Wikia

Harry Potter Wiki

Jdogno7

785 Edits since joining this wiki
June 9, 2009
Wiki

Wotcher!
Hello, Jdogno7, and welcome to the Harry Potter Wiki (HPW). Thank you for your edit to the Fleur Delacour page. I hope you enjoy it here and decide to stay.

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

Cavalier One (Talk) 15:49, June 9, 2009

Fleur Delacour

Please stop disrupting this article. Your constant removal of verified information is against our policies. If you have a legitimate reason for the removal of this information, please take it to the talk page for discussion, and familiarise yourself with canon policy. If you persist in further removals on the basis that it is a film plot point rather than a book one, you will be blocked from editing as per our policies. - Cavalier OneGryffindorcrest(Wizarding Wireless Network) 15:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

RE:Voldemort's name

Hello. Regarding Voldemort's name, we can absolutely be sure his name was "Tom" and not "Thomas" as you have added to the article. On chapter 13 of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Mrs. Cole gives us an account of Merope Gaunt's arrival at the orphanage when Tom was born.

"I remember she said to me, 'I hope he looks like his papa,' and I won't lie, she was right to hope it, because she was no beauty — and then she told me he was to be named Tom, for his father, and Marvolo, for her father — yes, I know, funny name, isn't it? We wondered whether she came from a circus — and she said the boy's surname was to be Riddle."
—Mrs. Cole (emphasis added).[src]

Merope did not say he was to be named "Thomas", she said "Tom, for his father". This pretty much clears it that Voldemort's name is Tom, not Thomas. Besides, the whole chapter seems to make a point that Tom is the actual boy's name: Dumbledore refers to him as "Tom Riddle" when stating his purpose there to Mrs. Cole (highly unlikely he would refer to the boy by a nickname; further backed up by the fact that his name is known to Dumbledore via the Magical Quill, which writes the Hogwarts students' names) and the fact that Riddle is visibly annoyed that his name is a common one like "Tom". Surely he would prefer people to call him "Thomas" if that was his name. But no mention of that is made in the chapter. Besides, as Dumbledore himself puts it, later that same chapter:

"Firstly, I hope you noticed Riddle's reaction when I mentioned that another shared his first name, 'Tom'? There he showed his contempt for anything that tied him to other people, anything that made him ordinary. Even then, he wished to be different, separate, notorious. He shed his name, as you know, within a few short years of that conversation and created the mask of 'Lord Voldemort' behind which he has been hidden for so long."
—Albus Dumbledore (emphasis added)[src]

Besides, your claims that Voldemort used "Tom" as a nickname are backed nowhere in canon.  Seth Cooper  owl post! 19:15, September 8, 2011 (UTC)

Also, in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, he uses his full name of "Tom Marvolo Riddle" to make the anagram "I am Lord Voldemort", and in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, the names on the Riddles' graves are "Thomas Riddle", "Mary Riddle", and "Tom Riddle", no mention of I or II.

Edit war

Please stop. You have persistently engaged in edit warring over the Tom Riddle page, after your edits have been repeatedly proven to go against all available canonical evidence. If you continue with this counter-productive behaviour you will be subject to a cool-down block lasting a few days. Thank you.  Seth Cooper  owl post! 12:10, September 12, 2011 (UTC)

"Is there anything that is INCONTREVERTIBLE, UNCONTRADICTABLE or ABSOLUTE that Tom isn't his full name but a nickname and Thomas is his full birth first name?" I would think that the fact that the author of the series says so would be enough absolute evidence of that.
At the risk of repeating myself, Mrs. Cole says in chapter 13 of Half-Blood Prince that "he was to be named Tom, for his father". Period. He was not to be named Thomas. Even if his father was Thomas (which wasn't the case, see paragraph below), Mrs. Cole would have registered him as "Tom Marvolo Riddle" as it was his mother's dying wish to her. When Dumbledore arrives at the orphanage for the first time, he refers to him as "Tom Riddle". If Tom wasn't his actual name, how on earth would Dumbledore know everybody called him that before actually meeting him or anyone who lived with him? Why wouldn't he say he wanted to talk with "Tommy Riddle"? For all Dumbledore knew at that point, the other orphans could call him that. No, Dumbledore is on official Hogwarts business, and while doing so, he wouldn't (and couldn't!) refer to students using nicknames he would not even know that applied to Tom. Thus, logically, he referred to Riddle by his true, actual name; Tom Riddle. Besides, the whole point of Dumbledore (and later Harry, in Deathly Hallows) repeatedly treating Voldemort as "Tom" when speaking to him, is to show that no nickname (like Voldemort or You-Know-Who) can hide who he is and who he was. It would be self-defeating for them to deliberately not call him by the name he adopted late in his life, just to call him by a nickname and not his real name.
Tom Riddle Sr. is never referred to as "Thomas", nor as Tom Riddle I (or II, whatever). In fact, Dumbledore (who does definitely know Voldemort was born to Tom Riddle) specifically refers to him like Tom Riddle Sr:
"Yes, that was Tom Riddle senior, the handsome Muggle who used to go riding past the Gaunt cottage and for whom Merope Gaunt cherished a secret, burning passion."
—Dumbledore, chapter 10, Half-Blood Prince
You say the Riddles might have been buried under the names they were best known as. Ok. Your evidence being? There is absolutely zero evidence in canon to even suggest that is true. As such, we mustn't presume he ("daddy Riddle") was actually called "Thomas" just because he might. That would be preposterous: next thing we would be doing is changing all references of a "Harry Potter" to a "Harold Potter", based on the blatant speculation "Harry" just might be the diminutive form of Harold.
"As I previously pointed out, Voldemort may have only used "Tom Marvolo Riddle" as it made the perfectly neat anagram of "I am Lord Voldemort"". Oh please. This may be the most far-fetched of your reasonings and does not actually prove anything. With "Thomas" he could make up an entirely different alias, after all "Voldemort" isn't a real word at all. For all we know he could have liked "I am Lord Vohldesmorta".  Seth Cooper  owl post! 01:14, September 13, 2011 (UTC)
Bumping this as you seem to need a reminder that Voldemort's given name is Tom, not Thomas. -Shorty1982 02:52, November 8, 2011 (UTC)
Please stop. Adding all of that information in parenthesis completely messeses up the formatting of the infobox and there is no need to add the same categories multiple times. ProfessorTofty
I know this is a very late reply, but I'd just like to point out that adding multiple duplicate categories is a known bug of the visual editor, not necessarily deliberate vandalism; one reason why I recommend that people always use the source editor. — RobertATfm (talk) 08:59, April 30, 2013 (UTC)

Trio article

The Trio article is a disambiguation page for the popular fanon term to refer to the three main characters of the series. It is NOT a listing of main characters, so no one else belongs on that page. The term Quartet is not in popular fan use. 1337star (Owl Post) 19:37, January 16, 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Twice recently (on the Tom Riddle page) you have added information (since reverted) which has included a needless "span" container. I've seen this happen so often (with different users on multiple wikis) that I'm sure it's another bug in the visual editor. What I'm saying is, be more careful with your edits, and switch to the source editor if possible. — RobertATfm (talk) 08:59, April 30, 2013 (UTC)

Your edits to Talk:Tom Riddle

Other's comments on talk pages are not to be edited unless under very specific circumstances (censoring profanity, fixing poor formatting for clarity or to fix a broken page, removing purely off-topic comments, etc.), even if they contain poor spelling or grammar or state incorrect information. Unlike main articles, which are a collaborative venture, one's comment on a talk page is indeed their own. Additionally, talk page archives are not to be edited at all for any reason; that's why they are called "archives". 1337star (Drop me a line!) 17:20, December 23, 2013 (UTC)

Sorry.

Jdogno7 (talk) 01:08, December 24, 2013 (UTC)

Removal of deletion tags

Hi there! Just figured I'd let you know, but deletion tags aren't to be removed. If you feel the page shouldn't be deleted, you should go to the talk page for the candidates for deletion and give your reasoning for why you think the article should stay. There's already a heading for "Tom Marvolo Riddle's Horcruxes" if you want to leave an additional message. Hunnie Bunn (talk) 13:02, March 1, 2014 (UTC)

Done that. Jdogno7 (talk) 13:10, March 1, 2014 (UTC)

Re: Thomas "Tom" Marvolo Riddle's/Voldemort's Horcruxes

Here. I don't have that kind of privileges. MinorStoop 07:07, March 3, 2014 (UTC)

On a second thought, the original disagreement is mine, so, perhaps, I should elaborate on that. It is always difficult to create a major new page when one is already existing. If you need to enter new information or a new take on already existing information, it is easier to modify the page that already exists rather than creating a new one. MinorStoop 07:25, March 3, 2014 (UTC)

Your edits

Your change was determined to be unhelpful and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. MinorStoop 06:17, March 4, 2014 (UTC)

1st point: English has that wonderful feature, that is is short and concise - "and" is generally better than "as well as".
2nd point: "Tom Riddle's horcruxes" has been deemed redundant in the presence of "Horcruxes".

MinorStoop 06:22, March 4, 2014 (UTC)

"1st point: English has that wonderful feature, that IT is short and concise - "and" is generally better than "as well as".": Not in all cases.

"2nd point: "Tom Riddle's Horcruxes" has been deemed redundant in the presence of "Horcruxes". :By whom? MinorStoop 07:36, March 4, 2014 (UTC)

key word "DUPLICATE". MinorStoop 07:36, March 4, 2014 (UTC)

It is not a duplicate!

Antler-locking

Jdogno, we've locked antlers and neither of us is willing to back down. Neither you nor I particularly care about the other's opinion and susceptibility; we're never going to manage our disagreement on our own.

I've therefore asked an admin to mediate - until then please keep your hands off the keyboard. Thanks. MinorStoop 08:18, March 4, 2014 (UTC)

Okay, but you have to do the same: keep your hands off the keyboard that is. "Neither you nor I particularly care about the other's opinion and susceptibility; we're never going to manage our disagreement on our own.": It's not that I don't care about your opinion, it's just that If you feel I am wrong I want to know why. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jdogno7 (talkcontribs).

Riddle's horcruxes we know.
"And"/"as well as" - as I already wrote (or at least, in my eyes, implied in what I wrote) the shorter expression is to be preferred to the longer one. In the sentences you've been modifying (essentially short lists) "as well as" appears to imply an emphasis on the last element that does not seem particularly warranted; the last element does not feel more important than the others. Those pages have been around, literally, for years, with the "and" diction and it worked fine. It's probably worth starting a thread in the forums (check in the help pages on how to do that) about it.
"Anti-semitic"/"anti-hewish" - the main objection is that after 100+ years in which "anti-semitic" has been used as a stand-in for "anti-jewish" (whatever), the terms have become synonyms. It might be that it will include also the attitude to middle eastern muslims, given today's strained international relationships between some of the muslim countries and the rest of the world, but I haven't yet felt it happen. Given the loaded meaning of the word, it's probably best to start a discussion on the talk page of "Pure Blood supremacy" and get a consensus on what term to use.
There's an instruction, somewhere in the policy pages (under Community), indicating that major changes/loaded disagreements are to be brought to talk pages - it's a pity I tend to forget about it. MinorStoop 09:04, March 4, 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps "loaded" is the wrong term - but since "antisemitism" denotes a situation of prejudice, persecution and other unfriendlinesses targeted at a group of people, it prompts strong emotions, heated exchanges and so on. Having a discussion on what word to use would provide a, hopefully(!) calmer, way to reach a consensus and a justification of the term ultimately in use. MinorStoop 09:18, March 4, 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough.

Redundant categories

Jdogno, you've created three categories "fred and George's intentions", "Spells invented by F&G" and "Magic invented by F&G". Way too many, when one is more than enough. MinorStoop

That's the reason why I tagged two of them for deletion. This wiki, in my opinion, is bogged down by too much fine details: I'd please my own feelings if I can manage to avoid a few of them... MinorStoop 06:54, March 7, 2014 (UTC)

What are you specifically referring to by fine details? What is wrong with them? Jdogno7 (talk) 06:57, March 7, 2014 (UTC)

There's a number of pages "Unideintifie boy", "unideintified girl", etc, that serve to no purpose that I can see, for example. Categories such as yours, which indicate essentially the same things without a clearly defined reason for them - one, the most general, is more than enough. MinorStoop 07:05, March 7, 2014 (UTC)
A different way of using old things and the creation of somethin new are different, I'll give you that, but it introduces a complication I'd like to avoid - "Keep it simple", that is. If one is in doubt "Spell by F&G"? "Magic by F&G"? OK, an "Invention by F&G"! It's easier. MinorStoop 07:13, March 7, 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to look it all over soon. Just give me some time to finish up though.

Jdogno7 (talk) 07:14, March 7, 2014 (UTC)

Undo my edits of page Albus_Dumbledore#1996-1997

Please, I'd like that you undo all my edits of day 26 March 2014 in the page Albus_Dumbledore#1996-1997!!! Thank you and I am so sorry for that! Andre G. Dias (talk) 20:24, March 26, 2014 (Brazil)

Sorry for some reason I couldn't get on to the revision history for the article. That's been happening on other articles on the wiki as well. Sorry. Jdogno7 (talk) 03:55, March 27, 2014 (UTC)
Don't worry! I learned how to fix and I already did myself. Thank you for have tried and forgive me for the trouble. Andre G. Dias (talk) 00:25, March 29, 2014 (Brazil)

Basis of reasoning

I don't understand why you keep complicating things here by moving and trying to rename pages. Could you not check first to see if the target page already exists as a redirect? Most if not all of the things you're suggesting have been discussed here at some point, and a consensus reached by the community as a whole. This site more than most on Wikia has provoked almost endless, highly detailed debate in arriving at the vast majority of its page titles, categories etc.. {{SUBST:User:Jiskran/Signature}} 07:09, April 4, 2014 (UTC)

I did check and those that didn't exist as a redirect, I created as redirects.

Jdogno7 (talk) 07:11, April 4, 2014 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki