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! 

Contents 1 Captain Jack Sparrow 2 Kraken 3 It Takes a Thief (2005 TV series) 4 Edits to Mythbusters 5 Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can 6 Harry Potter 7 Unblock IP address 67.150.222.84. 8 WikiProject Harry Potter 9 Despite Lily's help, Snape is rude and ungrateful towards her. 10 Advice 11 Edits 12 Half-blood Prince 13 Sirius Black 14 Cheating 15 POTC 3 16 Jack Sparrow 17 Pirate King 18 Opinion, please 19 Spelling and grammar 20 Serial commas 21 Potter edits 22 Re: Harry Potter 23 WikiProject Harry Potter roll-call 24 Brethren Court 25 Elizabeth Swann - on Will's freedom

[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

Hello, PNW Raven. Over at WikiProject Harry Potter we're trying to compile a list of active participants. Your name, along with all other project participants, has been placed on the inactive list. If you'd like to get involved again, please place your name back on the active list, and take a look at the project talk page for the latest happenings.	Image:Dumbledore.jpg

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

[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)

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

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)

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.

[edit] Jack Sparrow

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

I do say so! All the time, but in a nice way. I give comments (to everyone) like "improved the text flow," or "reworked prepostional 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)

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)

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)

[edit] Pirate King

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

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)

[edit] Opinion, please

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)

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)

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!

[edit] Spelling and grammar

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)

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)

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

[edit] Serial commas

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)

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)

[edit] Potter edits

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Re: Harry Potter

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

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

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)

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)

[edit] WikiProject Harry Potter roll-call

[edit] Brethren Court

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

[edit] Elizabeth Swann - on Will's freedom

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)

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)