User talk:Rothorpe/Archive 5

Hiromi Uehara
Thank you, Rothorpe, for the pronunciation guidance on Talk:Hiromi_Uehara.—Blanchette (talk) 10:06, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome---Rothorpe (talk) 11:44, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Formatting question
A quicky, are "Oxford commas" a good thing or not? --  Cassianto Talk    11:29, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, this is a tribal one! But I say: put them in if they clarify, which is sometimes, and leave them out otherwise, which is usually. Rothorpe (talk) 11:38, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, so if my sentence starts: "In 1907, Lloyd toured the provinces..." would I be best to leave the comma out? --  Cassianto Talk    11:43, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * What do you think? (That's not an Oxford comma, by the way, but the principle is the same.) Rothorpe (talk) 11:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I think its ok and I have never had anybody complain about my use of this comma. I have seen some editors use this comma but others not. It was this that caused me to incorrectly call it an Oxford comma.  --   Cassianto Talk    11:59, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Aha! No, I agree with you, I think those commas are helpful. Rothorpe (talk) 13:09, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * ...Since when I've discovered that leaving out that comma is normal American usage. I still like them. Rothorpe (talk) 20:33, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Is it? I didn't realise that was the American way. So presumably using them is BritEng is it? It looks strange in an article that only uses them sometimes though. --  Cassianto Talk   15:46, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, one must be consistent. But it seems they use fewer than we do. In particular you often see them missing after a parenthetical phrase: Name Person lived in Town, State, without a comma after the state. Rothorpe (talk) 17:39, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Formatting
Notwithstanding our difference of opinion about "currently", while reading your notes on formatting I found myself cheering out loud, especially when I got to the Bit about Excessive Capitalisation. Keep up the good work. Regards, Ground Zero | t 01:09, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for your kind note. I am currently very pleased. Rothorpe (talk) 12:24, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Improving sentences in John the Evangelist article
I need to ask you for your advice on the best way to improve a sentence in the article "John the Evangelist". (I read a lot of articles, just clicking on links and then more links, and just came across this article.) When I come across a sentence that just doesn't sound right (or has obvious mistakes), I can usually figure out by myself the best way to express the intended ideas, but on this one I need another opinion.

In the section headed "The Bible," iin the 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence, it reads, "In the Gospel the two brothers are often called after their father "the sons of Zebedee" and received from Christ the honourable title of Boanerges, ie "sons of thunder" (ref.).

Does that sound all right to you? If it does, I'll leave it as it is. To me, it sounded a little strange. I wondered if (a) I should add commas around "after their father"; and (b) whether I should change "are often called, after their father, "the sons of Zebedee" to an adjective clause (following a comma), "who are often called, after their father, "the sons of Zebedee," so the sentence would read: "In the Gospel the two brothers, who are often called, after their father, "the sons of Zebedee," [delete the "and"] received from Christ....." or: change "are often called after their father "the sons of Zebedee" into a participial phrase:

"In the Gospel the two brothers, often called, after their father, "the sons of Zebedee," received from Christ......" or, possibly, re-arrange the second phrase, "received from Christ the honourable title of Boanerges, ie "sons of thunder" so that it parallels the first clause: "In the Gospel the two brothers are often called......  and ..........., an honourable title given to them by Christ."

I also wondered about the next sentence, too. (...were fishermen and fished....). I also had a question regarding the first sentence: isn't ie. usually preceded and followed by a comma? I would enjoy hearing your opinion (if you can follow what I was trying to say).CorinneSD (talk) 21:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The first sentence seems fine. Why add a whole lot of punctuation if it reads OK? On second thoughts, though, a change of word order... Rothorpe (talk) 21:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree about 'fishermen and fished', so put in a comma. I suppose 'i.e.' always has to have a comma before it; not sure about after it. No, I wouldn't put one in there, though I daresay some would. Rothorpe (talk) 21:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your thoughts. I just fixed the first sentence and made a small change in the second sentence.  Upon looking at them again after a day or two, I saw right away how I needed to change them.  I guess after a long period of time editing I get tired and sometimes the best phrasing doesn't come to me immediately, but if I leave it for a day or two and then go back to it, I can see how it needs to be changed.CorinneSD (talk) 22:25, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, recharging is good. No deadlines here. Rothorpe (talk) 22:41, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

John Gilmore (musician)
Hi Rothorpe,

I reinstated the info box on the John Gilmore page (although I did not delete it - my edits were merely adding links to album articles) - plus I added a few references that indicate exact dates of birth and death - hopefully this will ensure it remains in place as I think these infoboxes are essential. Cheers! DISEman (talk) 00:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * No, you certainly didn't delete it - it was an IP who did that. Thanks for the restoration - it looks fine. Regards, Rothorpe (talk) 13:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: George Harrison
This is a note to let the main editors of George Harrison know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on May 4, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director or one of his delegates (,, and ), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/May 4, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

George Harrison (1943–2001) was an English musician, singer, and songwriter who achieved international fame as the lead guitarist of the Beatles. By 1965 Harrison had begun to lead the other Beatles into folk rock through his interest in the Byrds and Bob Dylan, and towards Indian classical music through his use of the sitar on "Norwegian Wood (This Bird Has Flown)". He developed an interest in the Hare Krishna movement and became an admirer of Indian culture and mysticism, introducing them to the other Beatles and their Western audience. Following the band's break-up in 1970, Harrison released several best-selling singles and albums as a solo performer, and in 1988 co-founded the platinum-selling supergroup the Traveling Wilburys. A prolific recording artist, he was featured as a guest guitarist on tracks by Badfinger, Ronnie Wood and Billy Preston, and collaborated on songs and music with Bob Dylan, Eric Clapton and Tom Petty, among others. He also organized the 1971 Concert for Bangladesh with Ravi Shankar, a precursor to later benefit concerts such as Live Aid. Harrison was also a music and film producer, founding Dark Horse Records in 1974 and co-founding HandMade Films in 1978. UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit reversion
Hi, I noticed that you made a good-faith reversion of my edit in the article Joyce Carol Vincent, but because your User-page asserts you're big on copyediting and grammar, I am uncertain why you reverted my edit. The sentence ended in a preposition; a major (though often broken in spoken and colloquial English) is that we do not end a sentence with a preposition. The sentence ended "...for reason they were unsure of." I'm not sure how the "of" benefits the sentence, nor understand how its absence could detract from the meaning. So, why should it be included? Boneyard90 (talk) 14:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Who was it said 'a preposition is a bad word to end a sentence with'? Churchill? Anyway, you get the point: sometimes it's the right word. They were unsure of the reasons: the 'of' is required grammatically. However, I do see your point, and tried to think of a more elegant rephrase, so far without success... Rothorpe (talk) 14:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * '...reasons of which they remained unsure' avoids the final preposition, so I changed it to that. Rothorpe (talk) 14:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Question
Is it acceptable to start a sentence with a conjunction? "...the boy planned a visit to the circus with his aunt. But a combination of bad weather and tiredness, caused the boy to stay at home." I think not. --  Cassianto Talk   18:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Forbidding it encourages kids to write longer sentences, which may be one reason teachers do it. But compare your example, with the full stop and capital, with the comma alternative. With the break you get a pause, and if you want that effect, I think it's fine, more emphasis on the contrast; without it you get one flowing sentence, and you may prefer that. So I say, why constrict with unnecessary rules? I'd remove the comma after 'tiredness', though. Anyway, thanks for asking. - Just noticed I started a sentence with 'But'! Rothorpe (talk) 20:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ha, yes I noticed that too. Thank you, I shall amend my review I am doing. Incidentally,  I watched BBC Breakfast this morning and saw a chap called Neville Gwynne talking about his new book.  It was fascinating to watch, and I have since ordered a copy. A victim of advertising, or willingness to learn? The latter obviously! --   Cassianto Talk   20:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Certainly—and a beneficiary of useful advertising, let's hope. Rothorpe (talk) 20:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Trump
Thank you for your exceptional edits on Judd Trump. Keep up the good work. Spc 21 (talk) 17:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * And thank you! Rothorpe (talk) 17:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Disappearance of Madeleine McCann
Hi, in view of your psst interest you may wish to chip in to this new debate. I'm on my uppers in real life and not able to do any real analysis for some days. Thanks. TerriersFan (talk) 02:12, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * By an amazing coincidence I clicked on the McCann page for the first time for ages just as the new notification service announced your note. Thanks, I'll go and have a look now. Sorry to hear of your circumstances. May they soon change. All the best, Rothorpe (talk) 02:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the influence of the 2013 Cleveland, Ohio, missing trio. I agree about the family and friends section being too much too soon. Rothorpe (talk) 00:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Birthdate
I removed the birthday from Ravi Shastri because there's no reference verifying it in the article. WP:BLP says that all private information like that must be explicitly sourced or it cannot be included. However, if it's in one of the other sources (I didn't see one that seemed promising, though I didn't read through all of them), please feel free to re-add and put the reference immediately after the birth date. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:32, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * OK. Many thanks for the explanation. Rothorpe (talk) 00:23, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

RS comment
Hi. If it wouldn't be too much trouble, could you comment at this discussion regarding a source's reliability? It involves a self-published source's use in a featured-BLP article. Dan56 (talk) 01:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Greetings and... referencing/AGF/BLP
Greetings Rothorpe. Am getting in touch with you re the supposed passing away of Johnny Smith, as I see you visited the page earlier. The two IPs who have posted the "news" did not provide any reference supporting their claim, and I have just checked the websites of two leading US papers and two UK papers, as well as Reuters, and there is not any mention whatsoever. So I reckon we need to strictly apply WP:BLP. Regards, --Technopat (talk) 16:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was expecting either confirmation or revert... Probably true, though. Thanks for the note. Rothorpe (talk) 17:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * A reference has since been added :) (although I'm actually not too happy about reliability: "According to what I have read..."). Regards, --Technopat (talk) 18:12, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Let's hope we get to read it too. Cheers, Rothorpe (talk) 18:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Evelyn Glennie
Hallo. Just a quick pointer, that this info is actually sourced lower down, in her "Television appearances" section (1 wellsourced, 1 badly (but I'm going to ignore it because it's beautiful ;) ). However I do agree that the mention wasn't warranted in her "Personal life" section, so it doesn't need to be reverted back. That's all :) TTFN, –Quiddity (talk) 18:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Actually I removed it because it was unpunctuated and unformatted and generally hideous. So 'unsourced' was a bit of a euphemism. Rothorpe (talk) 19:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

S' v. Es's
A conversation is underway over on Tim's talk page on a subject which I'm sure would interest you. --  Cassianto Talk   23:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, many thanks. I'm glad it's been changed to Thomas's. Never before have I seen the usage so clearly stated. Cheers, Rothorpe (talk) 23:55, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you so much! Rothorpe (talk) 15:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

July 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=563438541 your edit] to Rossana de los Ríos may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * She has not played in any WTA or ITF tournaments since the 2010 US Open.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, you may be blocked from editing. Basket Feudalist 13:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Really, where? Rothorpe (talk) 16:50, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello Rothorpe. Not sure this the way to go about this... I saw u are editing Paulo Portas'SSSSSS page. Is it possible to place any of these pics? If so, can you tell me how...thanks. http://s3.amazonaws.com/cuttings/backgrounds/25735/Paulo%20Portas.436.jpg http://img.youtube.com/vi/YxAy9T8NltU/0.jpg http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-GwNHg5DyCvc/UIKcCj-_SeI/AAAAAAAABuk/A6wH1fC9-6o/s1600/paulo+portas+independente.jpg http://aventadores.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/portas4.jpg http://weblog.aventar.eu/fumacas.weblog.com.pt/arquivo/Portas_jovem.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.135.215 (talk) 21:27, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Very sorry, but I have never been involved with photographs on Wikipedia. However, if you place those links on PP's talk page, you may get a response from someone who knows about these things. Good luck! Rothorpe (talk) 21:32, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Nerina Pallot discography
Hello! If you have the time could you possibly take a look at the Nerina Pallot discography. It is currently at FLC and any comments or feedback would be greatly appreciated. Thank you very much :) – Underneath-it-All (talk) 20:49, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Very nice work. There are some tiny tweaks I might make. Rothorpe (talk) 22:12, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. What changes would you suggest? – Underneath-it-All (talk) 02:33, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem. I'll make them, and you can revert any you don't like. Rothorpe (talk) 13:05, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Great! Thank you. If you think the list is worthy of FL status, then please comment on the FLC page :) – Underneath-it-All (talk) 18:33, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I do, have done. Rothorpe (talk) 11:39, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Dill
Hello, Rothorpe -- I spent some time improving syntax, word usage and punctuation in the article on dill. I posted a few comments and questions on Paragraph Too Long, the use of dill in Poland, and Culinary Use (the last three but one in all the comments as of today). Wondered if you had time whether you could look at them. I would appreciate your thoughts and ideas. Also, today, there is a new comment about a dead link in the article. I did not check to see if that is true, but I wouldn't know what to do about it if it is indeed true, and I know you probably would know what to do.CorinneSD (talk) 23:19, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Right. I'm off to have a look. Rothorpe (talk) 11:37, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You seem to have done a good job there. I've split that paragraph as you suggested. Rothorpe (talk) 20:12, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank-you. You didn't think that the paragraph, now two paragraphs, devoted to the culinary use of dill in Poland was too long relative to all the other paragraphs?  I just thought some of that information would possibly apply to other countries besides Poland, but I don't know how the information could be redistributed. I guess it is best left as it is.CorinneSD (talk) 23:35, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's aesthetically unsatisfactory, but best left alone, I agree. The Polish cuisine page has six mentions of dill, so it seems they do use it a lot. Rothorpe (talk) 00:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Greetings and... edit conflicts
Greetings Rothorpe. Just seen that you were also editing over at JJ Cale – hope I didn't cause you no edit conflict. Regs.,--Technopat (talk) 17:24, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem. Thanks for the note - Rothorpe (talk) 17:28, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This time we got the edit conflict :) --Technopat (talk) 20:25, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * :) Rothorpe (talk) 20:28, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikileaks Party
Hello, Rothorpe. Please join the discussion at Talk:The_Wikileaks_Party. Thank you,  ~ XapApp(Talk·Contribs) 08:44, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Sibelius
A message has appeared on my talkpage prompt (that little circle between username and talk link) saying: "Rothorpe thanked you for your edit on Symphony No. 8 (Sibelius)". I can't find where you placed this message; can you enlighten? Thanks anyway for your interest in the Sibelius article. I am still working on it. Brianboulton (talk) 09:49, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There's no message, just the thanks. Next to 'undo' in the edit history. Thanks again for expanding on the most unfinished of symphonies. Rothorpe (talk) 11:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

E. A. Wallis Budge
I've been reading the article on E. A. Wallis Budge. For the most part it is already quite well written, but I have come across a sentence that doesn't seem to flow smoothly. I've been puzzling over how to fix it without changing the meaning and have not come up with the solution. Since you're good at this, I was wondering if you would look at it. It is in the Literary and social section (I think that's what it is called; I don't have it in front of me as I type this) -- it is the third large section in the article. It is the second sentence in the first paragraph. I don't like the repetition of "that" in such close proximity: "Budge's works on....are unique in that they maintain that......" I thought about changing "that they maintain" to simply "maintaining" (...are unique in maintaining....), but something about that didn't seem right, either. So, I thought about, "In his works on....., Budge maintained his unique idea that..." But, before I made any change, I wanted to ask you what you thought. Maybe you have a better idea. CorinneSD (talk) 23:22, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. How about 'unique in his contention that'? Or start the sentence with 'Uniquely..'? Rothorpe (talk) 01:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Excellent! Great suggestion.  I changed it to "unique in his contention that".CorinneSD (talk) 02:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Dill
I am just curious about something and wonder if you could enlighten me. I was just looking at my Watchlist, and I saw a change made in the article on Dill (which I had been editing a few weeks ago). I saw an edit by BG19bot (or something like that). I went to the article and looked at the Revision History. I saw that this person (or automated correction?) had removed a period placed (not by me) after a reference. The explanation for the edit was periods do not go after a reference. I could see by the Before and After that the period had been removed. However, upon looking below that, I saw other side-by-side paragraphs (+ and -, or before and after). I looked carefully and saw only a blank space after the final period highlighted in the before side. I just want to know what, exactly, was removed, and why it was so important to remove it.CorinneSD (talk) 15:35, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It was indeed a robot making the edit, and a good bot does everything, including tasks that we mere mortals may find pointless as well as tedious, so it removed a space after a final full stop.
 * I've left a meaningless space after that paragraph. If you remove it, and compare the before and after diffs, you should see a similar coloured mark in the before version.---Yes, it works, I've just checked. Rothorpe (talk) 15:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * O.K. Thanks for explaining.  Why don't people put two spaces after each full stop, or period, anymore?  I think it makes the text easier to read.  With two spaces after each period, the reader can easily see the end of a sentence and the beginning of the next sentence. CorinneSD (talk) 02:09, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was the convention on manual typewriters and that was the reason. But I don't think it comes out as two spaces on the wiki, does it? Two spaces before my four tildes: Rothorpe (talk) 15:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems that two spaces after a period are automatically reduced to one space on Wikepedia. Your two spaces before "Rothorpe" look like one space to me. I'm going to put two spaces before the four tildes and you'll see.  CorinneSD (talk) 17:01, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's exactly my point. Ten spaces before 4 tildes:         Rothorpe (talk) 17:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Hypnosis
I'm reading an article on hypnosis; haven't gotten very far through it yet. In the third or fourth paragraph down, it explains the etymology of the English word "hypnosis". It says, "...the Greek word hypnos...." Shouldn't the Greek word be in italics? Why are the English words beginning "hyp..." in italics while the Greek word is not? Is there something I don't know about Wikepedia style?

Also, in the first sentence of the fourth paragraph, I wonder about two things: 1)  "There is a belief" sounds awfully vague.  What do you think of adding "among some scientists" after that?  Or changing it to, "Some scientists (or researchers) believe...."?   2)  Later in the sentence it says, "hypnotic subjects". I wondered if "hypnotic" was the right adjective here. I thought "hypnotized subjects" would make more sense. I looked "hypnotic" up in the dictionary (M-W unabridged) and, while technically it could mean "under hypnosis," none of the example sentences referred to a person who was under hypnosis. They all referred to a thing, such as "a hypnotic stare". Should I "be bold" and change it to "hypnotized" or ask an expert? Finally, do you mind my posting questions on your Talk page, or should I just post them on the Talk page of the article? CorinneSD (talk) 02:00, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, hypnos should be in italics, but that's the only example I can see at the moment. "There is a belief" I think refers to the general public, so its vagueness is appropriate. "Hypnotic objects" sounds like a normal idiom in the jargon, so I wouldn't change it even if it seems a bit illogical.
 * Thank you re "hynos" and "There is a belief". Re the third item, the text was "Hypnotic subjects" -- that is, individuals who are being hypnotized or who are under hypnosis -- not "hypnotic objects".  I was just asking whether "hypnotized subjects" made more sense than "hypnotic subjects".CorinneSD (talk) 17:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I mistakenly typed 'objects' for 'subjects', but my point stands. The jargon is 'hypnotic', not 'hypnotized'; the latter is merely the meaning. Rothorpe (talk) 17:11, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * O.K. Thank you.  I understand.  But at the risk of irritating you -- and I am not challenging you, I'm just curious -- may I ask, how do you know it is jargon?  Have you heard that phrase used?  I had never heard that phrase before.  Or are you just assuming it is jargon from the context?CorinneSD (talk) 17:14, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't mean 'jargon' pejoratively, just as a synonym for 'insider language'. Yes, I think I have heard the expression before. Rothorpe (talk) 17:26, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No, of course I don't mind you posting questions here, but if you put them on the article talk page, you might get an expert answer! Rothorpe (talk) 15:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank-you. My questions usually have to do with syntax and word usage, occasionally to capitalization and punctuation.  I have sometimes found that when I pose a question regarding syntax and word usage, I get replies from people who know the subject well but do not know the finer points of good writing, or no reply at all.  I know when I post a question on your Talk page, I am more likely to get a helpful, pertinent, and correct answer.  Maybe it would make sense to post my question or comment on the article's Talk page, and a note on your Talk page asking you to look at it.CorinneSD (talk) 17:11, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's a very good idea. Rothorpe (talk) 17:26, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I forgot to ask you whether, if you have time, you could look at some comments/questions I just posted in the Talk page of the article on hypnosis.CorinneSD (talk) 17:18, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll have a look. Rothorpe (talk) 17:26, 16 August 2013 (UTC)