User talk:Lsommerer

Thanks for visiting my talk page. If you post here, I will reply here so the conversations don't get dis-jointed. If I have posted to your talk page, feel free to post your replies there...I'll watch.

Please click here to leave me a new message.

Welcome!

Tash

Your reversion with claim of vandalism on the Tash (fiction) page was unwarranted. If you'd bothered to look at the discussion page, you would have seen full justification for the removal. 68.100.18.183 10:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)RandomCritic.

Sorry about that. You can help me make fewer mistakes of that nature by including a brief edit summary when you edit an article. When material is deleted from an article by an anonymous editor without any reason given, it looks like vandalism to me. A brief reason for the removal would help or you could just use "see talk page". LloydSommerer 13:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Narnia

Ok. Thanks for the note. - Tεxτurε 18:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Narnia Criticisms

Looking around and comparing many contemporary authors to the The_Chronicles_of_Narnia entry and their treatment in Wikipedia, I am now of the opinion that the *only* criticisms which should be voiced are direct quotes with sources, much like the Lord of the Rings entry. If you look in the history and on the talk page for LOTR, many of the same accusations with no references or citations were made against Tolkien and promptly dismissed. Below the criticism section, there can be a praise section, but I think that the tit for tat is just amateurish and is getting out of hand. If someone comes and adds a new criticism, we can just request a direct reference as per Wikipedia:Verifiability. I think the easiest way to do this is with the tag. Some critics say CS Lewis was heard saying a swear word under his breath. <<Place this tag after the claim. If they don't back it up, remove it. What do you think? We need to get it dialed in before the entry gets flooded with looky lou's and people who are excited because of the film... Cyber Denizen ^talk

I agree. If something can't be cited/quoted then it really has no business being here at all. I think that should go equally for critisisms and rebuttals to critisism. My own preference would be to encourage brief, cited rebuttals immediately following critisisms (I don't think we'll se much more cited than is currently in the article). This would follow more along the lines of The Giver, Isaac Asimov and Chuck Palahniuk. I didn't do a large search; I looked at the featured articles under liturature for these examples.

I do understand the desire to do away with rebuttals altogether. Their mere presense will tend to encourage people to add to them or detract from them. My thought is that by sticking strictly to Wikipedia:Verifiability/Wikipedia:Cite_sources any additions will tend to be appropriate or quickly reverted. My own preference would be to use {{citeneeded}} rather than{{fact}}. Speaking as a new user, the former is easier for me to understand when I see it while editing.

Would it be appropriate to put an "note" similar/identical to:{{Unreferencedsect}}at the top of the critisism section? Not to say that references need to be added, but that any additions need to be referenced? Lsommerer 04:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

The only reason I cited Tolkien, was because he has received many of the same criticisms in the past and they were contemporaries - both British and both publicly Christian, as well as the obvious: they both had full length feature films made recently. I think it would be useful to use the template. Do you want to rewrite the section, or do you want me to? I won't be able to do any work until tomorrow or the next day, so if you have the time and energy go for it! Cyberdenizen 04:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I Didn't mean to imply that Tolkien isn't a good comparison. I left a message for UserOffkilter about removing the NPOV tag (she added it). But it could be awhile before she responds. I don't know what the etiquette is for removing the tag.

I'm pretty happy with the layout of the section since your rewrite. Presenting all of the critisisms of one type and then a response seems unbiased to me. It does need to be better written, and you're better qualified than I am to do that. Lsommerer 05:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

My intent wasn't to be heavy handed. Rather, I attempted to edit for sense, since some of the drafting was a bit sloppy, and to make the language more neutral. In regard to my comments in re Pullman (which I assume were the object of any concern), I felt it natural to include context given the attention being given to the critques from a vocally disdainful source. -- Light is Sown (12/13/05)

hi! THANK YOU for welcoming me!

Hi there. Nice to hear from you, thanks.

The movie drew me here, as well as (i'm sure) thousands of others.

As a prospective post-moviegoer coming to this site, I would have this question: "What is the Chronicles of Narnia? I want to learn more about this series."

I don't learn that with the article as it is now. I I dont mind the criticisms, but in the absence of real information about the series, it is too heavy. We need to have a "themes" section that describe in plain language the themes Lewis advocates. Too much of the article is focused on Pullman-esque counterpoints.

Your message was well received, and appreciated. I dont want to erase anything written here, I want to enhance it. Marshill 17:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Lutheranism

Thanks for the link to Closed communion. It could be that it is not as POV as I've seen. In my experience it's better to describe it and not worry about who thinks what term is more accurate. Adding the lnk is an improvement no mater the language used. LloydSommerer 23:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course, but you also have to consider that the way it is currently worded might be confusing to some people, and the term "closed communion", which it may have a certain connotation among some groups, is a familiar term to a lot of people. Anyway, I think it's good enough for now until someone else thinks of a better way to word it. Peyna 00:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Aslan

Hi,

Sorry it took so long to get back to you.

I agree that that quote might work better on the Aslan page, than on the current page. Feel free to move it.

Thanks

-M.

Narnia

I am not sure if you are aware, but each article must have it's own references. Judgesurreal777 20:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I read through the articles that had the 'reference needed' template, and they seemed to me to be based entirely on The Chronicles of Narnia series. Do you think that the fictional facts need references from the books? Each of the articles includes in the introduction that these are fictional characters/places/events/objects and the work of fiction that they are from. Are you looking for references to individual books in the series? To chapters from the books? Personally, if all of the information about a fictional thing is from that work of fiction then the article is referenced.

But maybe I'm misunderstanding you. There are some Narnia articles that have information that is not contained in the books, and I fully agree that those facts should each be cited. Several of us have worked hard to see that they were cited several months ago. LloydSommerer 00:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Clear from the texts?

The main issue I have with "It is clear from the texts that The Lion was the first book and that The Magician's Nephew was not" is that it states outright one point of view when clearly there are several, nuanced points of view here. I originally read Narnia a long time ago, but I do remember reading Magician's Nephew after A Lion and realizing that the former was a prequel, which is to say the action taking place in it was being related after A Lion (since it was published after), but took place beforehand. It is clear that Digory later became the owner of the house with the wardrobe, and there was also a thing involving the tree that was actually chopped down to make the wardrobe. Apparently not everyone agrees with the internal chronology here, but saying that the opposing POV is clear from the texts contradicts other parts of the article and other Narnia articles. Andre (talk) 18:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Dancing Lawn

Thanks for moving the article, I admire your efficiency as an editor! -- ben 17:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to write. Just trying to clean up some loose ends. LloydSommerer 22:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Lantern Waste

Hi Lloyd, thanks for your ongoing work with fixing the lists. You redirected Lantern Waste to the List of places, but I think Lantern Waste merits its own article, for being such an importance place in the series, with notable appearances in MN, LWW, and, if I recall correctly, LB. I just thought I'd mention this to you to see what you thought. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 21:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

BTW, if I could request you to respond on my own talk page, as I don't have the will to check all the users' talk pages on which I leave messages. Thanks! I know it's against your personal preference. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 21:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

(I'm going to post this here to so anyone who stumbles upon it knows the reply) From my point of view, any of the places listed at List of places in The Chronicles of Narnia could have their own article. I didn't use whether they should have their own article as the criteria for redirecting. I just looked at whether they currently have enough information to warrent an article. Personlly, I don't know what more you would say about it, but go for it.

It would be nice if we had a few model articles at the Project Narnia page. Maybe one for people and one for places. Something with premade sections so that people would know what sort of information to fill in. But that's another story... LloydSommerer 21:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

All right, I've reverted the article and copyedited it a bit. I agree, we need a standard article, but too many of our place articles are stubs. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 22:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Narnia edits

Hi, you caught me in the middle of a more extensive series of edits, and the result may have been to remove some of your changes. The edits are per your own recommendation (several months old as it is) on the Talk:List_of_Narnian_creatures page, something I only caught up to now. I hope we can discuss what to do with the dubious information, but I don't think the page can stand as it was. RandomCritic 18:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Your edits look great to me. Let me know when you're done and I'll change the "(LWW)" and such to links. LloydSommerer 18:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Chronicles of Narnia

How can you imply that the section describing the similarity between The Chronicles of Narnia and Christianity is not needed? You said the symbolism was too vague without an understanding of Christianity. Well that's why the comparison is so vital! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.177.144.122 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 12 August 2006 UCT.

Thank you for pointing out that paragraph. It was marked as needing a citation in February and should have been removed from the article a week afterwards. Obviously, that slipped through the cracks. It is to be removed, not because it is false, but because it is not cited. My own thought is that it presents valuable material that is better suited to the articles on the characters mentioned in the paragraph. LloydSommerer 18:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I think removing the spoilers from the general article was a good idea. Myopic Bookworm 09:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello?

Hi Lloyd, just checking in to see if you're on a wikibreak or something. The WP Narnia has been pretty dead for the last week or so, and we have work to do! Give me a shout on my talk page or the project talk page. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 19:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I'm still around nearly every day, but I can't seem to muster enough gumption to work on any of the bigger things that need to be done, and the smaller things seem to be getting attention now (more or less). I think my next project will be to try a extensive rewrite of a book page. LloydSommerer 03:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good, just wanted to make sure the project wasn't losing interest. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 03:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Citation style

Hey, I see you have changed the citation style on the C. S. Lewis page back to the Harvard reference style. No sweat, but I was just wondering what you feel the problem is with the cite.php style? I felt it was much easier to use and much more user friendly. I'm afraid I have to admit that I don't understand the Harvard style at all, and it seems quite an arduous task to add a reference, whereas before, one just placed it between the ref tags and forgot about it.

My main worry is that people will be put off adding references because of its complexity. Using the cite.php style, an editor unsure of how to add references could find out very simply by looking at an existing one - this is not possible with the Harvard style (at least as far as I can see). Also, the cite.php style seems to be in its ascendancy; it is certainly featured on the majority of the pages I have seen, and I am wondering if others have the same experience.

What were the problems with it you have identified? Where there any problems with its implementation on the Lewis page that changing back to the Harvard style has addressed?

Thanks for your time! :) Martin 00:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey Martin, First of all, nice work on the Lewis article. It really looks better since you've started working on it. Secondly, my information could be out of date. I looked at all(?) of the citation styles (cite.php, harvard, footnote2, footnote3) that were currently in use about a year ago, and haven't spent much time lately seeing if that information is still current.

About a year ago we had the sort of "problem" with The Chronicles of Narnia criticism section that C. S. Lewis has seen lately. Someone with more experience than I had pointed out that any information in the section needed to be cited and instead of simply deleting the info that wasn't cited I went looking for citations and eventually for citation methods.

Each of the citation methods had good and bad points, and I believe that cite.php will be the clear way to go before long. From reading the cite.php talk page it sounds like the author is aware of the things that people would like changed, has made the changes and is just waiting for the changes to be implemented at wikipedia. Here are the things that I don't like about the current implementation (others have expressed these better than I'm going to):

1. References must be embedded in the article. This makes it harder for casual users to edit articles. I realize that that isn't the case with the Lewis article references, but that is because our references were really just external links. They did not contain all of the other information that an actual citation should. Actual citations take-up multiple lines and really disrupt the flow of article editing, especially when they are densely packed. The right way to do it is to use one of the cite templates with cite.php.
2. Multiple citations of the same work are somewhat problematic with cite.php if you want to specify pages (which we should). This was a special consideration for the Narnia books where we would be citing the same text over and over.
3. The order of the citations in the reference section can not be alphabetical (has to be first to last).
4. You can't have a reference and notes section and use cite.php for both.

But all of these problems are being addressed, and so it won't be long before cite.php is the best choice. I actually chose harvard style over footnote3 because harvard preserves all of the information that will be needed once cite.php is "fixed". Changing to cite.php at that point should be very straight forward. There are times when Harvard style is superior because it is much easier to follow who is claiming what without jumping to the reference section every few sentences, but I don't think that is a problem with the Lewis article, and anyway this also looks like something that is also being addressed by the cite.php author.

Harvard style is obviously a lot more work than cite.php if you're just adding links, but for actual references the amount of work is much closer. Once you add the citation you have to add the link to it in the text, which is definitely more work, bit looking at an existing example should point people in the right direction.

My own inclination is that it is much more important to make editing easy than it is to make adding references easy. We do a lot more editing, and if someone is serious enough to find sources they will either (a) ask how to include them (b) lookup how to include them (c) just include them any old way and someone will come along and fix them later. LloydSommerer 21:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Narniaweb

That's fine with me, just wanted to acknowledge the link (as it was just removed from the external links section). I'll quietly go do a self-revert now… --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 22:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Narnian timeline

I posted this on Talk:Narnian timeline:

If we can find a source for this sentence "Thus, even though the timeline is not in canon, it is commonly accepted among experts and fans to have a bearing on the series," we might be good for being a FL! Can somebody find a citation for this?

You had acknowledged Lindskoog and Hooper on the talk page. If you have any sort of source for this, let's try to get it in fast while the FL nomination is still active. I'll be away for Thanksgiving. Thanks! --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 14:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

For my money, the lead and the Verifyability(sp) sections should be combined. I only have two Narnia commentaries in front of me now, but both of them (Schakel and Sammons) use Lewis' outline as published in Hooper. LloydSommerer 04:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe start out with something like this:

C. S. Lewis, author of Chronicles of Narnia, wrote the "Outline of narnian history" after he completed the series. He gave it in manuscript form to Walter Hooper, who included it in his essay, Past Watchful Dragons: The Fairy Tales of C. S. Lewis (Schakel 1979, p. 143). Some people --noteably (whoever) question the authenticity of other Lewis works published posthumasly by Hooper, but the validity of the outline has not been questioned.

Okay, I've merged it into the lead. Would you mind citing Schakel and/or Sammons? I'm anxious to boot this up to Featured status! --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 04:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! It feels good! Just waiting for FLs to get a weekly spot on the main page, now! --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 18:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Chess

Hi Lsommerer and thank you for reading the article I am just rewriting. My English is horrible so I very much welcome help of a native speaker. Could you please read the section about history, too? Cheers, --Ioannes Pragensis 19:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi again - please could you explain me reasons for removing "and mind sport" from the intro? Chess has its own Olympiades and many tournaments and matches, so it is usually defined as a sport.--Ioannes Pragensis 15:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I think this is a language issue. The closest English phrase to "mind sport" is probably something like "competitive game". Or to put it into the article:

Chess is an abstract strategy board game for two players that is played both recreationally and competitively.

I didn't understand what you meant by "mind sport" without the explanation above. Would this new wording work for you? LloydSommerer 16:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I will rely on your language feeling. My own English is horrible :-) --Ioannes Pragensis 18:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Your recent edits to Chess

Nice work. --Dweller 15:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Rowling/Narnia

This isn't much, but I found a Sarasota Herald Tribune article that references Narnia's influence on Rowling. There's also this interview with the Sydney Morning Herald (hosted on Angelfire, so maybe not a valid source), where Rowling states, "... Generally there isn't much humor in the Narnia books, although I adored them when I was a child. I got so caught up I didn't think C.S. Lewis was especially preachy. Reading them now I find that his subliminal message isn't very subliminal at all ..." It's interesting how her own quotes seem to contradict -- I also found the one where she states she hasn't finished them, as well as the one where she states she'll still read one of the Chronicles if she finds herself in a room with one. Jpers36 21:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

C. S. Lewis GA nomination

Hi, I'm just letting regular contributors to the C. S. Lewis article know that its good article nomination is on hold until more references are added to the article. We have two weeks to bring the article up to the required GA standards. If you can spare some time, it'd be great if you could add some references to the article, and hopefully improve its chances of becoming a Good Article. If you know of any other editors who would be interested in helping out, please let them know. Cheers, Martin 18:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Narnia: Cast of Characters

To whom it may concern, I have changed the Narnia page on Wikipedia. And I would like to know, what copy do you have? Because you see, every copy I have ever seen has a Cast of Characters, and I must say I have more then one copy. I do not see how you don't have it, unless some printing error or something was over looked. As I must say again every copy has a list of Characters at the beginning. After the map, and before the first page. Please check again, and if there are anymore problems contact me, or go to a nearby library.

Yours in Business, Noelle101

I have a 27th printing of the "First Collier Books Edition from 1970" and a 38th printing of the "First Scholastic printing, January 1995". They don't have a Cast of Characters. Does the copy you have at home have one? Personally, I can't recall ever seeing one. LloydSommerer 23:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Lady of the Green Kirtle

Hi. I'm not sure I understand what you were asking about stubs relating to the antagonist from The Silver Chair. Please enlighten me! I'm new to the Narnia Project, and haven't quite caught up on the appropriate modus operandi. Roundelais 19:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey. I was just suggesting that after you change to the more appropriet entry "title" that it would be good to add something like

Emerald Witch: see Lady of the Green Kirtle

Or something like that so that people can find the entry even if they are looking for the other name.LloydSommerer 12:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't redirects make more sense than stubs in that case? Roundelais 16:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. Can you show me an example of how you would do it? LloydSommerer 00:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning things up

I stumbled upon this page while browsing through Prince Caspian and more. The character descriptions was a complete mess. I did some editing and noticed that you already cleared up a lot of the typos and mistakes. Thanks for cleaning things up.

Paul UTC (+8) 05/16/2008 09:50 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pochiangpchen (talk • contribs) 01:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

List of Narnian creatures

Thanks for helping to keep tabs on this. The entire article has become pretty rife with opinion and information concerning the films rather than the books. I've considered sweeping the article and adding citation needed tags wherever necessary, then gradually finding the appropriate references in the books. However this would be a pretty large job for one person, if I were to do this would you be interested in helping out (or do you know any others who might)? S. Luke 01:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Template:Narnia

Dear Lsommerer why can the titles of the books in Template: Narnia are not simply in the order as the story goes, instead of in the order in which they are written? Tim Auke Kools (talk) 18:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The consensus here among editors seems to be that the publication order is the way to go. The discussions are archived on The Chronicles of Narnia talk page. I think you'll find that most series here are presented in the order that they were published (as opposed to the order they were written in or the internal chronology). Apart from the consistency this gives, it also touches on treating fiction from a "real world" perspective rather than than a "in story" perspective. For some editors I'm sure this touches on the "reading order" aspect of the question, but I don't think that is key to the issue. LloydSommerer (talk) 22:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Shall I tell you something which nobody who works on English Wikipedia knows? Tim Auke Kools (talk) 18:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Narnia

I just thought that there was an overemphasis on the negative aspects of the series. You can remove it if you want, though.--CyberGhostface (talk) 16:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

List of Seychellois people

No, all articles on Wikipedia--and lists are articles, make no mistake--are supposed to be in some way factually verifiable, and a list of random names without even the slightest nod in that direction are wildly against core policy and ordinary common-sense, and practically speaking an open invitation to abuse. The standard burden of proof or evidence on Wikipedia is not on those removing content, but on those adding it: this is core policy.

The above comment is in response to a note of mine on CalenderWatch's Talk page. I'll respond there. LloydSommerer (talk) 21:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

My edit summary ('remove unlinked entries and one outright fraud') was descriptive and perfectly accurate, as what I did was remove unlinked entries and one outright fraud. That you were unable to understand it or recognise the obvious applicable guideline and/or logic underlying it--indeed, I'd call it common-sense--is a reflection more on you than on me. If there's any mistake, you've made it, and a long pointless lecture highlighting that and blaming me for your not recognising that is counter-productive at best.

As for your peculiar suggestion of leaving a listing of random names up, perhaps perpetually, in hopes that some editor someday will provide citations is rather silly: there's not the slightest evidence that suggests that the people even exist, let alone whether the claims about them are accurate and that the people further rise to the level of 'notable'. As long as you like quoting text, here's something to consider: The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. One of those entries is an outright fraud--I was following up on it, which is how I found the page in the first place--which automatically, as far as I'm concerned, makes the entire list doubtful. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 23:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Your edit summary does not reflect the rational you give above for the deletion. Citations templates are usually employed with dates so that you or other editors can delete items when references have not been found after some nebulous "reasonable time". I think you might be getting too worked up over this. I'm just suggesting that we can do this in a way that improves the good parts of the list. LloydSommerer (talk) 23:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/Narnian timeline

Hello. Just notifying you that the objections on the FLRC have not been addressed, and I've added commentary as well to the FLRC. Regards, — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 07:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Narnia differences

Very nice update to the Dawn Treader text differences. I had said that they didn't look like corrections, but in the context you supply obviously they are. Harper Collins again shows its thick-headedness in discarding them. Elphion (talk) 03:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Emerald Witch?

See changes to Eustace Scrubb and Ramandu's Daughter. Elphion (talk) 20:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Narnia (reading order)

Why do feel that sentence is unnecessary?? *Something* needs to stands against Collins' caving in to Gresham's nonsense. Elphion (talk) 03:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Originally my edit was just going to try to remove some awkwardness between that sentence and the rest of the paragraph, but it looks to me like the next sentence pretty much says the same thing. I always thought of it as Gresham caving in to Collins nonsense. LloydSommerer (talk) 11:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Collins don't care care about the integrity of these books; they've made that clear many times over. If Gresham hadn't pushed them to change the order (and the quote is attributed to him, after all), they never would have bothered. I'm restoring the sentence; it needs to be clear that there is no other evidence behind the Collins blurb. Elphion (talk) 20:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I did a fairly big rewrite of the section (well, mostly just moving things around, and I hope you'll agree that it is now clear that they based their decision on that quote. LloydSommerer (talk) 01:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh! you *have* been busy. Yes, a definite improvement, with excellent references -- and references are exactly what this section has sorely needed. (But surely Doris Meyer's "lessons the impact" should be "lessens the imapact"?. Also, I'd toss an apostrophe into "disagree with Harper Collins decision" -- but just where, I'll let you decide!). Elphion (talk) 03:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

my apologies

Hello Lsommerer,

Thank you for your diligent work on the Lutheranism article. Please forgive me for making recent edits without providing edit summaries. I am brand new to editing wikipedia and am still largely unaware of the rules. I am sorry that I missed my opportunity to communicate the purpose of my recent revisions. I am beginning to study up on the protocols and will try to be more respectful of others' work in the future. Please know that the changes I made were intended to alter articles that show a strong bias in their portrayal of a Lutheranism with which many Lutherans would not agree or perhaps even recognize (e.g., articles on The Bible and on Judgment). There are also far too many biblical citations used in a machine-gun-like proof-texting ad nauseum.

What would you suggest as to a means to balancing these articles with a more neutral point of view? Thank you for any feedback you would be willing to offer. Mystichiker (talk) 00:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

No worries. There is a fair amount to editing on Wikipedia that is only obvious after you've been doing it for a while. You know about edit summaries and talk pages now. No one worth worrying about will hold it against you as you learn by doing around here. LloydSommerer (talk) 01:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Lsommerer, thanks for your recent help with the Sola Scriptura and Lutheranism articles. If you have any particular thoughts or concerns, feel free to mention them.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Narnia Music

Hello. The Steve Hackett Song "Narnia" mentions many plot elements from _The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe_. You can see the lyrics here:

http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/steve_hackett/narnia.html

Of course, it's only four minutes long. I don't know if it counts as a retelling.

I'd like to see this work mentioned in connection to Narnia. It was largely what persuaded me to read the series, after I tried _Out of the Silent Planet_ and didn't like it. It was a hit song during my college years and remains one of my favorite pieces of music.

If it doesn't count as a retelling, I understand. In that case, if a new WIKI page is created where mention of this song would be appropriate, please let me know. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stickmaker (talk • contribs) 17:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

There was a section on The Chronicles of Narnia page where we kept this sort of reference. Once upon a time the Narnia in Popular Culture was much larger. Eventually it became too large and was spun off into its own article. The a while later it ws decided that such an article was not noteworthy (or maybe it was not encyclopedic, I forget) and it was deleted altogether. Well, not altogether, I saved a copy[1]. In fact, I see that there was an entry for Steve Hackett's song. Oh well, so much for the history.

The song is not really a retelling, but currently there's only one song reference in the Pop Culture section. We don't want that section to grow out of control, but two references seems better to me than one. I'd say add it there. LloydSommerer (talk) 01:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Defense against speedy deletion

I would be grateful if you would look at the article and confirm its merit. I explained on the Discussion page that I composed the article in a word processer, and then cut and pasted it onto Wikipedia. It does not deserve deletion; it is well footnoted from worthy courses. Hymnlover (talk) 18:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)hymnlover 5-13-10

Which page? LloydSommerer (talk) 19:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The Chronicles of Narnia

I am preparing to restore my changes. The article does not indicate 47 languages. The citation even pulls the quote: "The seven books of Narnia have sold more than 100 million copies in 30 languages, nearly 20 million in the last 10 years alone". So unless you have a different source that indicates 47 languages, my edit should remain. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I think we're just looking at two different references. You're reading the first reference in the The Series section and I'm looking at the third reference in that same section. This third reference was added in the last few days. Take a look at it and let me know what you think. LloydSommerer (talk) 03:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for defending my new source for 47 languages in The Chronicles of Narnia which I submitted on 20:55, 6 September 2010. And for truly improving this reference by opening it directly to "Foreign Editions" page. I am happy having been able to replace some obsolete information and to share something new - especially the pictures of the foreign covers. But I was surprised that you rejected the rest of my contribution - for me the main part. You wrote: I'm not sure the months add anything to the lead, and our references only support seasons in any event.

It seemed to me that the dating by seasons is not precise enough, a little to vague and at times even incorrect or confusing. Prince Caspian? Who would guess that "completed in the Fall 1949" really means "after Christmas"? The Dawn Treader? That "completed in Winter of 1950" means "in February of 1950"? The last statement certainly is correct but not many people are aware that in every year we have two winter seasons - one at the beginning and one at the end of the year. Dating by seasons is also even more confusing for people living in the Southern Hemisphere. For young Brasilians, South Africans, Australians our seasons appear upside down.

If I would submit my contribution again, could I expect it now to be accepted? The first time I felt I had just collected common knowledge, that references certainly were not needed. But now I have just finished collecting the precise references and inserting them there at every completion date. Vincas:talk talk) 16:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.239.6.40 (talk)

Do you have a source for the more exact completion dates? The seasons are from Paul Ford's Companion to Narnia. My understanding was that it's a little difficult to tell just when Lewis was finished writing them. LloydSommerer (talk) 21:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

It was quite easy four years ago, when I copied them for myself from Green-Harper's C.S. Lewis: A Biography to complement Paul Ford's Companion (I keep an enlarged copy of p.464 at hand). It was more difficult now, looking for the exact references, because the size of print of Green-Harper's Biography is for my eyes to small. (talk) 23:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The Chronicles of Narnia

You and I seem to have the same interest. I am "planning" on fixing up the Chronicles of Narnia to a good article status and maybe other articles in the future. I have placed part of it on a sandbox fixing up or cleaning up what's on there. I am all open on the sandbox's talk page about suggestions on how to improve. And you seem to got a few book sources on your userpage. Those might be some use too. At the end hopefully the goal is to have everything sourced (except the plot of course). Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 17:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Narnian timeline

The article Narnian timeline has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Violates WP:JUSTPLOT. Potential WP:COPYVIO in reprinting the timeline.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Fayenatic (talk) 19:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey. Just so there's no hard feelings, I would like to extend a hand on the Narnia timeline issue. I'm perfectly happy with the timeline being gone. But for your sake, there may be a home for a shorter summary at the Narnia (world)#History article. The key is it wouldn't be a reproduction of the timeline, in whole or in paraphrase. We would take a few key dates from the timeline and cite them in the context of the overall history. I know you mentioned that the timeline doesn't really focus on important events anyway... it misses some important dates, and overemphasizes others. That would be consistent for a solution that myself and a lot of other editors could live with. I'm willing to reach out and try to find a way that would make you feel maybe a little less bitter about the article being deleted. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I was working on ways to do that a few days ago. I'll put what I was thinking up shortly. LloydSommerer (talk) 12:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to have left you hanging. Been a busy month for me IRL. I took the liberty of condensing the timeline, to keep it from reproducing the exact same information in the copyrighted work, even in slightly different words. If you feel that I've been too brutal, I don't mind if you re-add some of the information. The normal editing process tends to be good for this stuff. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Halloway's detasseling pictures

Could you provide evidence of permission to relicense File:Detasseling machine in field.jpg and File:Detasseler carrier in seed corn field.jpg from Halloway's? I was going to move the file to Commons but noticed that there is no permission to copy from the website, just "Feel free to use this website for any information" on the home page. --Closeapple (talk) 09:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I contacted Matt Holloway about using those pictures, and explained to him that to use them on Wikipedia he would need to release them with one of the creative commons licenses. He picked one and asked me if I could upload them. I thought that at the time there was some indication of all of this on the file page, but I can't see that in the history. There was not a "feel free to use..." notice on his website at the time. I imagine he added that after he quit detasseling.

Unfortunately, I can't seem to find any of the emails that we exchanged about this, nor do I have a current email address for him. Sorry to be so unhelpful. LloydSommerer (talk) 03:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Come to the First Topeka Meetup, January 15!

Come celebrate Wikipedia Day with other Kansas Wikipedians sponsored by Wikimedians Active in Local Regions in the United States (WALRUS) and hosted by the Topeka and Shawnee Public Library. Come chat, hang out and enjoy good company while find out more about Wikipedia in our regional community! RSVP at Wikipedia:Meetup/Topeka/Wikipedia_Day.

If you can't come, but still want to find out about events in the greater Topeka region (which may include KC, Manhattan, Lawrence, Salina, or other places where volunteers are interested) sign up for future notifications at Wikipedia:Meetup/Topeka/Invite list.

Hope to see you there Sadads (talk) 20:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Seed corn field after germination.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Seed corn field after germination.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 21:28, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Also File:Detasseling machine in field.jpg and File:Detasseler carrier in seed corn field.jpg. —Bkell (talk) 21:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Ramandu's daughter

My recent edit of Lilliandil does not imply that I think that should be the primary article. I generally don't deal with moving articles; I'll leave that to you. -- Elphion (talk) 22:53, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

(In case you're not following Ramandu's Daughter, that was recently moved to Lilliandil.) -- Elphion (talk) 22:59, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Planet Narnia

He added a redirect page, which he intends to make into a full article. (But you're right, there's no particular reason to do it in that order.) -- Elphion (talk) 01:01, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Lsommerer. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Lsommerer. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Lsommerer. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Infobox Narnia character

Template:Infobox Narnia character has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox character. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:WikiProject Narnia/Sandbox/PeterTest

Wikipedia:WikiProject Narnia/Sandbox/PeterTest, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Narnia/Sandbox/PeterTest and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:WikiProject Narnia/Sandbox/PeterTest during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Gonnym (talk) 22:58, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:NarniaAbbreviations

Template:NarniaAbbreviations has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Izno (talk) 01:46, 18 June 2023 (UTC)