Wikia

Harry Potter Wiki

Dr. Galenos

604 Edits since joining this wiki
June 25, 2013
  • I live in Washington
  • I was born on April 15
  • My occupation is Magizoologist/ Wand Maker
  • I am Male
Wiki

Wotcher!
Hello, Dr. Galenos, and welcome to the Harry Potter Wiki (HPW). Thank you for your edit to the Lumos Maxima page. I hope you enjoy it here and decide to stay.

Before editing, be sure to read the wiki's policies. Please sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to automatically produce your name and the current date. Be sure to verify your e-mail address in your preferences. Before attempting any major article rewrites please read the layout guide. If you have any questions, check out the policy and help pages (see here for editing help), add a question to the Community portal, view the forum or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!

Seth Cooper (talk) 17:00, June 30, 2013 (UTC)

RE:Userpage layout

No offence, but I don't particularly care as I in turn stole it from another user :D --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 23:34, November 7, 2013 (UTC)

xD Dr. Galenos (talk) 23:37, November 7, 2013 (UTC)

Speculation

Perhaps not; I only later read the sentence about phoenixes being the exception rather than the rule about dead being definitely dead. So I'm not gonna fight for this. MinorStoop 22:00, December 9, 2013 (UTC)

There has recently been a spate of fairly-to-extremely heated exchanges about highly speculative topics, and HPR1 has been involved in the latest of them, standing up for one or two quite indefensible positions. Since this leaves a mark, I'm now wary of his edits, but, in this case, I can't really back my opinion up.
Do me a favor, please - if you need to answer me back, bring it on my talk page, so I get notified. Thanks! MinorStoop 22:12, December 9, 2013 (UTC)
Do remember, if you are going to badmouth me, that I can read. Thank you. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 22:20, December 9, 2013 (UTC)
Realize, Im not insulting anyone. All I said was that I found MinorStoop's choice of words amusing. Dr. Galenos (talk) 22:21, December 9, 2013 (UTC)

If you say so. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 22:22, December 9, 2013 (UTC)

Why do you keep undoing my revisions?

You said that there were more than 12 N.E.W.T. students in 1996 you were wrong. In the Half-blood prince on pg. 182 it says that "When they arrived in the corrider they saw that there were only a dozen people progressing to N.E.W.T. level... Four Slytherins had made it through, including Malfoy, Four Ravenclaws were there and one Hufflepuff Ernie Macmillion" plus Harry, Ron, and Hermione that makes twelve.

Out of curosity why do you keep undoing my revisons on Harry's Transfiguration Ability  on page 309 it says that  "they had just embarked upon the immensely difficult topic of Human Transfiguration; working in front of mirrors thay were supposed to changing the color of their own eyebrows" and on page 310 it mentions that Harry succeeded in transfiguring hie eyebrow because Luna says "Oh hellow, Harry" "did ypu know one of your eyebrows is bright yellow?" It says on the wiki that anyone skilled enough can perform Human Transfiguration  and obviously he can since, he's listed as a practitioner. It deserves to be mentioned.

As a side note if any of that came of as rude then i'm sorry that wasn't my intention. It should also be known that I wouldn't put anything on this wiki if I wasn't 100% sure. Please reply as soon as possible and on your page.

Misskatniss1546 (talk) 06:34, December 14, 2013 (UTC)Misskatniss1546

Misskatniss1546, I would like to appologize. I have finals coming up, and last night, I was effectively drunk. Not on alcohol, but the symptoms were the same. I was so exhausted that I wasnt thinking clearly. You were completely right to put it in, and I fully support the edit (now that I've gotten some sleep). Once again, I am sorry for the inconvenience I caused you. Dr. Galenos (talk) 14:20, December 14, 2013 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you and once again if I came off rude I apologize. I know know that u support my potions edit but, what do think about what I said about his Transfiguration skills. It should be added, it irritates me when people list some of the persons skills and don't do it justice.

I have finals coming up as well; Medical Terminology and Anatomy. I've been studying like crazy. I know how stressful it is.

Please resond and on your page

Misskatniss1546 (talk) 22:44, December 14

Glad you understand. :) You dont need to apologize, you were being perfectly polite considering. And I totally agree, Professor Potter is very skilled in Transfiguration.

Lee charms O.W.L.

On the Charms (class) page it has Lee listed as having achieved an O.W.L. inthe subject. Since that edit has been there for awhile and I don't see anyone one just making it up, what would be the point.Misskatniss1546 (talk) 13:40, January 21, 2014 (UTC)Misskatniss1546

I understand where you're coming from, but the wiki's policies say that there needs to be a souce for such things, a source outside of the wiki. Dr. Galenos (talk) 15:05, January 21, 2014 (UTC)

Pictures

Some of these character pages are over run with a lot of useless pictures that distract from the text. Don't get me wrong i'm all for pictures, it's just that when there are too many in a section it looks bad, the only pictures that sould be on a page are ones that give you a better understanding of the text you just read. Also some of the picturres on a page are massive when they don't need to be and the ones that should be a bigger size, so you can see them more easily are tiny. The pictures on pages need to be cleaned up a bit, that's what I was doing Misskatniss1546 (talk) 15:35, March 4, 2014 (UTC)Misskatniss1546

Im all for removing the uneeded pictures. I was asking if you could give a summary of the edit. That way I (and others) know if checking the page is nessisary. Like, if the edit summary is "adding categories", I personally couldn't care less. If its "removing unnessisary pictures", chances are that I'll just ignore it if the edit was by someone who's been here for a while. Dr. Galenos (talk) 15:44, March 4, 2014 (UTC)

Punctuation in quotations

It certainly looks like a complete sentence to me! Final period included. And in this case, it should be there. MinorStoop 17:52, April 20, 2014 (UTC)

You're right, my mistake. Dr. Galenos (talk) 18:23, April 20, 2014 (UTC)

Location of Durmstrang

You've got your facts on Durmstrang wrong, man. JKR never explicitly stated Durmstrang is either in Norway or in Sweden. Allegedly being geographically located in Scandinavia, Durmstrang could easily be part of Russia (the Kola Peninsula, in the Russian Far Northwest, is attached to the Scandinavian peninsula); however, I know this is confusing because "Scandinavia" as a cultural region defines Norway and Sweden, where Germanic languages (Norwegian and Swedish) are spoken and Nordic culture traditions (i.e. from the vikings) are practised. Moreover, the Cyrillic alphabet shown in the school's emblem is clearly associated with Russian/Slavic languages (Дурмстранг is transliterated, literally, as "Durmstrang" in the Latin alphabet), and the 2-headed eagle is Russia's national emblem. Durmstrang students had Slavic last names, such as "Karkaroff" and "Krum" (Krum himself being from Bulgaria, a South Slavic nation that was part of the Soviet Union). The fact that JKR imagines the geographical features of the land where Durmstrang is located as being alike to the Norwegian and Swedish Scandinavian fiordos, doesn't necessarily mean that's the precise location of the castle (Russian geographic features might perfectly resemble those in Sweden and Norway JKR imagined). The in-universe elements of Harry Potter's canon reveals a clearly Slavic/Russian origin (school's emblem, Slavic last names, Slavic countries such as Bulgaria explicitly mentioned), and that should be more important than a random interview with JKR. Should we continue the debate about Durmstrang real origin, or we should just add a note at Durmstrang's main article stating the confusion about its origin? Fredbarrett (talk) 04:49, April 23, 2014 (UTC)

"Jo thinks that Durmstrang is in northern Scandinavia - the very north of Sweden or Norway " -the interview mentioned on the page. Belive me, I wish we could say "Screw these things from these sources, they are completely illogical, like almost every spell invented for the HP games, which were designed for and with video games in mind, and show it". However, the HP wiki's canon policy is that any material presented in any Harry Potter source, (video games and card game through the books and interviews) is canon, unless contradicted by a higher source. JKR's interviews are in the highest teir of canon, along with the books and Pottermore. It's her universe, and she can make any decision she wants. Dr. Galenos (talk) 04:57, April 23, 2014 (UTC)

Three-headed dog

I don't think you quite understand. The creature is not called a Cerberus in the Harry Potter universe, so the origin of the name Cerberus has zero relevance to the page itself. The creature does, because it is based on that creature, but the name is irrelevant. --SnorlaxMonster 14:46, April 28, 2014 (UTC)

I understand perfectly. The information was placed in the "Behind the Scenes" section, which, as I'm sure you are aware, is where background information goes. Any original mythos that JKR used to create the HP universe goes there. The whole point of an encyclopedia is to amass information in one place to make it easier for people to acess. While we shouldn't be putting the entire wikipedia article in there, adding small bits of information, especially when they may cause the reader to continue researching, is very benefitial. If you were an average person who never read any Greek mythology, and you came across a page that just said "Centaur", chances are you wouln't research that any further, even if a link to more information was provided. If that same page included something you didnt know, like the original name of the Centaur, or a short piece of information on some of their earliest representations of Centaurs in mythology, you would be more likely to read further. In fact, the scene where Umbridge is dragged off by the Centaurs is referencing a piece of Greek mythology, where Centaurs (there depicted as beasts) are invited to a party, get drunk, and rape all of the women. Similarly, the fact that Fluffy is guarding the Stone is a reference to the Kerveros' job of guarding the Underworld in Greek mythology. Dr. Galenos (talk) 15:07, April 28, 2014 (UTC)

Yes, so those mythological references are relevant to the article, because they are related to the Harry Potter universe creatures. However, if the name is not used in the Harry Potter universe, then any information about the name has zero relevance to the article here. Since "Centaur" is used in the Harry Potter universe, details about the name are relevant to the article; however, "three-headed dog" is a different case. If you were adding information about how Fluffy acting as a guard is a reference to the Greek myth, I would not have reverted it because it is relevant to the article. --SnorlaxMonster 04:53, April 29, 2014 (UTC)
By that logic, this encyclopedia would be nothing more than a dry list of canon. The wiki needs connective logic, something that we provide, in order to make it work. Fluffy is clearly based on the Cerberus/ Kerveros of ancient Greek mythology, something that can be seen both in the description and in the fact that Hagrid bougt him off a "Greek chap". This is a well-established addition that has been made many times before, to almost every page, this one is no different than those. Dr. Galenos (talk) 13:58, April 29, 2014 (UTC)
There is a difference between "canon" and "relevant information" (e.g. the LEGO games have plenty of non-canon but relevant information). I just said that pointing out references to mythology is something I think belongs in the Behind the Scenes section, yet you are responding as if I had said the opposite. Also, you seem to think I disagree that Fluffy is based on Cerberus, when I have stated that I also think it clearly is. What I object to is the addition of information that is unrelated to the article. What makes adding the origin of the name to this page so different to adding the origin of the word Phoenix to that article is that the name Cerberus is never used, so any information about the name itself has nothing to do with the article. Information about the mythology surrounding the Cerberus if it has some relation to the portrayal of the three-headed dog in the Harry Potter universe obviously is relevant. --SnorlaxMonster 14:24, April 29, 2014 (UTC)
The information was placed in the Behind the Scenes section, and you undid the edit, an action that says the opposite. I would totally agree that adding the mythological basis for the creature to the main body of the article would be detrimental to said article, which is why I placed it in the section I did. I'm only pointing out the strong connections beteen the two, something that tends to strengthen bodies of work. Now, if you have no objections to the mythology being in the Behind the Scenes section, I believe we are finished here. Good day to you sir. Dr. Galenos (talk) 14:33, April 29, 2014 (UTC)
You did nothing to point out any connections between the two. You added the Greek name only, which I reverted because information solely relating to the name of the creature is irrelevant to the article. I made no edit that removed any information regarding similarities between the Cerberus and the Harry Potter universe creature the "three-headed dog". --SnorlaxMonster 14:37, April 29, 2014 (UTC)
Wrong. I added a more information pertaining to the original mythology that JKR used to create the world, something that has been done on just about every other creature page. There is a reason that the study of the origins of words is an academic discipline: it helps us to understand where our languages came from, which creates a web of understanding that facilitates cultural understanding. This one page may not be a very large portion of that web, but once we begin to unravel one portion of the web, its all the easier to unravel the rest. My edit in no way detracts from the page, but rather strenghtens the connective threads that tie the page to the original mythology. As I said before, good day to you sir. Dr. Galenos (talk) 15:07, April 29, 2014 (UTC)
No, I stated that you never added anything that pointed out the connections between the two, which you did not, and that I never removed any such information; both of these are true and your dismissal does not address any of my statements. Yes, the study of words is useful, and names often can provide insight into the things they describe; however, the name is not the name of the subject of the article, so it does not provide insight about it. Unless you actually explain why the origin of the name of its basis relates to the subject of the article, you have provided nothing of value; there is a link to the Wikipedia article on the creature right there, so any information exclusively related to the mythological creature and not the Harry Potter creature (such as the origin of its name) can be found there. There are plenty of properties of dogs that may be relevant too, but they also do not belong without detailing why they are.
Since you wish to end this discussion, can I take that as you conceding that you no longer care about maintaining your addition and that you would not object to me reverting it? If this is not the case, then this discussion must continue. --SnorlaxMonster 15:21, April 29, 2014 (UTC)

RE:Please help me

Personally, I am rather indifferent to the whole matter. I can understand SnorlaxMonster's argument (the Wikipedia link is right there, and anyone can click it to procure additional information on the mythological Cerberus) but, then again, it is such a rather trivial addition on such a small article that I can't see harm in including it, neither.

As there doesn't seem to be a third option that could compromise both stances, I'd stick to what is done on Wikipedia when no consensus is met: "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." That being said, I would like to point out that I am not taking sides on this argument, I am just enforcing procedure. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 18:13, April 29, 2014 (UTC)

Very well, I will concede on procedural grounds. Dr. Galenos (talk) 18:18, April 29, 2014 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki