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
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
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 :)
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)
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?
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
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 removed
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
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
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
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 relationship
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
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.
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)
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...
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 please
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 query
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 page
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 birthdate
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)