you did so. Ccrashh 23

24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Prepositional phrases are evil and must be killed!!! J/K, but they do weaken sentences. However, they shouldn't always be elminiated. Anyway, I'll get to Pansy Parkinson in a bit. Keep up the good work!

Raven, please take care, when editing articles, to include proper spacing, spelling, punctuation and grammar. Your recent edit to Harry Potter, for example, contains spelling and spacing errors. Thanks... -FeralDruid 18:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, that is what happens when you edit while at work and you're attempting to avoid the boss . . .PNW Raven 19:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heheh.  :) -FeralDruid 22:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no absolute requirement to use the serial comma. From WP:MOS, "If the presence of the final serial comma does not affect ambiguity of the sentence (as in most cases), there is no Wikipedia consensus on whether it should be used." David Underdown 12:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should have worded it better. Someone kept deleting the commas and was telling me that British grammar NEVER uses serial commas, and I pointed out that Wiki, a British web site, lists it in its style guidelines. PNW Raven 13:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it looks like I took out your edits by accident. Please forgive me. Your re-edit was graceful. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! PNW Raven 02:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to watch out for wordiness. Some people might call that bloat. You write well, but its going to be important to keep it both neutral and encyclopedic. The writing here is fine, but maybe you can see how it rusn the risk of not being seen as encyclopedic. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, I am rewording someone else's "bloat" so the text will flow better, but I usually end up just stripping it down into my own style. I detest wordiness and preach against it, but I'm also trying to be sensitive to the spirit of what someone else has written. As you'll note, I had already overhauled that particular passage. I just couldn't make it work as it was originally composed and felt most of it was unnecessary detail. PNW Raven 19:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't watchlist your page, and missed your reply. I noticed your edits, and the only complaint I could make is that perhaps maybe we don't need to be so exactly, and can paraphrase events more, preserving brevity. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There can be too much brevity, in my opinion, to the point that the article basically says nothing about the plot and only mentions a few characters by name. Some of the articles were written more as a recap for those who have read the books, rather than for anyone who is unfamiliar with the story and wants information. Too much or too little info is undesirable, and finding a balance between the two is always difficult. PNW Raven 12:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The text in question is enclosed in <ref></ref> tags; it's displayed as a footnote. --Haemo 04:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of the ref tags was malformed; I've fixed it! --Haemo 04:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I figured it was something like that. I still have much to learn about the online coding. Thanks!!!PNW Raven 15:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm . . .well, I just checked, and it's still showing as "missing." Why is it doing that????? PNW Raven 15:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page has been nominated for deletion, please join the discussion here. Therequiembellishere (talk) 09:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for doing this! I was waiting for someone else to put this in - unfortunately some of the IPs fail to recognise the pamphlet's importance, as well as Rossio's words. So, I thought I'd drop in and say thanks for everything! Yours Truly, BlackPearl14^{Pirate Lord-ess of the Caribbean} 15:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to meet you. Well, it seems the right thing to do, as there are definitely conflicting accounts of what actually happens to Will, therefore, both scenarios should be posted, rather than writing what people "want to believe." I'll always err on the side of objectivity. I'm surprised, however, that Disney, Inc. wasn't more responsible about providing a definitive answer to this, but maybe they're saving that for a future sequel. PNW Raven (talk) 17:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This would make it a good reason for a fourth film. I hope that they'll give us something better to post up. BlackPearl14^{Pirate Lord-ess of the Caribbean} 23:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I noticed your comment on IP address: 70.106.102.56's talk page - I think the best thing to do is to contact an administrator about the situation, give him the IP address's talk page (copying and pasting the URL within a pair of brackets), giving him proof about what this IP has done, and your idea about the usage of more than one IP address, and he will look into it. I don't think telling the IP about his childishness is going to do anything - he or she may believe what they are doing is right and may have the same views about us. He or she may be trying to do things under good faith. Here are a few administrators you can contact, but if you need me to do it, do please let me know on my talk page ;)

Jéské Couriano - Jéské is a really nice guy who can really help out!

Discospinster - he's helped a couple times but beware: he won't respond right away ;)

If you need any more help, let me know on my talk page! BlackPearl14^{Pirate Lord-ess of the Caribbean} 00:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This person may believe what they are doing is "right", but refusing to give any explanation about why he/she is continually makes changes against others' opinions is unacceptable behavior.PNW Raven (talk) 20:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand that, which is why I provided you with the two administrators' talk pages. BlackPearl14^{Pirate Lord-ess of the Caribbean} 21:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do intend to contact one of them. Thanks for providing the info.PNW Raven (talk) 00:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Let me know if you need any more help ;) BlackPearl14^{Pirate Lord-ess of the Caribbean} 18:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--- All right, since the guy (or girl, whatever) didn't listen to our warnings, I contacted an administrator and he/she's been blocked. If it happens again I'll take care of it ;) BlackPearl14^{[talkies!•contribs!]} 00:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to see anyone get banned, but this person was certainly given more than an adequate chance to comply, so I have no sympathy for them. Thanks for looking into this. I did contact the admin you suggested, but he just told me to contact an administrator!PNW Raven (talk) 00:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haha! Yes, well, he's been blocked (our Liz Swann vandal) for 55 hours, so he should be on again. If it happens again, I'll just contact again. He'll keep being blocked for longer periods until he goes above and beyond the count. BlackPearl14^{[talkies!•contribs!]} 19:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are a big PotC fan, so why don't you come to our wikia, we are searching for more members as ther's much to add/improve in our wikia. Pirates of the Caribbean Wiki —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.62.76.15 (talk) 07:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I love PotC. I had no idea there was a Pirates wikia. I'll check it out. Thanks! PNW Raven (talk) 11:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, PNW Raven. I reverted you edits at Characters of His Dark Materials since they didn't add any information nor removed any errors. If you don't agree, feel free to redo them, but watch the spelling. I won't revert them again. Cheers! – Adrian Lozano (talk) 23:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello yourself. Sorry, but I have reverted my edits. I work on improving other editors' writing style, not just add new information or make corrections. If you look at my "guidelines" in the above "Jack Sparrow" section, you'll have a better understanding of my writing background. I hate clumsy prepositional phrases, particularly those that use "of." Feel free to fix any typos--I type way too fast. Thanks. PNW Raven (talk) 00:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen the Harry Potter FAC? A good faith nomination from an editor who hasn't worked on the article at all, as far as I can tell. As the main contributor to the article, you warrant notification, and if you feel it's not ready for a featured article review, there is precedent enough that your word would probably be enough to see it removed from the listing (though we'd have to check with the FAC delegate to be confirm this). Alternatively, you may be happy to let the nomination continue. In which case, fair enough, and we'll see you over there. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 14:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Sorry I didn't respond right away, my internet has been stupid for a little while. I'd bring it up here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism Or on the Administrator's Board. Just google "Administrators Wikipedia" and you should get there. Sorry this guy's being a pain - he just doesn't get it, does he? Haha :) If you need any more help, feel free to contact me on my page. Yours truly, BlackPearl14^{[talkies!•contribs!]} 17:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! This guys finally seems to "approve" of the last change I made, but I'm still going to report him. He was way out of line. PNW Raven (talk) 15:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I just wanted to say thanks for all of the edits you've been making to the Twilight articles! Keep up the great work. Andrea (talk) 16:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why thank you! I usually get yelled at. ;-) I try to specialize in streamlining others' text. Most editors have good content, but their writing gets too verbose. PNW Raven (talk) 22:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, yeh I reverted some changes of theirs to the Norrington article the other day. I'm certain that they[2] are the same person as this[3] who I continuously warned for vandalism of the exact same type on PotC and other related Keira Knightley pages earlier this year, until he got his final warning and ceased. This new account is already on its second warning, suggest you warn him (his final one) and I'll keep an eye on the situation too. One more strike after that and he's out. Tphi (talk) 22:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to apologize for what I have done. I'm sorry and it was wrong. Can you forgive me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.185.202 (talk) 05:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Hector Barbossa. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hector Barbossa. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Harry Potter has been rather inactive recently. I've been working on the Evanna Lynch article lately, and have based it off the featured article Emma Watson. I thought I'd ask if you would like to collaborate on the article, as part of a possible WikiProject revival. Leave your response at the article's talk page. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 11:34, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to apologize for my actions last year. I hope it is not too late to apologize. I didn't realize what a fool I was at the time. I am sorry for wasting your time and annoying you. I didn't mean to and I never meant any harm. I promise that I will never do so again. You have my word. I just want you to understand that I know I made a mistake and I apologize for it immensely. I never meant any disrespect to anyone. I am a nice person, I really am. I feel so bad for what I've done. I am greatly sorry for my stubbornness. 71.230.185.202 (talk) 21:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted! :-)

Thank you so much! 71.230.185.202 (talk) 07:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am currently working on getting Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows to be an FA and I would like your opinion on a new section that I just made to make sure it is professional and is of FA quality. Thanks, Guy546^(Talk) 20:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		For good work trimming and rewriting the plot of the new Pirates film. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Thank you. PNW Raven (talk) 12:11, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, it's not easy dealing with plots especially for early films when people decide to add the entire play by play and you have to condense it down to 700 words. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This proposal is converting into a task force. Feel free to join in. --George Ho (talk) 02:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Takes America/Seattle needs you. Please sign up to participate, and discuss a date and meeting location. And maybe volunteer to be the organizer. I've been tagging articles needing photos for Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Seattle, Washington. A lot of these articles need proper location data added to that they will appear on the Google map. Thanks! --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you seem to be more of a person who does movie plots so I would like to remind you of the TV episode guideline for list summaries. WP:TVPLOT suggests these summaries to be "approximately 100–200 words for each, with upwards of 350 words for complex storylines". Regarding your recent additions to Fargo (TV series)#Episodes, they might be pushing the limits, as those I added first were close to the 350 mark. I haven't and won't go behind someone and check exact numbers, but, when one summary takes up a whole screen on certain devices, I still wonder. — Wyliepedia 15:46, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't aware there was a word limit on TV synopsis.PNW Raven (talk)

If you wish to create/add to the episode articles themselves, that is possible. Those are more lenient/generous with summaries, like a film's article. Your talents might be better suited for those. — Wyliepedia 00:21, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thanks for all your copyediting on the Fargo episode summaries! Wyliepedia 03:47, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow!!!!! I'm overwhelmed. Thank you.PNW Raven (talk) 23:23, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Jack Sparrow for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.Forbidden User (talk) 18:02, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Now and Then (film) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• via limousine that is later co-opted to transport Chrissy to the hospital when she goes into labor).

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:25, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

I noticed that you wrote a lot on The Strain. I noticed that plot summaries for the first two episodes weren't filled in so I had a go at creating them, but I don't think that they were very good. Would you be able to have a look and improve them for me? Thanks. I think we do need to have something, maybe just something better than my effort is preferred. KrampusC (talk) 06:25, 21 September 2014 (UTC)C[reply]

Hi there. I'll take a look at it. I'm sure you gave it a good start and it just needs a little polishing. PNW Raven (talk)

Wow! Amazing job! Well done! KrampusC (talk) 09:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I tend to get a little obsessive about editing . . . You gave me a very good starting place. Keep it up.PNW Raven (talk)

You did very well. It looks a lot better now. I am not going to look now until I can find some way to watch episode 11 though. I don't want too many spoilers!KrampusC (talk) 07:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amusingly, some people keep trying to make it Zack instead of Zach. Don't they realise that it is Zachary and both nicknames are valid? Silly people. 08:22, 26 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KrampusC (talk • contribs)

Yeah, I don't get this at all. I may have to insert a note inside the editing saying not to change it!PNW Raven (talk)

I think that some people just like to argue. It is a bit of a silly thing to argue about though. It says everywhere that it is Zachary, yet just because FX got lazy and wrote it as Zack they suddenly think that Zach is wrong. I mean, you've got it as Zach on The Strain wiki, on TV Tropes, in the books, flipping everywhere - but one solitary page on FX saying Zack and they claim that that is the authority. I have a friend called Zachary and he generally goes by the shortened version Zac, but if you write Zach or Zack he does not care one little bit - you are the one shortening it, not him - his name is Zachary. Anyway, there are less concerns about the summaries. You are doing good work with them. Maybe just don't worry about people trying to pick a fight for the sake of a fight? KrampusC (talk) 15:59, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you feedback. I really appreciate it.PNW Raven (talk)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to The Strain (TV series) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• being arrested at the airport. Setrakian vows to halt the Master's plan to create a vampire army). Attorney and airplane survivor Joan Luss files a law suit against the airline while another

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:42, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you. --Lapadite (talk) 21:27, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

02:16, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

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) 16:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure your intentions are good but you've gotten Wiki's tense guidelines for fiction exactly backwards -- should be PRESENT tense; it's PAST tense that's considered In-universe. Please read the following per Wiki (I included link to an example of TV series earning Good Article/GA status):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Writing_better_articles#Tense

Works of fiction are generally considered to "come alive" for their audience. They therefore exist in a kind of perpetual present, regardless of when the fictional action is supposed to take place relative to the reader's "now". Thus, generally you should write about fiction using the historical present tense, not the past tense. (See WP:Manual of Style#Verb tense and WP:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction#Contextual presentation.) Examples:

Homer presents, Achilles rages, Andromache laments, Priam pleads. "Holden Caulfield has a certain disdain for what he sees as 'phony'." "Friends is an American sitcom that was aired on NBC."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Writing_about_fiction#The_problem_with_in-universe_perspective

The problem with in-universe perspective

Features often seen in an inappropriate, in-universe perspective include: Using past tense when discussing the plot or any of its elements (except backstory), rather than the historical present tense

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_articles/Media_and_drama#Television https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Season_4_(30_Rock) Mirawithani (talk) 02:57, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Liz Mair, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Republican Party (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Liz Mair photo from Twitter.jpeg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 13:59, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I put "Non-free content" because the various choices and the explanations were so confusing that I guessed at what I thought best fit. Please tell me what I should have chosen instead. This photo is the property of Liz Mair, it is her choice of what she wants used, and she has given her permission. I do not want to dispute anything but just use the proper criteria. I have never uploaded a photo or graphic to an article before, so this is new and confusing. Thank you. PNW Raven (talk)

See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Note that the copyright on a photograph is normally held by the photographer, and not the subject so permission from the subject might not be sufficient. -- Whpq (talk) 17:25, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The subject (Liz Mair) paid for the photo to be taken (as publicity shots), so she is the legal owner. Doesn't that give her exclusive control over how it is used? Thank you.PNW Raven (talk)

Since I am not privy to the details of the contract between the photographer and Liz Mair there isno way for me to answer that question. -- Whpq (talk) 18:17, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When I'm in D.C. this Spring, I will take a head shot photo of Liz and upload it as my own work. I'll also discuss with her about having the photographer uploading the disputed photo. Thanks for your assistance.PNW Raven (talk)

I've been emailing Liz Mair. She informs me that her photo is a "selfie." She is the photographer. I was under the wrong impression that she had someone take it of her. What do I need to do to verify this to Wikipedia's satisfaction, and show that she has given her permission for the photo to be used? I want to make sure I follow correct procedures. Thank you.PNW Raven (talk)

See the link above about donating copyright material. It still applies. Liz Mair needs to follow those instructions. -- Whpq (talk) 00:44, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 17:59, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, PNW Raven. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Liz Mair, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 00:44, 12 January 2019 (U

Thank you for the information. I would like to make clear that I have NOT written, edited, or contributed in any way to any of the textual content in the Liz Mair article, nor do I intend to. Everything was written by someone else. My contribution has been solely limited to helping with formatting the page with the new text (that I did not write) and adding the photo. I saw this as an opportunity to learn some new formatting skills, i.e. adding the info box, uploading a photo, etc. which I had not done before.

Other than being a Democrat (an org. that is mentioned in the article), I do not have any affiliation to, nor do I promote any person or organization listed within the article. I have a casual, non-professional acquaintance to Liz Mair, and I actually have opposite political views on most issues. Someone I know, who is aware that I'm a Wiki volunteer, suggested to her that I might be able to help update the page. I agreed to "format" the page as a volunteer, NOT to write or contribute to any of its content. As the new content appeared only to list factual information about the subject and was similar to other articles about persons in the public and political arena, I felt it was appropriate for the revised article. I have also encouraged the authors to expand and improve the overall content in a neutral and factual way to meet Wiki requirements.

I hope this clarifies matters. The only additional remaining task on my part is to add the photo (of which Liz Mair is the photographer). Can that be done without my violating any Wiki standards or Conflicts of Interest?PNW Raven (talk)

Thanks for uploading File:Liz Mair photo from Twitter.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:41, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I added the photo to the article to avoid it being deleted as an "orphan." Liz Mair has given permission for the photo to be used in the Wiki article. It is from her Twitter page. She is the sole owner and is the photographer (selfie portrait). I believe I incorrectly classified the photo when I was creating the photo file. This was my first time doing this, and the process was a bit confusing. I was "guessing" on some of the criteria. Whatever I need to do to correct this, I will happily comply.To reiterate, my only contribution to this article has been to format the page. I have not, and will not, contributed in any way to the editorial content.PNW Raven (talk)

Thanks for uploading File:Liz Mair Twitter Photo.jpeg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 15:28, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If Mair has provided a release of this image under a sufficiently free license, then this image should carry that license, as well as an OTRS ticket number that was issued when the permission email was sent. If the image is not under a free license, then it does not satisfy WP:NFCC#1 and will be deleted. -- Whpq (talk) 15:30, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know that Mair has provided a Consent form (I was cc'ed on the email), but I assume I posted the photo prematurely before getting info about the OTRS ticket number. I will follow up on this. I am finding the process extremely confusing but I want to make sure it is done properly.PNW Raven (talk) 01:06, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Photo of Liz Mair for the Liz Mair article.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:00, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Photo of Liz Mair for the Liz Mair article.jpeg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 20:41, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know what sort of permission has been stated in the email to OTRS, but the licensing as stated here using the image as non-free is not acceptable per WP:NFCC#1. -- Whpq (talk) 20:43, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whpq (talk) 12:29, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whpq (talk) 13:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you removing the water being knocked over and killing the alien together with the bashing. It's a major plot element that explains why the girl was placing glasses of water around the house. It's mentioned in many of the reviews and criticised, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 19:53, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for changing it but I'm not sure it's correct, the original version said that the alien was bashed into other glasses of water thus killing it rather than your version which implies the bashing with the bat killed it, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just re-watched the movie today on HBO. It's not the water that kills it, it's Merrill bashing it. The water seared its skin, injuring it. This probably helped Merrill to defeat it, but he, ultimately, was the deciding factor, though it's a bit ambiguous either way. I saw this (his power in using the bat) as a redemption of Merrill's failure as a baseball player. PNW Raven (talk) 20:07, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Natural (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New York (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:25, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello PNW. Your contributions to Rosemary's Baby (film) are useful. However, your multiple edits to this article are excessive. Please use the preview feature rather than making dozens of small/minor edits to the plot. AldezD (talk) 12:06, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	The plot section of The Princess Bride (film) was a confusing mess--your edits really improved it. Thanks for the work you put into this! HouseOfChange (talk) 15:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Hi. In the spirit of good faith I didn't want to make the edits without explanation. I can't understand the very heavy editing you've done to the page. Your approach seems very heavy-handed, particularly without a single edit summary or any recourse to a talk page. While it's fine to be Bold, I hope you'll be gracious in understanding the R and D in BRD, too. Thanks NEDOCHAN (talk) 23:38, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am restoring my version. What was there before was simply poorly written with clunky, verbose phrasing, with excessive and unnecessary detail which is typical of many WIKI movie and book summaries that attempt to retell the entire plot in an overly-long, rambling manner rather than giving a simplified synopsis.PNW Raven (talk)

I think BRD is pretty clear. You should take it to the talk page.NEDOCHAN (talk) 11:53, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added comments to the talk page under the "Plot summary edit?" section. BTW, you didn't make "edits," you just reverted to an earlier version wiping out everything I did because you were offended, and that is not "good faith." Obviously there were others who found the text to be a "confusing mess." PNW Raven (talk)

I think you and I have different definitions of 'discuss'. And it seems the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle is more ambiguous than I had thought. I thought you bold, me revert, we discuss. I'll make changes to your version. Farm girls don't give orders.NEDOCHAN (talk) 13:53, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say I was offended. And I have very much acted in good faith. NEDOCHAN (talk) 13:55, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can certainly make additional edits, but do not simply revert what I wrote, and I believe that it is Wiki policy that one editor cannot simply undo another editor's work without cause. I also acted in "good faith" to improve the article which definitely needed improving. I continually go over what I write to ensure it is correct or whether it can be written better or anything clarified. Also, the BRD is not mandated by Wiki, but is only a recommendation. However, I'm open to reasonable discussions, usually when the article is first being created and less so or not at all many years after it was written and there has been no recent discussion.PNW Raven (talk) 14:04, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's very gracious of you. It's clear I'm not the only editor to have advised a less heavy-handed approach, so there might be something that can be gleaned from what we're saying. Not sure robust declarations of infallibility are the best MO.NEDOCHAN (talk) 16:25, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed.PNW Raven (talk) 16:53, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1014871659&oldid=1014870233&title=The_Princess_Bride_(film) I am happy to explain why this version is better. NEDOCHAN (talk) 15:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See this: The tale is set in the fictional kingdom of Florin where a beautiful young girl named Buttercup lives on a farm.

First, it's about (and this is a plot summary) Buttercup, not Florin. Even if you think Florin is more important to the plot than Buttercup (in a film called The Princess Bride), you've used a defining relative clause, meaning that there would have to be another fictional kingdom of Florin where Buttercup didn't live on a farm. So that's the reason for that one.

It also seems a bit weird that having said how carefully and perfectly you edit, you're still making changes to your version.NEDOCHAN (talk) 15:37, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? It did not say the plot summary was "about" Florin," nor did it read that way. The story is about Buttercup AND Westley. I first identified the story's setting, then introduced Buttercup "by her name" as a character. It simply reads better that way, rather than the other choppy, wordy sentence structure. I reworded it to include her name without the " a beautiful young woman" and "who lives on a farm" and "in the fictional kingdom . . ." As it is now, it just clunks along and there is NO mention at all of Buttercup's name in the entire first paragraph! It is only "a beautiful young woman," or "her" or "she." Sorry, but your argument is unconvincing. She is also too young to be referred to as a "woman". As to changing my own edits, that is what I do. I NEVER write something and thinks it's just "perfect." It's a process. Also not necessary to add "extremely" debilitated. It is dead weight to the sentence. I have stated that I continually work to improve anything I write to simply, clarify, or better word the text. I changed "storming" because that usually indicates an entire army is attacking. I have also changed "woman" or "girl" to "maiden," as that would be the more familiar term for a young, unmarried female in this type of time period.

I hadn't previously noticed that Buttercup's name wasn't mentioned in that first paragraph when it should have been, so I added it and changed the wording to streamline the sentence. I always welcome others adding to my work, pointing out any errors or inconsistencies, smoothing rough edges, etc, but not reverting out of anger and revenge. Do not start an edit war. PNW Raven (talk) 16:31, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not warring, I am attempting to discuss. You make a clear grammatical error in the first sentence. It's not a defining relative clause. I can address every edit I have restored. You have to engage in discussion. As for saying she's not a young woman? That's ridiculous.NEDOCHAN (talk) 17:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I dispute your edit, I have reverted it in spite of your threats, so the next thing to do is discuss on the talk page in question. I have begun that discussion. If you don't engage in the discussion, then that would be warring.NEDOCHAN (talk) 17:32, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let be clear, there are NO threats, and I am offended you said that. I said "girl" was more appropriate than "woman" and "maiden" is better. You can fix a grammatical error, but that is not what you did. You simply reverted something back.PNW Raven (talk) 19:37, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Jack Sparrow for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. BloatedBun (talk) 10:44, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the work you did at Jurassic World Dominion. I made a few changes, mostly minor, but if you disagree with any of them, feel free to further modify. We can also start a discussion on talk (which might be good to have anyway for documentation). Cheers! --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:43, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review it. My only concern has been people keep adding more and more details with wordy sentences that add length to the overall article. Cheers!PNW Raven (talk) 10:16, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. That's always a problem! --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:33, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I made a few minor changes, but overall it looks okay.PNW Raven (talk)

Looks great! Thanks again! --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:54, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war at House of the Dragon. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

This is even more true in this case, where you are trying to change a previous version, and WP:BRD applies. Debresser (talk) 18:24, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm SounderBruce. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, West Seattle, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. SounderBruce 22:32, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]