User talk:PNW Raven
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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!
[edit] Captain Jack Sparrow
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)
- 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)
[edit] Kraken
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)
- 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)
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)
[edit] It Takes a Thief (2005 TV series)
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)
[edit] Edits to Mythbusters
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)
- 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)
-
- 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)
Obviously, the Brits are confused. ;-) PNW Raven 01:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can
[edit] Harry Potter
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)
[edit] Unblock IP address 67.150.222.84.
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.
[edit] WikiProject Harry Potter
RHB(AWB) 23:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC), on behalf of WPHarry Potter
[edit] Despite Lily's help, Snape is rude and ungrateful towards her.
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)
[edit] Advice
- 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)
[edit] Edits
Excuse me? I said, several times, that 'defence' was spelled with a 'c' not an 's'. That is hardly infantile. And when the word 'defence' is so spelled repeatedly throughout the article, you would expect anyone to see how it is spelled. So getting increasingly bad-tempered at those who seem to willfully ignore the obvious is hardly 'infantile'.
Also, a reminder: you, as well as Mr Reaves, would do well to check what changes have been made to an article before you edit it yourself. You keep letting vandalism and Americanisms slip through, causing problems for those who have to deal with them. Be more careful in future. Michaelsanders 02:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- Please comply with wikipedia policy, and sign your comments in future. Michaelsanders 02:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
(To: Michaelsanders)It would do you well to try and leave an edit summary (which you apparently have a hard time with) that explained your edits instead of merely leaving remarks that mark you as a bigot. John Reaves 02:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- It would be a good idea to address messages to the right talk page. Michaelsanders 02:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- And for the record, the 'blind American idiot(s)' remark was addressed chiefly to Mr Reaves, who has been here long enough to know that 1)HP articles use British spelling and 2)It is always vital to run a comparison of what changes have been made to an article before doing anything to it, to ensure that no vandalism has got through since you last looked (something you should try). He didn't do that, and in so doing, he not only allowed an unwanted piece of American spelling to slip through, but gave the impression that that was the required spelling for the article: thereby confusing the 'newby'. Reaves should know better than that. Michaelsanders 02:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- This all could have been prevented if you would bother with edit summaries. They're simple to fill out. Maybe you don't know how? Let me know if you need some help figuring it out. John Reaves 02:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- It's simple to write on the approprate user's page. This is the last comment I am writing here to you. Stop being so silly - if you have something to say to me, say it on my talkpage. As for Raven - unless you have anything else to say, I think we can end this chat now. Michaelsanders 02:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- What a hypocrite. John Reaves 02:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- It's simple to write on the approprate user's page. This is the last comment I am writing here to you. Stop being so silly - if you have something to say to me, say it on my talkpage. As for Raven - unless you have anything else to say, I think we can end this chat now. Michaelsanders 02:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- This all could have been prevented if you would bother with edit summaries. They're simple to fill out. Maybe you don't know how? Let me know if you need some help figuring it out. John Reaves 02:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- And for the record, the 'blind American idiot(s)' remark was addressed chiefly to Mr Reaves, who has been here long enough to know that 1)HP articles use British spelling and 2)It is always vital to run a comparison of what changes have been made to an article before doing anything to it, to ensure that no vandalism has got through since you last looked (something you should try). He didn't do that, and in so doing, he not only allowed an unwanted piece of American spelling to slip through, but gave the impression that that was the required spelling for the article: thereby confusing the 'newby'. Reaves should know better than that. Michaelsanders 02:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Michael, as far as I'm concerned, this chat ended a long time ago. Now if you'll excuse me, I have a lot more editing to do. PNW Raven 02:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Half-blood Prince
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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
[edit] Sirius Black
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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
Absolutely, I will do it! We'll be discussing it after I've worked on it.PNW Raven 00:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Cheating
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)
[edit] POTC 3
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)
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)