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!
I don't see the problem Edit
Marcus Flint was NOT put in the Vanishing Cabinet - Graham Montague was. Fred and George pushed him in their to stop him from taking points from them, and he turned up a few weeks later in a toilet as he had tried to apperate out. It is on the Marcus Flint page that it keeps appearing. Can this be sorted? That is why I deleted it in the first place!
I shall. Thank you for telling me. Now, I have posted a question, and my reasoning, in the talk page of Dorea Black. Do you think I am right, in my assumption, I mean? HarryPotterRules1 23:24, August 22, 2011 (UTC)
Dorea Black and Charlus Potter have been the subject of hot debate and I was really hoping for it to be revealed on Pottermore, but it hasn't been yet. I really don't want to believe Charlus was James's father but the evidence points towards them being father and son (Being that James I was a pureblood and Dorea wasn't burnt off the tree, which means Charlus was a pureblood. Their only child was a boy.), and unfortunately this link to the Black Tree would make Harry related to a number of people, the most prominent of which being the Weasley (which would mean his best friend and wife are his 3rd cousins) and Malfoy families. Remember to sign your posts with four tildes (this thing-~) -HoboHunter28- (Leave me an owl!) 23:20, August 22, 2011 (UTC)
I did mean to sign it. I forgot. HarryPotterRules1 23:25, August 22, 2011 (UTC)
Why don't you want to believe that Charlus IS James Potter I's father? It makes Harry and the Weasley's third cousins, makes Harry related to Barty Crouch and his son, as well as Millicent Bulstrode, Crabbe, Malfoy, Bellatrix Lestrange, and it also makes Sirius Black Harry's second cousin. That is the ONE THING that goes against Dorea and Charlus actually being James's parents; they took Sirius in and Dorea was NOT blasted off the tree. HarryPotterRules1 23:24, August 22, 2011 (UTC)
I say I don't want to believe it because it would ruin the Harry Potter experience, not because there's evidence against it. Mostly the evidence points towards the fact that he IS James's father. There's no evidence that flat-out says that he is or isn't James's father, butI I think the fact that seals it all is that every British pureblood wizard or witch is a Black or has Black ancestry. -HoboHunter28- (Leave me an owl!) 23:44, August 22, 2011 (UTC)
Can I change the wiki then. On Charlus Potter's page, can I change "Son (Possibly James Potter)" to "James Potter - Son" and get someone to delete the other page about Charlus's son? Because it is, most of the evidence, as you yourself say, points to Charlus and Dorea being Harry's paternal Grandparents. So... can I change it? HarryPotterRules1 23:47, August 22, 2011 (UTC)
Like I said, my only power is rollback. You need to ask an admin, and I'm not one, although if I was an admin I would say no to changing it, as there's not flat-out statement saying Charlus was James's father and Dorea was his mother. -HoboHunter28- (Leave me an owl!) 23:50, August 22, 2011 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. The evidence points to it. James Potter, in the flashbacks, only mentions that his father was in Gryffndor. Why didn't he mention his mother, Dorea? Because she was a Slytherin. I shall ask the admin now. Is he on? HarryPotterRules1 23:51, August 22, 2011 (UTC)
Ok. Thanks anyway. HarryPotterRules1 23:57, August 22, 2011 (UTC)
And for future reference Edit
I'm not really the person to ask. Ask an admin like Nick O'Demus or Seth Cooper (although he's on vacation) or BachLynn23. I may have rollback powers but that unfortunately doesn't give me authority to block vandals. Could you possibly give me the quote saying it was Montague? -HoboHunter28- (Leave me an owl!) 23:02, August 22, 2011 (UTC)
The quote is at the top of Graham Montague's page on here. But here is the quote too:
- Fred Weasley: "He never managed to get all the words out, due to the fact that we forced him head-first into that Vanishing Cabinet on the first floor."
- Hermione Granger: "But you’ll get into terrible trouble!"
- Fred Weasley: "Not until Montague reappears, and that could take weeks, I dunno where we sent him."
- — Fred Weasley on him and his twin George pushing Montague into the Vanishing Cabinet in 1996[src]
I shall ask one of those. Thank you for telling me who they are. HarryPotterRules1 23:07, August 22, 2011 (UTC)
Notice those little blue arrows next to your links? That means you've been linking externally (or at least the wiki thinks so) To combat this either surround your text with two brackets on each side (like this- [[ )
(and this ]] )
and you would put something like Fred Weasley or Sirius Black (any wiki page) in the middle of the two. The other way is to hit the chain under the "Text Appearance" right above the editing box and make sure you switch it to "to a Wiki page" Then, you would write something like George Weasley on the top and George Weasley on the bottom, unless you wanted to refer to him as something else such as "his twin" if the previous sentence was talking about Fred. You would then put "George Weasley" on top and "his twin" on the bottom (minus the quotation marks). You can do that manually as well, by typing George Weasley|his twin (with the brackets around it). If you want to try some of this out, head over to the http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Harry_Potter_Wiki:Sandbox where you can try out these techniques without it being regarded as vandalism (just make sure to write under "Test edits"). If that's too confusing, I can clarify. -HoboHunter28- (Leave me an owl!) 23:28, August 22, 2011 (UTC)
It went like that because I copied it from the top of the page named "Graham Montague", but thanks for the help anyway. HarryPotterRules1 23:33, August 22, 2011 (UTC)
I Found You :) I'll be reading soon :) Edit
Kathleen L. Riddle 22:46, August 24, 2011 (UTC)
Cool. I am glad that you found me, Kathleen HarryPotterRules1 22:48, August 24, 2011 (UTC)
Your edits Edit
Please stop adding unsourced speculation to articles. Just as there's no evidence of how F. Lestrange and R. Lestrange are related to the more modern Lestranges, so is there no evidence that Narcissa kept a relationship with her sister Andromeda, and plenty to the contrary. If you wish for a place to place speculation about the series, try the Harry Potter Fanon Wiki or a Harry Potter-based forum. -- 1337star (Owl Post) 03:27, February 24, 2012 (UTC)
Right. Ok. I'll ask this time; Oliver Wood, on this wiki, is stated to be a Purebllod. Is this right? I think he's NOT a Pureblood, as he uses Golfballs (which are muggle invented) as substitute snitches, so despite not knowing what basketball is, I think he is a Half-blood. Can I change this, or should it stay as Pureblood? HarryPotterRules1 03:35, February 24, 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know who changed it, but it used to and should leave the possibility of either. Thanks for pointing it out, though. -- 1337star (Owl Post) 03:41, February 24, 2012 (UTC)
I thought I'd point it out since a Pureblood wouldn't know what Golfballs are, would they? HarryPotterRules1 03:42, February 24, 2012 (UTC)
- Nor would a half-blood if both his parents were wizards (as Goblet of Fire implies). Either way, knowing what golf balls are (And we don't even know if he does, he never calls them by name. For all we know, he just knows they're small white balls.) doesn't tell us any more about his blood status. -- 1337star (Owl Post) 03:51, February 24, 2012 (UTC)
True, and I don't dispute that. I just thought I'd point it out. Also, the picture I uploaded onto Magenta Black, nee Tripe's page, I had intended to be the picture in the infobox, but I don't know how to make it so; it's a better picture. I also have a picture of Hebert Burke's name on the family tree for his infobox too.
RE:Can I add this?Edit
I think it's better if we don't add that info. We're particularly sceptical of information that supposedly derives from "an interview" with J.K. Rowling, but no source is presented (like a transcription of the interview or a date or location), because anyone could have come up with that information, and not Rowling. I've found nothing on Accio Quote, a repository of JRK interviews, which leads me to believe that piece of information is fanon. -- 18:17, March 10, 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I thought I'd ask anyway. I do, however, think that it is actually her middle name, given the fact that I find it in a lot of places. See? 'Rowling was once asked "Why didn't Tonks go by her middle name?" during a radio interview. The answer: "Her middle name is Vulpecula. Does that answer your question?"' No one knows if the writer was joking or not. HarryPotterRules1 01:05, March 11, 2012 (UTC)
Please don't reformat reference tags in the manner that you did on Victoire Weasley. Using <ref name=whatever> groups all materials using the same reference together. If you do as you attempted to do and make each one its own reference, it makes the list of references at the end of the article overly long and redundant. Thanks!
As for your deductions, I reverted those for the time being as well merely because I could not verify them, so it was easier to just do a mostly full undo (though I did keep your change of getting rid of outdated fields in the infobox, which was good). Perhaps you should bring that up on that article's talk page and see if others agree if we can narrow down her birth year further. -- 1337star (Drop me a line!) 22:46, August 28, 2012 (UTC)
Your edit to the Lily Evans page Edit
Please do not remove templates from articles without a stated reason (the Pottermoreold tag is there for a reason, it doesn't just have no function), or change a page-top quote on a major page without a discussion, as you did with Lily Evans. ProfessorTofty (talk) 03:53, November 22, 2012 (UTC)
- Ok. Can I inquire as to what the Pottermoreold tag does? HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 04:05, November 22, 2012 (UTC)
- You certainly may. It sorts the article into a hidden category of those articles that have information that originates from Pottermore. Oh, and BTW, you should reply to messages on the talk page of the person that posted them - this gives them an alert that they have a new message to respond to. ProfessorTofty (talk) 04:07, November 22, 2012 (UTC)
- Exactly. It's for the ones that have older information that came out before the newest update, since it's felt the banner isn't really needed for those anymore, since only the latest update can really be considered at all spoilerish at this point. ProfessorTofty (talk) 04:24, November 22, 2012 (UTC)
RE:The info you just removedEdit
You certainly can, but that particular piece of info is not much: we know that Neville was born on 30 July, 1980 and that Harry was born on 31 July, 1980, and "hours" is usually the next biggest time division used after "days". Either way, be my guest, and sorry if it sounded too harsh. -- 01:31, April 1, 2013 (UTC)
Your image addition to the Harry Potter page Edit
Thank you for recent image addition to the Harry Potter page. However, I would ask that you have a look over our image policy-- all images uploaded must be tagged with proper licensing and category information. Additionally, as a rule, we only accept images from licensed, canon sources-- the image you uploaded wouldn't be acceptable because it was clearly manipulated by a fan and tagged with a "deviantart" address. ProfessorTofty (talk) 03:00, April 15, 2013 (UTC)
- I just got it from a facebook page I am subscribed too, so I have absolutely no idea of the licensing and category information. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 03:13, April 15, 2013 (UTC)
- Images pulled randomly off the Internet, such as form a Facebook page, aren't acceptable. Generally, any image that has been modified in some way or has an obvious watermark or address on it aren't acceptable. If you have any question of the image's acceptability, please either ask first or don't use it. Also, you should reply to messages on the talk page of the user who left you a message-- that gives the user in question an alert that there's been a response. ProfessorTofty (talk) 14:44, April 21, 2013 (UTC)
I'd say "Muggleborn + Muggle = Muggleborn" is correct.
JKR has stated that, when determining someone's blood status, pure-blood supremacists treat a Muggle-born ancestor the same as Muggle one. So Lily's hypothetical child with a Muggle could conceivably be labelled "Muggle-born" by pure-blood supremacists who see his Muggle-born mother as being no different than Muggles, for exactly the same reason Harry Potter is "Half-blood" and not "Pure-blood". -- 14:01, April 21, 2013 (UTC)
Finally, someone explains it in "dumb-dumb terms" for me. THANK YOU! HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 21:03, April 21, 2013 (UTC)
Argument regarding Cadogan's father Edit
As an admin who wasn't involved in the discussion, reading over it, I found some of your conduct very troubling. The language and/or implied use of language were all unacceptable, as was the suggestion that the others' disagreement with you was in any way personal. Statements such as saying that you will never again agree with a certain user are particularly troubling. Perhaps the rather late hour contributed to some of this, but for now I would urge you to cool off and think regarding this matter. ProfessorTofty (talk) 03:20, May 24, 2013 (UTC)
It was the late hour - it was about 1:00am for me when the argument started. I've cooled off now. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 10:22, May 24, 2013 (UTC)
- I feel that it was mostly my fault, and would like to take this opportunity to apologise for my conduct. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 11:11, May 24, 2013 (UTC)
- Accepted and forgotten - though I still believe that Cadogan is Welsh. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 18:32, May 24, 2013 (UTC)
Your recent edits Edit
I have noted a pattern recently with your edits of stating something with certainty even when the evidence for it is at best debatable or only points to a possibility. It has happened again tonight with this whole "elderly" thing. While it is true that "elderly" is typically used to refer to 65 or older, I know of no hard-and-fast rule that it is always the case. Furthermore, 1337Star pointed out at least one direct example of two individuals who were known to be less than 65 and still referred to as "elderly". Therefore, I really think you need to cool down a bit and stop presenting information as if it was incontrovertibly true unless you have solid proof that couldn't be another way. ProfessorTofty (talk) 03:45, May 26, 2013 (UTC)
RE:Molly and Sirius's relationshipEdit
From what I take it from the short excerpt you presented, Zeb and Dorothy are not related in the same way Sirius and Molly are (although I do not claim to be very acquainted with the book you referenced):
Sirius and Molly's relationship:
|Melania Macmillan||Arcturus Black||Mr Prewett||Mrs Prewett|
|Walburga Black||Orion Black||Lucretia Black||Ignatius Prewett||Mr Prewett||Mrs Prewett|
|Sirius Black||Molly Prewett|
Dorothy and Zeb's relationship: (evidently, Uncle Henry and Aunt Emily are not Dorothy's parents)
|Dorothy's grandfather||Dorothy's grandmother||?||?||Zeb's grandfather||Zeb's grandmother|
|Dorothy's mother||Dorothy's father||Henry Gale||Emily Gale||Mrs. Hugson||Bill Hugson||Zeb's father||Zeb's mother|
|Dorothy Gale||Zeb Hugson|
That being said, even if Sirius/Molly's relationship was the same as Dorothy/Zeb's, they could hardly be called second cousins (even if the Oz book says so; I don't know the context it appears in, but I presume that the definition of "second cousins" there is deliberately wrong for comic effect).
Second cousins is the relationship between the children of two first cousins (or, in other words, the relationship between two individuals whose closest common ancestor is a great-grandfather, see this chart). One can clearly see that it is the case in neither family tree. -- 21:24, May 28, 2013 (UTC)
I know the relationship of second cousins; I was using the book as an example of what J.K. was going for - but failed to do properly. There needed to be another set of siblings in it. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 21:33, May 28, 2013 (UTC)
A few more things - 1, Dorothy's mother (called Annie) is Henry's sister and is married to John Gale. 2, Mrs. Hugson is named Garnett. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 21:38, May 28, 2013 (UTC)
- Even if Rowling intended to do that and failed, that's the family relationship that she put in black and white, so we must go with it. We cannot presume to know what she intended to write, now, can we?
- As for the little mistakes in Dorothy's family tree — I told you I was not very acquainted with it :) -- 22:00, May 28, 2013 (UTC)
- That's alright - I never expected you to be! :-P HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 22:06, May 28, 2013 (UTC)
Your image addition to the Dudley Dursley page Edit
Images of such a low resolution are generally not acceptable, also the image you posted did not include any licensing or category information. I am going to ask again that you read our image policy. If you continue to violate it, you may be temporarily blocked from editing. ProfessorTofty (talk) 02:01, June 10, 2013 (UTC)
- I do not know how to add licensing or category information; I've never been able to do it. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 02:03, June 10, 2013 (UTC)
- I recommend making all of your image uploads from Special:Upload, which provides you with a template for making this easier. If you still have any specific questions after having a look over that, feel free to ask. Also, please reply to talk page messages on the talk page of the person who left you the message-- this triggers an alert for them that they have a message to respond to. ProfessorTofty (talk) 02:05, June 10, 2013 (UTC)
- Use "Browse..." to find and select the image that you're uploading. Then, in the box where it says Summary to the left of it, you're going to have to fill out some fields. Some of them you can ignore, but others are required. Under "description", type up a basic description of what the photo is about, for example, "Harry Potter reaching for the Golden Snitch". Next is "source", and that's going to be where you say where it was that you got the photo from. The "author" field will be whoever it was that originally created the photo-- for example, if it's a cover illustration, it would be the illustrator, or if it's a screenshot from one of the films, you could just say "Warner Bros." The "filepecs" you can ignore as well as the "licensing", because you'll be taking care of that in a bit. The "other versions" you can almost certainly ignore as well. Finally, the categories, which you'll enter as such as "[[Category:Images of Dudley Dursley]]", etc. Then below the summary box, you'll see the "Licensing" box, which by default is set to "None selected". Choose the appropriate licensing from there-- most likely you'll want something from under "Fair use", such as "Screenshot of a copyrighted website, video game or program, television or film" for an image from one of the films. Then choose "Upload file" and you should be good to go. ProfessorTofty (talk) 02:24, June 10, 2013 (UTC)
RE:I am surprised.Edit
Nothing to be surprised about. If your assertion is correct -- which I find the one in that page is -- then removing it would be counter-producent. Be sure that I have nothing against you whatsoever! --14:35, June 15, 2013 (UTC)
RE:Regulus's Death Edit
Hate to interrupt, but "some fifteen years prior" (emphasis is mine) is entirely different from "fifteen years prior". The "some" in the first phrase means that it isn't exactly fifteen years. It could be more or less than fifteen. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 10:49, June 27, 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why you are disregarding the fact that the text reads "some fifteen years previously", but the fact is you are. And you shouldn't. That word makes all the difference. Rowling is outright stating Regulus's death date was about fifteen years before — it's an approximate. Later canon from Rowling's hand-drawn Black family tree (the original of which you can see here; yes, sure, reproductions of the tree are bound to have mistakes, but this one is a scan of the original) positively shows that Regulus died in 1979.
- Is a death date of 1979 incompatible with a death date of "some fifteen years" before 1995? No, it is not. -- 13:18, June 27, 2013 (UTC)
- Oh? Wiktionary has the meaning of "some" in its adverbial form as "Of a measurement; approximately, roughly". The online Merriam-Webster Dictionary has, as its third definition of "some", "about; <some 80 houses> <twenty-some people>".
- The book does not, therefore, state unequivocally that Regulus died in 1980. --
21:21, June 27, 2013 (UTC)
- If you don't mind me throwing in my two cents, I think you're also forgetting the first commandment of the wiki: Rowling's word is law. So while the math may not add up, Rowling's hand-drawn family tree is considered higher canon than the books. -- 01:23, June 28, 2013 (UTC)
- As you can see here: (direct quote) "When some is used to modify a number, it is almost always a round number <a community of some 150,000 inhabitants> but because some is slightly more emphatic than about or approximately it is occasionally used with a more exact number in an intensive function <an expert parachutist, he has some 115 jumps to his credit — Current Biography>." the SOME is used, as I stated to group the number or used with an exact number; the book says "some fifteen years prior" so it's 15 years before 1995 that he died and the "some" is used to group it.
- As to Cubs Fan, J.K. Rowling herself has said that maths is not her strong point; as the "some" makes is UNEQUIVOCALLY 1980 that Regulus died we have to assume she made another math error. Thus, I make my point. Regulus died, as both the book - and the technical term of "some" - confirms, in 1980. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 14:06, June 28, 2013 (UTC)
- You quoted it yourself, "it is occasionally used with a more exact number", not always and necessarily. As "some" can also be used in the sense I quoted, Regulus's death date is far from being unequivocally ("unambiguous; without equivocation or ambiguity; singularly clear, unmistakable, or unquestionable") said to be 1980 in Order of the Phoenix.
- Rowling is not unequivocal in her wording in Order of the Phoenix. The cold hard date of 1979 is given on the Black family tree, which she wrote herself. How more unequivocal can you get from a plain date, no semantics? -- 14:35, June 28, 2013 (UTC)
- While you are correct there, you need to take the beginning of the quote "when some is used to modify a number" (which in the case of Regulus's death, it IS) "it is almost always a round number"; admittedly, not always, but ALMOST always; thus, as the "some" is ued to modify the "15 years prior" it makes Regulus's death in 1980. 14:39, June 28, 2013 (UTC)HarryPotterRules1 (talk)
- Three things:
- You pointed it out yourself; "admittedly, not always". There persists a semantic ambiguity, which does not make a death date of 1980 unequivocal, just likely. Your argument pretty much defeated itself, since you used unequivocality as such a strong premise to defeat the 1979 hypothesis and now you are saying that the 1980 hypothesis is, too, not unequivocal.
- And I'm afraid I'm repeating myself: a 1979 date is entirely compatible with "some fifteen years" before 1995. There are two possible scenarios: A) The narrator is rounding to the nearest five (and, instead of saying a more accurate "sixteen years" says the approximate "fifteen years"). This is true if Regulus was born from January to August 1979. B) The narrator is acurately saying Regulus died 15 years before and Regulus died in 1979. How? Well, if Regulus died between August and December of 1979, in August 1995 he'd died still have died 15 years before (a few days to months short of the 16th anniversary of his death, but 15 years nonetheless).
I've proved beyond significant doubt that "1979" and "15 years before 1995" is not incompatible whatsoever.
- Lastly, perhaps you should take a peek at our canon policy. It says, and I quote, "When J. K. Rowling contradicts herself, the newest source is to be taken as the "most" canon". I, for one, do not believe there is a contradiction at all, as I've pointed out, but seeing as you seem to insist on it... Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix was released in June 2003. Rowling's hand-drawn Black family tree was drawn and donated to Book Aid International in January 2006 and auctioned in February 2006. -- 15:16, June 28, 2013 (UTC)
Fine, fine. Since you're being stubborn, I shall send a tweet (and write to J.K. Rowling at the addresses on Answer.com) and take her answer from there.
1) the two posibilities can be defeated with a) J.K. Rowling doesn't round and say "Harry was nearly (certain age); she explicitly states the ages, so "fifteen" means "fifteen" not "fifteen and 2 months" or others like that. B ) A few months short of it would be rounded; you'd say "Regulus died sixteen years ago, give or take a few weeks"; she didn't do this in the book - she states, expressly(sp?) that it was "fifteen" years ago. She states EXACTLY fifteen. Not nearly 15 or less than 15, but EXACTLY 15. The canon policy needs to be updated then, because by that logic, we can states that "Ron didn't work at George's shop ever" as J.K. Rowling later said he was an Auror (or vice-versa; he wasn't an auror because he worked at George's shop - whichever was the later canon); thus, the canon logic is a bit screwed anyway. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 15:30, June 28, 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, I'm being subborn... That's bound to help your argument. Fair enough. I don't see the point of tweeting Rowling, though, since she has already, and unmistakably, said that Regulus died in 1979 in her Black family tree!
- As for your counter-arguments:
- "J.K. Rowling doesn't round". It's the first I'm hearing of this. And your evidence is? Everyone can round, and does round, at some point, for the sake of simplicity.
- "A few months short of it would be rounded". Oh? What happened to "J.K. Rowling doesn't round?" So, you are actually saying that in every instance of Rowling's works "a few months short of it would be rounded"? That's funny, because in Goblet of Fire, in the Pensieve episode (which takes place in June 1995), Harry is referred to as a "fourteen-year-old" in narration, not a "fifteen-year-old give or take two months". If we'd apply your logic to this situation, for instance, we'd determine that Harry was born in 1981, which is preposterous.
- Your argument about J.K.Rowling-does-not-round-apart-from-the-situations-in-which-she-would-definitely-round-but-alas-does-not does not make any sense. As for your observation on the canon policy, it only applies in case of an unsolvable contradiction. It is not impossible that Ron worked at both places in different times — in fact, that's what the Wiki says about it on Ron's article. But that's beside the point; we're not discussing the canon policy, we're discussing Regulus's date of death with was, beyond reasonable doubt, in 1979. -- 16:19, June 28, 2013 (UTC)
- You are TOTALLY ignoring the canon policy yourself; the canon policy is that "Whatever J.K. Rowling says [the most recent] is what we take." Correct? Thus, by THAT logic, Ron CANNOT have done both, as whichever one J.K. Rowling said most recently (I think it was the Joke shop, but I'm not sure) would be the only one. By the canon policy on here, Ron was either an auror and J.K. Rowling changed her mind about the joke shop, OR he worked in a joke shop and was not an Auror and J.K. Rowling changed her mind about the Auror bit, so DO NOT - and I mean DO NOT - go quoting the flawed policy at me because I can chuck it right back in your face and smash the argument for the canon policy to bits, which I have just done.
- The canon states most recent is canon; he was either a) an Auror and never worked in a joke shop or b ) worked in a joke shop but was never an Auror. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 16:45, June 28, 2013 (UTC)
- You'd be right if there was some universal rule that people can have only one job all their life. Rowling said in Pottermore (most recent canon) that McGonagall worked for the Department of Magical Law Enforcement. And of course this does not mean Rowling changed her mind about McGonagall being a teacher. She was a Ministry official; then a teacher. In a similar way, Ron could've easily been a WWW employee and then an Auror (or the other way around).
- You are not finding flaw in the canon policy — you are making it up. Besides, let me remind you that as one of the Administrators of this wiki, I have every right of quoting policy to you.
- But I (we) are digressing. The point of this conversation was to talk about Regulus's year of death, not about Ron's job. And the fact remains that all canon informations points to a death year of 1979, so kindly do not change it again. -- 16:56, June 28, 2013 (UTC)
- Fine, I shall allow you all to remain wrong; it's not my business to correct you when I'm not going to win due to sheer stubbornness. As for the Ron thing, our policy expressly states that [most recent thing] counts; with McGonagall we can include both - she had to be at Hogwarts, as she appeared in the books, but J.K. Rowling also gave her backstory. With Ron, the two DIRECTLY contradict each other. Ron either did: Joke shop - or - Auror. Not both. One of them. The canon policy states that on contradictions we go with "most recent information". Thus, by that policy, he did NOT do both; he did one or the other. He was either a) a worker at George's Joke Shop or b ) an Auror. Not both. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 17:00, June 28, 2013 (UTC)
- I'm glad we agree on Regulus's matter. I'm not glad, though, that you've called me stubborn a second time, particularly after I've asked for more moderation.
- Your reasoning in the Ron thing is what one can call a fallacy of the false dillema: you are oversimplifying the issue in two options, and are deliberately disregarding a third solution that already was presented to you: Ron may've had both jobs at different times: first one, then the other, just like McGonagall. -- 17:12, June 28, 2013 (UTC)
- Again, you're not understanding; The Canon Plociy states that - and I'm paraphrasing - "whatever J.K. Rowling says is canon, however, if she says two things that contradict each other then the most recent is taken" correct?
- Going by that Policy - which our canon policy states - then Ron didn't have two jobs; he had one - the one that J.K. Rowling said was "the most recent" as the two "directly contradict each other"; thus, Ron was either an Auror or worked in George's joke shop, but did not do both. It was one or the other - the canon policy explicitly states that; the two contradict, so the first is ignored and the second is accepted. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 17:16, June 28, 2013 (UTC)
- And again, you are not understanding. There is no contradiction. Rowling said in one interview that Ron had become an Auror, and in other that he'd joined George at Weasleys' Wizarding Wheezes. She did never say when. Ron could conceivably have had both jobs at different times, like McGonagall. No contradiction, no "what she said last is canon" rule. -- 17:33, June 28, 2013 (UTC)
- Direct quote from YOU: "Lastly, perhaps you should take a peek at our canon policy. It says, and I quote, "When J. K. Rowling contradicts herself, the newest source is to be taken as the "most" canon". I, for one, do not believe there is a contradiction at all, as I've pointed out, but seeing as you seem to insist on it... Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix was released in June 2003. Rowling's hand-drawn Black family tree was drawn and donated to Book Aid International in January 2006 and auctioned in February 2006. -- 15:16, June 28, 2013 (UTC) "
- See? When she contradicts herself - which she did with Ron's jobs - the most RECENT one is taken and the other is not. Ron DIDN'T do both jobs, he did whichever was most recent and J.K. Rowling changed her mind. Seeeeeeeeeeeee? Ron did NOT do both; he did the Joke Shop - I think that one is the most recent - and no other. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 17:39, June 28, 2013 (UTC)
- Correct. When there is a contradiction!. "Contradiction": "(countable) a logical incompatibility among two or more elements or propositions". In this case, there is no logical incompatibility, as it is entirely possible that, as I've repeatedly said, Ron has had both jobs in different times. -- 17:48, June 28, 2013 (UTC)
- True, but it's a CONTRADICTION from J.K. Rowling herself and the information contradicts itself; he either did a) auror or b) joke shop, not both. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 17:53, June 28, 2013 (UTC)
- I repeat myself. The information does not contradict itself. It entirely possible that Ron worked both jobs in different times. One does not rule out that the other happened before or after. No contradiction at all. -- 23:09, June 28, 2013 (UTC)
- Fine, I give up. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 09:05, June 29, 2013 (UTC)
RE:I wish to make an edit...Edit
I agree that that should be removed, or at least reworded. Chapter 1 of Deathly Hallows implies that Andromeda was disowned and estranged from the family upon marriage ("We – Narcissa and I – have never set eyes on our sister since she married the Mudblood."), which makes it seem that the Blacks did not know about Ted until they were married. --14:11, August 12, 2013 (UTC)
- Be my guest. -- 19:43, August 12, 2013 (UTC)
- I agree: I did that for some Professors' birthdates. But in this case, you say it is exactly THIS information. However, we can't totally prove he was sorted in 1991 so that is why I prefer wait the opinion of an admin. It is not against you, don't worry ^^ If they are agree I will accept it :) Lady Junky 16:11, August 21, 2013 (UTC)
RE:Can you pleaseEdit
I'm afraid I must agree with Lady Junkie on this one. Your argument is based on the fact that Smith fled in the final battle and that he wasn't made to go. I've read that excerpt from the book and I think one cannot conclude anything of his age from it.
It is erroneous to say that underage students were made to leave. McGonagall only comes down from the teachers' platform to chivvy some of the Gryffindor underage students (referred to by name are only Creevey and Peakes). All of the other underage students (Hufflepuff included) are evacuated without incident.
Underage students and of-age students who did not want to fight were evacuated simultaneously. For this reason, nothing about Smith's age can be inferred from his presence in the evacuation queue; further proof of this is the fact that Smith is on the same queue as the first years he is trying to bowl over. --00:39, August 22, 2013 (UTC)
- That was totally uncalled-for. That kind of attitude will never earn you favour.
- None of the underage students (apart from Gryffindor) was specifically asked to evacuate, that's the point. McGonagall asked, house by house, for those ineligible to fight (underage students and of-age students who didn't wish to do so) to leave, and they did, filing behind their Prefects without McGonagall singling them all out. -- 00:54, August 22, 2013 (UTC)
- Are you failing to read, on the second quote that you presented, that McGonagall came down to scold the underage who wanted to stay behind? Zacharias wanted to leave the place, as his cutting the first years demonstrates. Besides, when McGonagall came down to send Creevey and Peakes on their way, the Hufflepuffs had already left (order of evacuation was, as the text shows, Slytherin, Ravenclaw, Hufflepuff, Gryffindor). -- 01:05, August 22, 2013 (UTC)
- How could she possibly chivvy all the underage on their way if most of them had already left? And, even if McGonagall did dismiss all of the underage students, then the book does not specifically refer to them all ("Creevey and Peakes" can hardly constitute all the underage students in the school), still leaving the possibility of an underage Zacharias being chivvied (not that he needed) without mention. You have no argument there. -- 01:14, August 22, 2013 (UTC)
RE:I have a queryEdit
Right you are. No Slytherin student was left behind to fight (during the evacuation scene, Slytherin table is described as being left "completely deserted"), mind you, not because they were locked in the dungeons but because they were all evacuated to Hogsmeade. --00:35, September 1, 2013 (UTC)
- Right. The book doesn't say that the Slytherins came back at all. You can go ahead and change it. -- 01:11, September 1, 2013 (UTC)
RE:We have a pageEdit
I'm afraid I cannot positively answer neither yes nor no. Sure, they might look similar, but that's pretty much it — there's no further evidence that allows us to conclude that they are or that they are not the same. --01:23, September 12, 2013 (UTC)
RE:James Potter II birthdateEdit
I'm here. Although, wouldn't it be easier to discuss it via talk page messages? Unless you insist on using chat, of course. --22:06, September 12, 2013 (UTC)
- Alrighty. -- 22:13, September 12, 2013 (UTC)
RE:I was wondering.Edit
I'd say no. There's a precendent, "Expellimellius", which was an article here once. You can read the discussion about it here -- it's was ultimately determined that such instances of explosions deriving from mispronunciations of spells were just shoddy wand-work and not actual spells. -- 13:43, October 22, 2013 (UTC)
- It's ok. -- 13:56, October 22, 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! I've just finished fidgeting with the Main Page, but I think I can consider the Hallowe'en makeover done. As for the epic background picture, don't praise me; praise the wonderful artists at Pottermore! :) --15:27, October 22, 2013 (UTC)
Civility and concensus Edit
That's right. Besides, the actors who play certain characters are bound to, sometimes, not match their character's likeness perfectly (i.e. Fiona Shaw, who is not blonde like Aunt Petunia). Shall I change it, or will you? --17:04, November 23, 2013 (UTC)
Order of MerlinEdit
|Order of Merlin (Third Class)|
|The Order of Merlin is awarded to you by Seth Cooper for having over one-thousand edits on the Harry Potter Wiki.|
Just noticed it. Congratulations! --01:07, November 26, 2013 (UTC)
Oh! Thanks! I didn't know that! :D --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 07:29, November 26, 2013 (UTC)
I disagree. It is possible that Madam Hooch only learned about the secret room as a teacher, from her predecessor. If she'd only learnt about it as a teacher, then it would not interfere with the fact that Harry was the first student to find the room since 1867.
Also, an 1850s birthdate would make it awkward that Hooch learnt how to fly in a Silver Arrow (Prisoner of Azkaban, chapter 13). The Silver Arrow was released in about the 1910s, sometime between the Moontrimmer (1901) and the Cleansweep One (1926). If Hooch was indeed born in c. 1850, then she'd be around sixty by the time her first broomstick was released, which seems slightly odd. --18:38, December 3, 2013 (UTC)
One thing to consider, though, is that we don't know if Greyback did attend Hogwarts. Hogwarts attendance is not mandatory, and there's a possibility that an underage, not formally educated Greyback was bitten at some point in his early childhood. --17:23, December 5, 2013 (UTC)
- That Dumbledore knows of him does not imply Greyback studied at Hogwarts. Greyback was well-known among the wizarding community as the most savage werewolf alive, and his participation in the First Wizarding War might've provided the occasion for Dumbledore to make his acquaintance.
- As his attendance at Hogwarts is not at all confirmed, we shouldn't presume things based on it. -- 22:24, December 5, 2013 (UTC)
Snape's Wand Edit
That may be true, but it also seems to be that information can be overriden when it's accuracy is disputable. Check out Hermione Granger's Wand page and note that her wand length used to be listed, but it was removed because 10 3/4 inches is the correct length, but a source can't be found for it anywhere, whereas the WWoHP length is not considered canon because JKR didn't have a hand in directly designing those wands. I'm just trying to be logical and reasonable, but you're refusing to see this and you're only saving grace is a canon policy that is meant to be much more flexible than you're being. And please don't say "Understand?" and condescend to me, it's disrespectful, impolite, and rude. Thanks. Zacharyalllen (talk) 04:51, December 9, 2013 (UTC)
None of those sources you've listed have ever stated the length of Hermione's wand length. That being said, the same goes for Snape's wand and the same overriding action should be taken to keep information accurate instead of speculative. Zacharyalllen (talk) 05:05, December 9, 2013 (UTC)
And if you would take five minutes to go to the WWoHP site and navigate to Hermione's wand at Ollivander's, you would see that there is a wand length listed there, though it's generally not accepted as correct because known character wand lengths are not accuarte on that site. Which is exactly why that's not a reliable source for Snape's wand. Try being realistic instead of militant. Zacharyalllen (talk) 05:14, December 9, 2013 (UTC)
"Don't try and be smart with me; I'll take you over my leg and tan your arse! That was your first, last and only warning. Consider it given." How about you piss off and grow up? I'm not afraid of you. I can read, so thanks for excessively overemphasizing the terms of the policy. I'm telling you that your logic is flawed BECAUSE IT IS. I don't care what a policy says. Policy isn't ALWAYS correct. Zacharyalllen (talk) 05:23, December 9, 2013 (UTC)
- HBR, that "Noble Collection" clip is just a publicity piece, and no source at all. Only result you've got with your misguided attempts has been to get the page protected and antagonize people. Not exactly a worthy result. MinorStoop 06:49, December 9, 2013 (UTC)
Please do not engage in edit-warring. Unofficial fan sites are not reliable sources. It doesn't matter if it's used elsewhere on the site. it shouldn't be. The name "Wespurt" was deciphered from the very same list that we got the name "Wolpert" from, and therefore the word of a single fan is entirely unreliable. In fact, it's more likely that they simply copied it from this site when Nigel's article was originally at Wespurt. You could very well be right, but in the meantime don't edit-war. You've asked for Seth Cooper's opinion, so wait to hear what he has to say before moving the page again.-- 12:56, December 11, 2013 (UTC)
- Please don't resort to personal attacks, or you will likely be blocked from editing. The fact that you're "barely able to stay calm" speaks volumes about you. The names "Wespurt" and "Wolpert" were both derived from the same source. As there is clearly doubt over which is correct, a consensus should be reached first. As an administrator has moved the page to it's current title it should remain there until such time.-- 13:06, December 11, 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not saying it isn't, I'm asking you to wait. There is little point in asking for an admin's opinion, and then making the change anyway. Personal attacks are never justified, no matter how strongly you feel about something.--13:15, December 11, 2013 (UTC)
I won't be engaging with you further. However I will say that your behaviour is the worst I've ever seen on any wiki, and I'm including your sordid history on the Downton Abbey Wiki, where you made death threats against another user and were blocked numerous times... apparently you don't learn.-- 13:30, December 11, 2013 (UTC)
RE:I require assistance!Edit
Keep as is.
"The Pensieve" is not an official site, so their reading of that sheet of paper is as good as ours. Indeed, they also spelt Luca Caruso as "Luca Carruse", when later information validated the former spelling as correct. "Wolpert" can be clearly read on the image we have access to. Of course, one might say, that image is far too blurry to make out the way Nigel's surname is spelt. For that reason, I've searched the web for a better reference picture, and I found one on this blog, on an entry about the Noble Collection's "Harry Potter Artefact Box" (this picture here). I think that it's unequivocal that it's spelt "Wolpert" on the prop replica. -- 15:13, December 11, 2013 (UTC)
- The site in itself is not canon, no. The information therein is derived from a canon source (the exhibition), hence why we use it as a source for Alice Tolipan and Luca Caruso, but it is not necessarily free of mistranscriptions (hence why it provides an incorrect transcription of Caruso as "Carruse").
- It's the information in the actual prop (or prop replica) that is canon. It trumps any fan-made transcription that, naturally, is not infallible: we must be critical of any secondary source we use. -- 21:27, December 11, 2013 (UTC)
- Because later props clearly and unmistakably identify this individual as "Luca Michali Caruso". Which would also make sense, considering that Luca Caruso is the name of the son of Miraphora Mina, graphic artist who made a great deal of the props you see in the films. -- 21:52, December 11, 2013 (UTC)
- ... Which, even if proven true, would not be an argument for your case, since it's in the canon policy that whenever contradictions of that nature arise, the newest source is to be taken as the "most" canon. -- 22:26, December 11, 2013 (UTC)
- No one is questioning that: the source is one and the same; the film prop shown in the film and the exhibition, and the official prop replicas are the same, and have the same canonical value. It's the transcription of whoever wrote that article for the website that's being questioned. The transcription may have been done later, but if it was done poorly (as other evidence suggests), then it counts as little. -- 22:44, December 11, 2013 (UTC)
- Unless that was further evidence to support your claim, I wouldn't know what to do with that information. -- 23:03, December 11, 2013 (UTC)
Regarding your comments to other users Edit
From your recent discussion with The Boy Who Cried Direwolf:
- "For the love of Merlin's saggy left ass cheek, are you incapable of using your brain?"
- "even if the personal attack is warranted because I am right."
- "because I will say things that I will regret and that will scar you for life."
- "even if a few threats did have to be issued to validate the fact that I was right."
Personal attacks are NEVER warranted on this wiki, no matter what you may think. And that goes for threats, insults, harassment, and anything else of the sort. This is your final warning on this matter. If you engage in this kind of behavior again, you will be blocked for at least a month. - Nick O'Demus 09:37, December 12, 2013 (UTC)
- Regardless of the exact wording, comments such as "I will hurt you", or "you will fear for your life" are completely and utterly unacceptable, and will not be tolerated on any wiki. Regarding CestWhat... the only reason she was banned is because we, the administrators of the Game of Thrones Wiki petitioned Wikia and had her banned. It had nothing whatsoever to do with you being "right". It's very easy to make threats from behind a computer screen, but who on earth do you think is seriously intimidated by such comments? I assure you, far from having the desired effect, these threats only serve to make you look exceedingly immature and foolish.-- 19:04, December 12, 2013 (UTC)
- This is not open for debate. You have been informed of the wiki's policy on personal attacks, and of what will happen if you violate it again. - Nick O'Demus 23:20, December 12, 2013 (UTC)
- The Harry Potter Wiki official "No Personal Attacks" policy (click link for full details)
- Do not make personal attacks anywhere on the Harry Potter Wiki. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will not help you make a point; they hurt the Harry Potter Wiki community, and deter users from helping create and maintain a good encyclopedia.
- There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Please do not make them.
- Users who engage in personal attacks on other users will be blocked according to policy.
- This is directly from the policy page. It doesn't matter if you think they're "justified"; DO NOT MAKE PERSONAL ATTACKS. - Nick O'Demus 02:26, December 13, 2013 (UTC)
- This is ridiculous. No, you're not allowed to "be mean to people" when you're in the right. Your behaviour is more appropriate for the school-yard than a wiki. Please, let's draw a line under this discussion; you were in the wrong, you've been warned by the administrators: If you continue to threaten, insult people etc. you will be blocked from editing. Case closed.-- 10:10, December 15, 2013 (UTC)
- -- 22:29, December 24, 2013 (UTC)
RE:I have a question...Edit
I think so. Riddle says, at least, that "Professor Dippet, ashamed that such a thing had happened at Hogwarts, forbade me to tell the truth. A story was given out that the girl had died in a freak accident. They gave me a nice, shiny, engraved trophy for my trouble and warned me to keep my mouth shut." --01:28, January 17, 2014 (UTC)
- I think we have already discussed this, have we not? There's no way to know for certain (unless Rowling gives further clarification) how Lucius could've known about the Chamber and Myrtle's death. We know Lucius was Chairman of the Board of Governors -- what if he gained access to privileged information in the form of school records or whatnot? Or, even if one presumes Lucius was told about it by an older relative who attended school at the time, how could we possibly conclude with any degree of certainty that it was his father the one? Why not his mother? Or an uncle, or similar relation?
- Your second question wasn't really a question. But, either way, we can conclude nothing from your reasoning. So, in response to your third question, I would have to say no. -- 01:53, January 17, 2014 (UTC)
- I don't understand why you so promptly exclude Lucius's mother from all considerations merely because, at the present time, we know little about her. And how can you possibly presume Abraxas was an only child when we know virtually nothing of his childhood?
- Also, the 1992-1993 Chamber of Secrets openings were similarly hushed by Dumbledore ("You know, I'm surprised the Daily Prophet hasn't reported all these attacks yet [...] I suppose Dumbledore's trying to hush it all up. He'll be sacked if it doesn't stop soon"), but that didn't prevent the rest of the staff, and the board of governors (and the Ministry, as evidenced by Fudge) to be fully aware of what was happening. I can see a lot of possible scenarios in which Lucius learned about what happened without his father necessarily having to have been a student at Hogwarts in the 1940s. -- 02:22, January 17, 2014 (UTC)
- It does not imply anything. Your argument is contradictory: you say that the students were made to be quiet about it, but then you say that Abraxas, as a former student, told Lucius about it. Well, if Abraxas could later tell Lucius, why couldn't any other acquaintance of Lucius's, that attended the school at the time? -- 02:47, January 17, 2014 (UTC)
- Let's imagine individual A attended Hogwarts in the 1940s -- yes, you guessed it, during the Chamber of Secrets openings. Now, let's say, after his schooling, individual A was acquainted with Abraxas Malfoy and came over to Wiltshire for a cup of tea every now and then. Let's say individual A tells the Malfoys about the Chamber of Secrets incident. The Malfoys would learn about the Chamber of Secrets openings, and Abraxas needn't have attended Hogwarts in the 1940s.
- Of course, this is an hypothetical scenario. Now, it may be that, but it is also a possible scenario. There are multiple other possible scenarios that end up with Lucius knowing about the openings without his father being at the school at the time. -- 03:14, January 17, 2014 (UTC)
- PS: As lovely as you may find that .gif, I've no taste for it. -- 03:16, January 17, 2014 (UTC)
- I don't believe I've ever said Abraxas Malfoy couldn't have attended Hogwarts at that time. Sure, he could. We just don't know if he did. If we don't know if he did, we mustn't presume to know it on a whim just because, hey, he could. -- 17:55, January 17, 2014 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't agree. I'm not sure how much you know about genetics, but based on my rather basic understanding of it, it is possible for two brown-haired parents to have a blonde child (although not the other way around).
Since we are human, we have two matching sets of chromosomes (one maternal, one paternal) -- homologous chromosomes bear the same kind of genetic information. Because of this, Mendel's Laws of Inheritance say we inherit two alleles for a given characteristic, one allele from each parent (Law of Segregation) and that recessive alleles will always be masked by dominant alleles (Law of Dominance).
Long story short, a recessive allele is that which, to manifest itself in the individual's phenotype, requires another identical allele (homozygoty). Dominant alleles don't require the other allele to be the same to express themselves in the individual's phenotype; if the alleles are different, then they take precedence over the other (dominance in heterozygoty).
If both Alice and Frank Longbottom had a blond-allele and a brown-hair-allele, then they'd be brown-haired (the two of them), and any offspring of theirs would have 25% chance of inheriting both silent recessive blond alleles, and, consequently, being blond. --00:06, April 2, 2014 (UTC)
- I'm afraid we still can't. Recessive genes can be "hidden" (suppressed by dominant genes) for generations: the same reasoning I used for Alice or Frank can be used for their parents: if Frank has both a recessive blond allele and a dominant brown-hair allele (heterozygosity) and has, as such, brown hair, he may still have brown-haired heterozygotic parents. Their parents can be heterozygotic, and theirs, and theirs.
- It is even possible that two (but no more than two) of Neville's grandparents is a brown-haired homozygotic (that's two brown-hair alleles, no genetic predisposition whatsoever for blond hair) who married heterozygotics.
- There are actually multiple possible scenarios for Neville having blond hair without any of his known relatives being blond. -- 00:43, April 2, 2014 (UTC)
- That's about the size of it, yes. Sorry if I made it sound too technical, I was having difficulty expressing myself. -- 00:50, April 2, 2014 (UTC)
I agree with you in that we don't know if the grandfather Neville saw die is the same who put a fanged gerbil in Augusta's handbag. However, I think we should keep the article we have (since we also don't have much certainty of which grandfather did what -- either Alice's or Frank's father may have died in front of Neville, and it may have been Augusta's husband or her co-parent-in-law who played a prank on her; we simply don't know), while stressing that the actions described may or may not refer to the same grandfather. How's that? --01:08, April 2, 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not entirely sure from what you gather Neville's grandfather died of illness; he doesn't say so in Order of the Phoenix (he just says he witnessed his grandfather's death when Umbridge asks him about seeing Thestrals).
- Still, one article would be sufficient; even if we did know which grandfather died we wouldn't be sure if the other grandfather was the one who pulled the handbag prank, and we can only create articles on characters specifically alluded to. -- 01:31, April 2, 2014 (UTC)
- If television has taught me something, that is that there are many, many, many ways of dying, other than war or prolonged illness. Freak accidents, a heart attack, a fatal duel, random murder (there are more murderers in the world than Death Eaters), suicide, poisoning, severe Splinching, heck, even a Venomous Tentacula bite could have done it. I fail to see how and why any of these is being ruled out as unlikely. -- 02:06, April 2, 2014 (UTC)
- People can be killed in the street, or be caught up in random bar fights, or silly feuds with some personal enemy of some kind. A Muggle can kill a wizard (a bullet through the head of a wizard would be just as fatal as it is to a Muggle), and even wizards have criminals that are not Death Eaters. Also, one cannot rule out the possibility of Neville having accidentally seen his grandfather's suicide (for instance, while eavesdropping, or something like that). Poisoning does not necessarily imply murder, either; accidental exposition to toxic substances or heavy metals, or even mistakenly using the wrong ingredient in a potion would produce the effects of poisoning. As for why would someone old be Apparating; why not -- Dumbledore was Apparating well into the 115th year of his life, there's no indication that old people cannot resort to Apparating if they so wish (and nothing is ever said to make us believe Neville's grandfather was feeble).
- Point being, we can't really determine the way he died. -- 13:52, April 2, 2014 (UTC)
RE:I have 2 questions to ask, both concerning Seamus Finnigan.Edit
1) It's entirely possible. However, it's only a possibility, we don't have confirmation if Kingsley actually did invite them to join the Auror Office and, even if he did, if any of the individuals you mentioned accepted. 2) Again, it's a possibility. We don't have official confirmation but, for all we know, it could be. --00:01, April 19, 2014 (UTC)
Re:Vernon Dursley's mother on Hunnie Bunn's talk pageEdit
Hi, I only want to tell you, Hunnie Bunn also can't edit this page, only the admins can do so. The page is full-protected.22:44, May 8, 2014 (UTC)
RE:Vernon Dursley's mother Edit
Thanks for letting me know; I hadn't realised. Unfortunately, when a page is blocked from editing, nobody can edit it until it's unprotected. I therefore can't change anything on the page until the protection expires. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 23:09, May 8, 2014 (UTC)
RE:I have been thinkingEdit
Ask away, ask away. --20:51, May 19, 2014 (UTC)
- I think you're referring to Augusta Longbottom's remark in Order of the Phoenix ("They were Aurors, you know, and very well respected within the wizarding community. Highly gifted, the pair of them."), am I correct? If so, I am sad to say, there is no way we can extrapolate that Frank had been working at the Auror Office for 2 years by the end of the First Wizarding War.
- Respect is earned by achievement, not time in office. Frank and Alice had, as Trelawney's prophecy implies, "thrice defied" Lord Voldemort. This, coupled with the fact that they were "highly gifted" in the magical arts may have been what earned the wizarding society's respect, not any set ammount of time they'd been Aurors for.
- Another oversight is that we don't know exactly when Frank and Alice's torture took place, so we can't subtract months with the degree of certainty that your logic implies. All we know is that it happened following Voldemort's downfall in 1981 — how later is left vague: 1 month? 6 months? A year? We're not sure.
- All we seem to know with any degree of certainty is that Frank spent 7 years at Hogwarts in order to earn his NEWTs, and then spent 3 years at the Ministry during Auror training. Also taking into account the 11 years before Hogwarts (or approximately 12 years, if his birthday is after September, like Hermione's), we have a total of 21 or 22 years.
- This is the minimum possible age Frank was at the time of his attack. All other preriods of time you are taking into consideration are speculative (I've already discussed the "2 years as an Auror hypothesis"; but there's also the "Alice and Frank retired to have Neville" conjecture — who's to say Frank was on paternity leave when Neville was born? We simply don't know, ergo, we can't possibly take that piece of information for granted). That being said, Frank was at least 21 or 22 when he was attacked. For the sake of simplicity, let's say the attack was just after the Potters' murders — then his latest possible year of birth would be 1960. Of course, depending on exactly when his attack took place and on how old he actually was when he was attacked (we can only determine he was 21 or 22 at least), this figure may have slight to considerable variation. -- 00:37, May 20, 2014 (UTC)
I beg to disagree. That Neville was described as the "son of the Aurors" gives us no indication that Frank was an Auror by the time Neville was born. Note how perfectly acceptable it is to say that Edward VIII was "the eldest son of King George V and Queen Mary", even though Edward was born in 1894 and George V's reign started in 1910. Similarly, Albus Dumbledore was known in his early days at Hogwarts as "the son of the Muggle-hater", even though the incident concerning Percival Dumbledore and the Muggles that assaulted Ariana happened when Albus was around 10 or 11. -- 15:42, May 20, 2014 (UTC)
- Neville was born in July, 1980. -- 16:02, May 20, 2014 (UTC)
"When Neville was born in July 1980, Frank was an Auror". We don't know that. --16:23, May 20, 2014 (UTC)
- Or c) only became an Auror sometime between Neville's birth and shortly after the Potters' murders. -- 18:00, May 20, 2014 (UTC)
I don't see why he would have to have had Neville at 14. By "becoming an Auror" I mean, of course, passing his Auror training and starting to work at the Ministry, with Neville being born while he was being trained. Besides, even if that was the case, Pollux Black had Walburga at age 13, and Cygnus Black III was 13, too, when his daughter Bellatrix was born. -- 20:11, May 20, 2014 (UTC)
You can read it in the references. The first number:
In the newspaper held up by Snape in the Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets film, Dippet is said to be turning three hundred and fifty-five in October, 1992. This places his date of birth at October 1637.
18:03, May 26, 2014 (UTC)
Edit conflict: It's on the references list for that article, isn't it? It's because of the text in the Evening Prophet Snapes holds up to the camera in the film adaptation of Chamber of Secrets. --18:12, May 26, 2014 (UTC)
- The stuff on the paper are not all ruled non-canon because of that discrepancy. Dippet's birthyear, in itself, is never disputed by any superior canon tier, even though the fact he is alive in 1992 was disproved. -- 12:39, May 27, 2014 (UTC)
- The fact that that content was in the Evening Prophet definitely is non-canon, but Dippet's birthyear, in itself (consideratons about his being alive in 1992 aside) isn't ruled out by tier 1 canon. It's a subtle difference, but it's kind of why we say Newt Scamander wasn't Headmaster, but we still use the Headmaster's office portrait to show his likeness (likeness canon, Headmastership non-canon) or why, even though Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film) depicts Petunia Dursley as a brunette (instead of the canonical blonde hair), we still consider all of its other elements that don't contradict Rowling canon. -- 17:26, May 27, 2014 (UTC)
- Righty-ho, I shall. -- 23:51, May 27, 2014 (UTC)
- The paper says nothing about 1956; the paper is from 1992. Even though it's non canon that he was alive by then, what the paper says is he will (or, in this case, would) turn 355 in October 1992. -- 17:58, May 28, 2014 (UTC)
So sorry, I saw your post, but as I didn't respond straightaway, I completely forgot about it.
Personally, I don't like the tab notation that much. I've seen it used in other wikis, and I think it disrupts the flow of pages a bit, but that's just me. And then there's the business with the sub-sub-sub headings, which you really can't achieve with tabs.
Either way, that's what I feel about it, and my opinion is worth what it's worth. If you want to bring this to the community's discussion, I suggest you start a forum. --22:23, June 4, 2014 (UTC)
- Just bring it to The Wizengamot -- 00:53, June 5, 2014 (UTC)
RE:Question of importantnessEdit
That actually comes (almost) directly from the novel.
- "“So — so this bus,” he went on quickly, hoping to distract Stan, “did you say it goes anywhere?”
“Yep,” said Stan proudly, “anywhere you like, ’long it’s on land. Can’t do nuffink underwater."
- —Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban - Chapter 3 (The Knight Bus)
--20:40, June 13, 2014 (UTC)
Reply to your messageEdit
Sorry but what do you mean by File:Tumblr_inline_n7c133S0qZ1rbgmpd.gif?
"Jdogno, would you rather have a) an infobox full of 70+ people that is longer than the page or b ) an infobox that shows only the closest relatives (parents, grandparents, siblings, wife, in-laws, grandchildren, nieces/nephews)?": Well who do you count as in-laws? Jdogno7 (talk) 04:49, June 19, 2014 (UTC)
"Jdogno, would you rather have a) an infobox full of 70+ people that is longer than the page or b ) an infobox that shows only the closest relatives (parents, grandparents, siblings, wife, in-laws, grandchildren, nieces/nephews)?": I would want the infobox to include all known family members with a definable relationship if family is something that is being included in the infobox. Jdogno7 (talk) 05:49, June 19, 2014 (UTC)
"Or, we can do what the Game of Thrones Wiki has done and block him - globally - for repeated offenses; one wiki already has, so us doing the same would be no problem. He spammed and ruined one, this one will NOT be next. Even if I have to become an admin and do it myself.": Global Block? For what "repeated offences"? Which wiki already has? Which one are you referring to? What wiki have I "spammed and ruined"? Gee, I wish I could become an admin but nobody values my contributions whatsoever, so that won't happen.. Jdogno7 (talk) 05:49, June 19, 2014 (UTC)
Stuff from Smallville wikiEdit
"Imperiex - I am not from this wiki (but have had to deal with Jdogno7 myself!) and this is my opinion: block him. Block him now for constant edit warring, arguments and being unco-operative. The Digimon Wiki blocked him globally, so why not do the same?": HOW DARE YOU ENCOURAGE ANOTHER WIKI TO BLOCK ME WHEN I CANNOT EVEN DEFEND MYSELF? What constant edit warring are you referring to? Where? "Block him now for...arguments,...", that's great Vernon and Dolores, silence those who disagree with you, simply because they disagree with you. So being uncooperative means having independent thought? Maybe you should use the anti-life equation on me? That would certainly silence me!
"Why deal with a nuisance when he can just be blocked globally; you can go to the wiki central and get rid of him that way.": Why deal with someone who has a different opinion to yours when you can just silence them because you can?
"Good. Now, we just need to get rid of him on the HP wiki - as the arguments are starting there and we take NO shit from him. None. Nadda. Zilch. El zippo!": Good job with your silencing campaign Dolores. Vernon helping out? So shit involves disagreeing with others? So no shit means agreeing with others blindly? Jdogno7 (talk) 00:12, June 20, 2014 (UTC)
What edit warring on Voldemort's page?
Continual arguing? I am merely defending my viewpoint.
I know that I must back down and end the argument when I am wrong. However, I have to be proven wrong first.
Well I can't speak to you on the Smallville wiki at the moment since I am currently banned for a year. Thanks to you it might be now permanent. Thank you for that. Jdogno7 (talk) 00:31, June 20, 2014 (UTC)
What do you mean by "The edit warring over "Voldemort" or "Lord Voldemort". You may be defending your viewpoint, but when it becomes arguing - and makes you wrong - then you back down."? Jdogno7 (talk) 00:48, June 20, 2014 (UTC)
Fine let's go over this slowly, so that we can both be certain. "The edit warring over "Voldemort" or "Lord Voldemort".": Is that about using either Lord Voldemort or Voldemort on its own when referring to the character? "You may be defending your viewpoint, but when it becomes arguing...": What do you mean by becomes arguing? "- and makes you wrong..:" What makes me wrong? What do you mean by that? "- then you back down.": Back down from what? Jdogno7 (talk) 05:38, June 20, 2014 (UTC)
"Yes, the edit warring was over "Voldemort" or "Lord Voldemort.": I thought so but wanted to clarify nonetheless. Was that so wrong.
"Something becomes arguing when a consensus (a point) has been reached and you keep pushing your point.": But a consensus hadn't been reached because all presented points from both sides hadn't been acknowledged.
"Arguing, when a point/consensus has been reached, makes you wrong.": But first a consensus has to be reached.
Re:Jdogno7 and swearingEdit
Considering that a Harry Potter wiki is aimed also to children and preteens, I'd expect swearing not being allowed. Occasionally, however, exceptional circumstances may perhaps be invoked. And, possibly, an admin not looking too closely at who did what. I'm not going to expect to be allowed another one very soon, anyway.
As for J-7's time-out, I agree with you: his history on other wikis is frankly appalling, and it always ended in an indefinite block. But, having a few short-timers applied before his final locking out is probably the price for having cooler-than-average headed people as admins. MinorStoop 20:07, June 27, 2014 (UTC)
- I remember another obnoxious guy, on Downton Abbey wiki and here... I haven't understood how _he_ managed to avoid a lengthy block. MinorStoop 20:12, June 27, 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for editing my talk page during a time when I couldn't respond. Much appreciated.
That Teddy Lupin is a half-werewolf might be true -- we all know how nasty Rita Skeeter is, and she could've simply have been trying to badmouth Teddy by using the term werewolf pejoratively (given the anti-werewolf stigma among most wizards). Anyways, I think we could add it to the article, with a footnote saying that it might not be a technical term, or that Teddy did not have, in fact, lupine tendencies?
As for Krum... well, I think we were all rooting for him! Poor Brazilians have been out of luck when it comes to World Cups this year. --22:01, July 13, 2014 (UTC)
RE:Can you help?Edit
I seem to have found a small mistake in the code; do see if my small tweak has fixed it. --15:33, November 16, 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you, but there really isn't anything at the moment. I know you would have done the same for me if I was in a pickle. :) -- 19:10, November 16, 2014 (UTC)
I can't open some of the external links you put on the page. Isn't Mafalda Hopkirk supposed to have been born with the sun in Pisces (which is 19 February to 20 March -- I should know, I'm a Piscean! ;) )? Anyway, I was just about to turn in; could you please leave the reasoning behind your assertion on my talk page (or, better yet, on the article's talk page, so that others might review it)? I promise to give it a go tomorrow. Thanks! --01:52, June 24, 2015 (UTC)
- Right, I gave it a go, and I can't say that's right at all.
- All we know is that she was born with the sun in Pisces, and the Moon in Leo. The "sun in Pisces" part is pretty straightforward: this translates as "her star sign is Pisces" or, "she was born between 19 February and 20 March" (not, as you put in the article, that she was born in either 19/20 February or 20/21 March -- also, all the other dates you suggested are excluded from this interval).
- The "moon in Leo" part is quite a bit more difficult to work out. The moon moves through the Zodiac every lunar cycle (i.e., approximately every month), as opposed to the sun, which takes a year to move through the entire Zodiac. So all we know is that, at the time of Mafalda Hopkirk's birth, while the Sun was passing through Pisces (February-March), the Moon was passing through Leo -- the thing is, the moon isn't always in Leo on the same days whenever the sun is in Pisces, and this chart you used is valid for the year 2015. We don't actually know the year of Mafalda Hopkirk's birth. -- 20:06, June 24, 2015 (UTC)
RE:Sirius Black IEdit
I'd say no. As I pointed out on the edit summary, there are innumerable reasons why an 8-year-old might die (falling down the stairs, drowning, murder, playing with fire, contracting scrofungulus, poisoned potato, you name it). The reason why the cholera hypothesis is interesting is due to the matching timeframe. -- 15:47, August 17, 2015 (UTC)
Otto Bagman - Sacred 28Edit
Why is it widely believed that Cantankerus Nott wrote the "Pure-Blood Directory" which contains the Sacred Twenty-Eight? There are other families claiming to be pure-bloods. My guess is that none of these other families have all (or most) of these 28 names on their family tree. In other words, the book was written to boost the claims of its author of his familiy's blood status. For one to be able to claim that one is pure blood, one also needs to claim that the families one is related to are also pure bloods. Thus, that one's name is missing from it cannot be taken as proof that one is not pure blood - all it can prove for sure is that one's name was not in Cantakerus Nott's family tree. (Vaudree (talk) 00:47, November 21, 2015 (UTC))
RE:The Fat LadyEdit
I'd say no. We don't really have that much info on Fat-Lady-the-person to warrant its own page. It's about applying the same logic as for the other individuals of which there are portraits (e.g., we have an article on both Albus Dumbledore and Albus Dumbledore's portrait because we have enough to say about both; not so much about Giffard Abbott, because there really isn't a need to split between portrait and person, since we know so little about him). Currently, the Fat Lady article is about both person and portrait. -- 20:08, November 29, 2015 (UTC)
RE: "This implies that she was at least thirty when she was known to be Senior Undersecretary, in 1995. We know, however, that Umbridge is older than thirty; Sirius, who is thirty five at his death in June 1995, mentions that he knows Umbridge by "reputation" and, as she cannot be younger than him, she has to have finished Hogwarts, at the latest, in July 1970, placing her start year in 1963 and her birth in 1952."
Most of said reputation is from since she started working at he Ministry - and likely initially from Lupin, who, as a werewolf, would have run into the laws she helped write - since that is what he first mentions in relations to her. It is possible that she did not leave an impression on Black even if she did attended Hogwarts while he was there. All one can say for sure was that she was not in Black's year since then he would have likely attended classes with her so would have know more than what people said about her. (Vaudree (talk) 07:59, February 12, 2016 (UTC))
re: Umbridge Edit
- Nope, I did not start the revert war. In fact, a number of other editors have been reverting your contributions to that page because you have provided no source, but instead of making use of the article's talkpage, you continued to restore your edit and engaged in a revert war with others. I simply happened to see the more recent edit and undone it because you did not use the talkpage until I stated to use it. --Sajuuk 13:36, February 13, 2016 (UTC)
- If you say so. --Sajuuk 13:40, February 13, 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, but being an admin or not is irrelevant. User rights are not status symbols, they are simply extra tools to allow users to improve the wiki further. Just because I don't currently have any user rights does not mean that have no right to revert edits that are constituting a revert war. You should not assume that people need a user group to be able to do certain things on a wiki like reverting edits. --Sajuuk 14:09, February 13, 2016 (UTC)
- User rights are not status symbols. But in situations like this, you should leave the bigger problems to those that have the faith in the community. And if you disagree, don't edit war. Talk it out with other editors, and if that doesn't work, just accept what has been decided and move on.
- Sorry, but being an admin or not is irrelevant. User rights are not status symbols, they are simply extra tools to allow users to improve the wiki further. Just because I don't currently have any user rights does not mean that have no right to revert edits that are constituting a revert war. You should not assume that people need a user group to be able to do certain things on a wiki like reverting edits. --Sajuuk 14:09, February 13, 2016 (UTC)
- If you say so. --Sajuuk 13:40, February 13, 2016 (UTC)
- I suggest you just drop the subject and accept that you've made a miscalculation. Your evidence that Umbridge was older than Sirius is not nearly sufficient enough to be used in the article as proof. I know that you're probably feeling disappointed that your input to this page has been rejected out of hand, but other editors have been in this boat and they've felt the same way. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 18:19, February 13, 2016 (UTC)
Your message on my talk pageEdit
I have removed your message from my talk page, as it was clearly intended to be a bad faith hate message. Do not leave hate messages on other people's talk pages. Keep nonconstructive comments to yourself. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 23:12, February 16, 2016 (UTC)
Re: Hitting Edit
As I have mentioned recently to others that have asked me regarding stuff like this on my talk page, while I have been a bit more active recently, I don't edit nearly enough on here anymore, nor follow along well enough, to feel qualified to weigh in on something like this. I certainly don't feel qualified to make someone accept their part in anything. And as for you, if you feel truly feel angry enough that would desire to hit someone, my advice would be withdraw yourself from the situation for a good two-three days at least until you're able to look at things more objectively. ProfessorTofty (talk) 23:35, February 16, 2016 (UTC)
Two-month "time out"Edit
The way you handled yourself in this exchange was completely out of line. No matter how frustrated you are with a situation, there's no justification for hounding and personally attacking another user, and certainly not for posting an all-caps, expletive-filled tirade. I'm afraid that, as you've been blocked previously for similar behaviour, I'm going to have to put you on a two-month "time out." ★ Starstuff (Owl me!) 09:08, February 17, 2016 (UTC)
- So, when does this expire? And, in my defence, if you read the original message posted by C Syde, they specifically state that you should "talk over the edit with the person before undoing it"... which they did not... which led to this in the first place. If I have been blocked, then they, for causing it, should be too. If they'd done that one simple thing, none of this would have occurred.--HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 13:53, February 17, 2016 (UTC)
- I'm afraid you completely misunderstood what I said. My reasoning was that your better move was to talk it over with me before undoing my edit, since I was the first user to initiate the undo action. But because I was undoing an edit of yours, before you undid the edit of mine, it wasn't practical for me to talk it over with you before undoing your edit. If I added some information that you disagreed with, and you undid my edit, I would have asked you why you undid my edit. But because it was me, not you who was first to use the undo button in this situation, it was not practical for me to talk over the edit with you, because I had my reasons for undoing it. You on the other hand only undid my edit because you were feeling cross and defensive. This is the last time I am going to try to explain this to you. And if you still don't get it, then you're on your own. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 02:40, February 18, 2016 (UTC)
- To be honest, I don't care anymore. Keep away from me, my page and my edits in the future. If you want to undo something of mine or comment on my page, don't. Just get an admin instead. It makes it so much easier. I'm being polite and asking, rather than ordering. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 12:37, February 18, 2016 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I cannot take your request into consideration, or indeed anything similar that you request of me thereafter. These are the sorts of things that can't be adjusted to suit the guilty one's convenience. I will continue to undo any edits that I feel are not warranted, regardless of who did them. It's not up to you who undoes your edits, and who doesn't. And it's not up to you who leaves messages on your talk page. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 19:48, February 18, 2016 (UTC)
Hypocrite. You removed my comments on your talk page, so I think you'll find that it is up to me. And, I think you'll find that I wasn't the guilty one; you were the one, albeit indirectly, who was responsible for everything that occurred. If you do go by that basis, then you'll be causing a whole world of hell and will always be in constant opposition to me -- that's what causes edit wars. Get an admin involved and you skip them. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 03:03, February 19, 2016 (UTC)
- I can't allow this to continue. I didn't ask to be involved, but you messaged me, so I am. C.Syde, just ignore any further comments here. HarryPotterRules, I have to ask you to stop as well, or I will have no choice but alter the block settings to disable talk page access as well. As for when it expires, it's exactly as Starstuff said - two months. And I completely agree with the block - use of that type of language is never acceptable under any circumstances. I really wish you had just followed my advice above and simply removed yourself from the situation for a while. ProfessorTofty (talk) 04:14, February 19, 2016 (UTC)
I meant what date does it expire? Whenever I check it doesn't show one. And hey, C.Syde's fault this all began anyway. I'll take the two month time out -- I don't really have a choice -- but I can assure you that this will not be forgotten by me when the block is undone. I won't act on it, of course. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 14:00, February 19, 2016 (UTC)
- According to the information I have, your block is slated to expire on April 17. 08:52:38 GMT. And it concerns me that you seem to feel entirely blameless in this. Yes, some of what C.Syde did may have been questionable, but from what I read, at no point did he engage in personal attacks like you did, nor did he engage in all-caps, profanity-filled tirade. You on, the other hand, have a long history on your talk page of latching onto a particular position like a dog with a bone and attempting to argue it to death, regardless of how other contributors on the wiki feel about the matter. If you intend to continue editing once your block is over, I really strongly suggest reconsidering that. ProfessorTofty (talk) 23:31, February 19, 2016 (UTC)
Oh, I know I'm not blameless. He (or she, I've never asked!) is the main cause of it. THAT is why I am angry -- not at the edit, but at him. His (or her) words were that you should always talk with an editor before undoing their edits to see if you can bring them round or come to an understanding. He/she did not do that and just reverted the edit -- which led to the edit war in the first place. THAT is why I am angry. Because he/she has not acknowledged their part or apologized for causing the edit war in the first place. All they had to say was "I am sorry for ignoring my own words and undoing your edit without asking you/discussing it with you first" and this would have all blown over. They didn't, and it escalated from there. If they'd said those words -- if they'd just admitted they were a hypocrite for ignoring their own words (which they lectured me about!) then none of this would have occurred. I don't give a monkey's hairy backside that my edit was undone, edits are undone and altered all the time on wikis, what I care about is that they lecture me with words... and then completely ignore those words and refuse to apologize over it. That sentence, if they'd said it, could have averted all of this: my words, the block, the above paragraph written by you -- all of it. One simple sentence. That was all they had to say. I'll apologize for my actions when my block is done -- but I'd like one, for starting the edit war, back. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 01:13, February 22, 2016 (UTC)
- You are still missing the point that it needn't have escalated. You could have simply have politely pointed it out to them instead of demanding an apology: you complain of poor Wikiquette, but are doing a poor show of it anyway. Either way, this is the last administrative warning about you having to drop the subject. I'm not even expecting a reply to this message. -- 02:05, February 22, 2016 (UTC)