User talk:Seth Cooper

Contributions  Edit Count    [ Moves ]  User Page   Work Page    Sandbox

On the subject of "free will"...
As you know, I am currently pretty fixated on Rakepick's page right now, but when I eventually get around to work on the others as well - I seem to remember someone said that all the choices the player can make in the game about who is chosen to accompany the MC on various quests/sidequests or otherwise involved in the story was all equally canon, so I was curious - if we add on each individual page the character in question's potential involvement in detail, and vaugely make reference to any other potentials involved without identifying them, for example?

Like - who would you borrow a broom from? On Merula's page, Merula was asked. On Ismelda's page, Ismedla was asked. Who did MC ask for advice on the jewel head? On Ben's page, Ben was asked. On Bill's page, Bill was asked. On Rakepick's page, Rakepick was asked, etc. Does this seem agreeable to you? Maester Martin (talk) 20:12, September 1, 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I am not looking to quarrel here, just so that's out there, but - why? How is that better? I mean - I get why that would be the case on the article of Jacob's sibling, who after all is the MC who gets these options, but how is Ben/Rakepick's own potential involvement relevant to Bill/Bill's article? Wouldn't that kind of be like reducing a character article to a partial game manual/walkthrough? Sorry, don't mean to be difficult, but how is foisting a bunch of game-related variables better than sticking to the individual characters and their experiences on the articles of the relevant characters, and then simply make a reference in that poriton of their biography nothing how their involvement in that quest was "player-determined"? Again, not looking to argue or anything, but I'm afraid I don't follow your logic on this.

On a related and more interesting matter,  since I originally asked this, I rewatched the clip, and curiously enough, if you picked Rakepick, the MC will comment later when she talked to Penny that Rakepick suggested looking inside the castle, and Ben suggested outside the castle, as if they had talked to both of them. To me, it might sound like - in that quest, at least, you pick your first choice to go to for advice and get to experience talking to them, and then afterwards, the two others are asked "off camera". Thoughts? Maester Martin (talk) 21:18, September 2, 2018 (UTC)

Okay - I feel like there might have been some failure in communication here. When I suggested that "Who did MC ask for advice on the jewel head? On Ben's page, Ben was asked. On Bill's page, Bill was asked. On Rakepick's page, Rakepick was asked, etc.", that would, of course, be granted there was some sort of reference explaining it was one of several optional scenarioes in the game on each article. For a moment there, I mistook your reply to mean that we would write in the article, something along the lines of: "Madam Rakepick recieved an owl from Jacob's sibling, (if chosen by the player, the two other options being Bill Weasley and Ben Copper)," which  sounded odd but was what I thought you meant. Sorry, that was a bit short-sighted of me. I thoght the hypotetical reference denoting it as "a canonical scenario in the story, as opposed to being the canonical scenario " was implied, but - re-reading my own question, I see that I could have explained myself better.

So, to clarify, my idea was that on the subject of who the MC asked for advice on the jewel head - that on Ben's page, Ben was asked. On Bill's page, Bill was asked. On Rakepick's page, Rakepick was asked, etc., with a reference/note explaining it was one of three optional scenarios, and maybe a link to the pages of the other two choices. Maester Martin (talk) 00:27, September 3, 2018 (UTC)

My recent uploads
Oops... Will do. ^^' Maester Martin (talk) 21:19, September 2, 2018 (UTC)

On second thought, I might need an example/demonstration of how this thing works. How/where do you add this template? Maester Martin (talk) 21:22, September 2, 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. :-) Maester Martin (talk) 00:27, September 3, 2018 (UTC)

Sorry if I seem like a complete idiot, but - how do I fill out this thing? Do I use the "[//harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Upload https://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Upload]", does the code/template has to be added somewhere in the codes in source mode in the articles the images appear in, do you mean I add these pictures with templates in "Images of Patricia Rakepick" gallery before they are used in the article itself?...? Maester Martin (talk) 00:35, September 3, 2018 (UTC)

Boss? Maester Martin (talk) 13:04, September 7, 2018 (UTC)

I think I got it, but thanks, I'll give you a head's up if I have any questions. :-) Maester Martin (talk) 19:34, September 12, 2018 (UTC)

Blog post responses
Hi there Seth! Sorry for the belated reply, but thank you for taking the time reading and taking care of some of the question in the post!

For the colony question, I feel incredibly stupid lol. I never realize there's actually two different meanings for the word "colony," I mean, I'm vaguely aware of it, I suppose, but because I always associate one with the other, I kinda just group them to be the same. I take that HPW's colony usage is #2, when I just assumed it was #1; just feel like explaining as it turns out to be my vocabulary issue that mistook the exact subject of those pages. Thank you for taking the time and explaining it so straightforwardly! =D
 * 1) a country or area under the full or partial political control of another country, typically a distant one, and occupied by settlers from that country.
 * 2) a group of people of one nationality or ethnic group living in a foreign city or country.

Also want to ask if it's okay for me to copy some of your responses and paste to the respective talk pages where I first raised those issues, because I feel like chances for them to be seen are way higher than people stumbling upon my post, and I think letting people know the matters were resolved would be a nice gesture.

I know you are busy, so viewing the updates on User blog:Sammm鯊/Questions anticipating answers (Admins, really need your pointers!) may be a bit much (more to come, not used to a different laptop so it's slowing me down Orz,) so I'll ask the one I think after getting a respond, I can take actions without the help of Admins: Category talk:Candidates for deletion; no "delete to make way for rename" of the sort is needed, I just need to get the confirmation if there's other more preferable article titles other than one of the options proposed by another Admin; if not, I can go merge 14 pages down to 7. I think the situation is a little long overdue.

Hope all is well! -- S a m m m ✦✧ (talk) 16:17, September 13, 2018 (UTC)

Twitter template needs updating
Hey hey :)

Just popping my head in to let you know that your main page needs to be updated for it to work. You'll need to change: <twitter widget-id="xxxxxxxxxx". . . into <twitter screen-name="name of twitter account". ..

I would have changed it for you, but I didn't immediately find a way to look up an screen name from the widget-id number. So I wasn't sure which account was being called. -- CzechOut 18:33, September 17, 2018 (UTC)

Hello, again.
I made some inquiries on the talkpages of Dolores Umbridge and Chief Attendant of Witchcraft Provisions. I also replied on the talk page of the Imperius Curse. Maester Martin (talk) 23:10, September 18, 2018 (UTC)

Hello a second time...
I'm kind of feeling kind of bad that I tend to be sort of - you know, expressive about my opinions, especially if they conflict with the admin staff and makes your job harder than it needs to be, so for once, I'd like to propose a more friendly discussion? I take it you are familiar with the fan film Severus Snape and the Marauders ? If no, I'd highly reccomend it. If yes - they have actually continued the story in the form of a radio drama under the title "The Great Wizarding War", and they're really, really good. If you got the time one day, I figured you might be interested in checking out chapter one and two, and then maybe we could open a discussion thread and throw in our two cents on it or something? Maester Martin (talk) 02:52, September 21, 2018 (UTC)

Discussions data
Hey Seth, The Dark Marc was interested in seeing data for Harry Potter Discussions and what activity levels there are like. I thought you might be interested in that. If so, you can find it on User talk:The Dark Marc. - Brandon Rhea (talk) 03:18, September 21, 2018 (UTC)

Deleting image
Could you delete most of the recent images from User:Flowertje except one? They're all the exact same image and it is not necessary to have that many images of the same image. IlvermornyWizard (talk) 03:40, September 21, 2018 (UTC) IlvermornyWizard

Nagini image
Probably could use your feedback on this discussion. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 18:54, September 25, 2018 (UTC)


 * Agreed on all points - the tabber should be a workable compromise between the various interests. Hope school is treating you well! --Ironyak1 (talk) 18:23, September 26, 2018 (UTC)


 * I've been helping friends and neighbors deal with some stuff over the last few months, but glad things have settled down and I can take a break from reality just in time for 🇨🇬. Go get some rest (and then cram some more ;) Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 21:35, September 26, 2018 (UTC)

COS official videos... with Japanese subtitles...
Yeah, no idea how to describe them, because the editing quality (not necessarily the video quality for the first one) of them is definitely official, and they look to be special treats for Japanese audience? But yeah... Any idea if there're versions released for the English audience? I mean, they all talk in English, but I think the Japanese subtitle might distract some people if uploading them onto this wiki. It's not a must, but I feel like those interviews are quite nice to share =D (I'm not very up to date when it comes to BTS and interview videos, so there's a very high chance that those are very very old news and I'm just late in discovering them) -- S a m m m ✦✧ (talk) 16:59, September 26, 2018 (UTC)
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0nS0xW6vnQ
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HoJ9n9c1gfE


 * Thank you so much! I'm a little pissed at myself because I actually searched for the video on that YT account, and for some reason was just completely repealed to even try clicking on the said video (yeah, it wasn't that I didn't see it, it was that I actively decided to avoid it... I'ma blame this to a poor judgement made when lack of sleep.)


 * Thanks for the timely response! Also, wanted to check, are those kinds of videos allowed (or encouraged) to share on this wiki? I'm asking because I'm not seeing them here, so I don't know if I'm missing some unspoken rules about videos. -- S a m m m ✦✧ (talk) 17:39, September 26, 2018 (UTC)

Ethan going inactive, New MOD chosen
Greetings Seth,

TheBoyWhoDied on Harry Potter. http://harrypotter.wikia.com/d/u/36075671 has informed the MOD group that he wishes to be demoted, and while actually demotion is likely not needed, his reduced activity has left a hole in the group.

After some discussion, the remaining active MODs has agreed that TheDaughterofHermesRavenclawTributefromTatooine on Harry Potter. http://harrypotter.wikia.com/d/u/31656944 is the best candidate to fill that hole. Could you please promote her at your earliest convenience?

Many thanks The Dark Marc (talk)

Thanks again 👍

Plural as titles
Hi Seth! Are you still online? If so, is it possible to pop in chat? If not, that's fine, too. I have some questions for sometimes; why are the following articles titled the way they are? I just thought it was really weird, cuz even though they are regularly used in plural, the same can be said for tones of others and they don't have plural as their article titles. It makes describing them in singular form with unnecessary steps, an issue that won't occur if named in singular.
 * Creatures
 * Chocolate Frog Cards

Also asking because I think a "real world" page for Chocolate Frog Card is overdue; if and  which we barely know in-universe and are basing most on OOU counterparts, the cards that are produced IRL should at least collectively get an entry. There are some variations with the designs. It'd also unload some of the burden of the in-universe Chocolate Frog Card page. -- S a m m m ✦✧ (talk) 02:04, September 30, 2018 (UTC)


 * Will you be able to swap the plural and singular titles? Both have singular used as redirects, I don't think regular users can swap them.


 * As for the RL Chocolate Frog Cards, I have indeed read Famous Witches and Wizards Cards beforehand, but judging from the content, I don't think that is it. I'm talking about the cards that accompanies the RL Chocolate Frogs sold; I don't have a lot, but I did get two versions, ones using real people as characters, another using illustrations. Both kinds are those 3D ones that would move. If that makes any sense. I think the products I got were:
 * https://www.jellybelly.com/harry-potter-chocolate-frog-0-55-oz/p/96267
 * https://www.amazon.com/Potter-Chocolate-Collectible-Wizard-Trading/dp/B00AMTUIOW
 * The blue one is the updated version using real people. Then there's:
 * https://shop.universalorlando.com/p/Chocolate-Frogs-4-Pack.html
 * That have been featured within the Chocolate Frog Cards article. Same goes with:
 * https://www.hp-lexicon.org/author/wizards-of-the-coast/
 * This one I don't know if it came with the actual Chocolate Frog or just purely made as cards. Again, they are RL products mixed within the in-universe page. I know the same could be argued for Bertie Bott's Every Flavour Beans, but I think that page isn't having the same issue Chocolate Frog Cards page has... the latter really is too long when the RL ones could be seen as a RL counterpart article.
 * -- S a m m m ✦✧ (talk) 21:12, October 1, 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for solving the plural/singular issue! =D


 * For the RL page, would the title be "Chocolate Frog Card (real)" or "Chocolate Frog Card (real-world)"? I think both are equally correct, but I'd rather get the preferred one in one go. The RL counterparts of and  used "(real)", but there're pages like Mauricio Carneiro (real-world) and Emma Vane (real-world), that's why I'm asking. I've filtered out the RL card info on my user pages, so once the article is created, content can be quickly relocated.


 * BTW, I know you are sort of in the middle of something, but will you be able to pop into chat? -- S a m m m ✦✧ (talk) 21:58, October 1, 2018 (UTC)

Proposal
Hey Seth, it's Harrypotterexpert101, and I need to talk to you about something. I'm not trying to say it's your fault, but this wikis leadership teams needs to be dealt with. The Moderation team consists of 9 Moderators, correct? Well, only 2 of them are actually active in the discussions. One of the Mods hasn't been on the discussions board in over a year! Ok, here's the crazy part. Out of the 20 administrators on this wiki, only a few have been active in the last couple years! So Seth, I'm proposing something to you. The Mod team have been wanting an administrator for the discussion board so they can deal with everything easier. I am offering to take an administrator job to help with the discussions to make the Mods life easier. Seth, please consider my offer. I am a very experienced user in discussions and know when to hand out blocks and band when needed. Plus, none of the other administrators have real experience with the discussions on this wiki. Another up is that the Mod team wouldn't need to bug you  when they needed somebody promoted, I would be able to take care of that. Seth, seriously, if you give me this chance, you will not regret it. I have administrative experience on the Phoenix Files wiki, and can be active almost daily. Thanks for reading this, and I wish you luck in everything you do!

Harrypotterexpert101 03:43, October 1, 2018 (UTC)

Re:Warning.
Fine... I will stop disagreeing with you. Maester Martin (talk) 20:59, October 1, 2018 (UTC)

The issue isn't that I don't have tangible, concrete proof of something, Seth, it is that we invariably always fail to agree upon what is reasonably defined as tangible, concrete proof of something. Oh, btw, the new image on the Grindelwald's army page is kind of misleading. Seem to remember somewhere the image depict Grindelwald talking to people who have come to hear him out and whom he is trying to convince to join him. 21:07, October 1, 2018 (UTC)Maester Martin (talk)

Let me try again, I must have phrased myself poorly: The sentence "Professor Horace Slughorn is pure-blood" is not the only way in which J. K. Rowling can possibly establish that Professor Horace Slughorn is pure-blood. Maester Martin (talk) 21:46, October 1, 2018 (UTC)

If JKR released a new short-story set in Albus learns from Grindelwald that when he was a student at Durmstrang, it was under the stewardship of a Professor Vlademir Histoff, would you have to see the word 'Headmaster' to know Professor Histoff was the Headmaster of Durmstrang? 21:57, October 1, 2018 (UTC)Maester Martin (talk)

Why? Grindelwald just told us he was running the school, isn't that what the headmaster does? Maester Martin (talk) 22:10, October 1, 2018 (UTC)

Discussion Areas Update
Hi Seth,

The current MODs are looking at restructuring and/or renaming the Discussions areas and we'd like to involve and/or hear from the Admin group as to whether or what changes you believe might best prepare us for the member influx resulting from the upcoming movie.

Currently we're discussing:

adding 'and New Members' to the General or Questions tab.

Changing the now defunked 'FANDOM' area into 'Random FANDOM' to accomadate non offensive HP related threads that don't currently meet the Discussion Guidelines (Memes, jokes, What's your Favourite Questions)

Any input would be appreciated 😁

Chat soon

The Dark Marc (talk)

01:05, October 3, 2018 (UTC)

Administrator
Hey Seth, it's Harrypotterexpert101 again, and I had submitted my admin application, as you suggested. Ironyak said I needed an administrator to weigh in on the cause, but your technically an admin, correct? You have me permission to post on the Requests for Permissions, did you not? Can you please help me out? I mean, your a bureaucrat, so you technically have more powers than administrators. Ironyak told me to talk to you about it...

Harrypotterexpert101 01:01, October 5, 2018 (UTC)

Diagon Alley north side image
Hello, trying to connect with Seth Cooper. I am new to this but wonder if you know who has the rights to the Diagon Alley north side image -

https://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Diagon_Alley?file=Diagon_Alley_North_Side.png?

I would really like to find the person to talk about getting rights to use it.

Ddavid1044 (talk) 16:43, October 12, 2018 (UTC)ddavid1044


 * Hi Seth,
 * I was so free to answer him. I hope it's okay.  Harry granger   Talk    contribs  21:40, October 12, 2018 (UTC)

Full revert and other thing
Okay, so I was just kind of wondering why you reverted my edit on the Department of Magical Education?

Also, I mentioned this on Ironyak1's talk page, but I think it has gone unnoticed: In HM, Y4 Ch11, Professor Kettleburn said the following when talking about faries, which makes it sound like the founding of Fantastic Beasts: Cases from the Wizarding World occurs around the same time. What do you think? Maester Martin (talk) 13:16, October 10, 2018 (UTC)

Again, you have a peculiar way of defining "speculation". So what exactly was it that was so disagreeable?

Also - no, not by name, but there are only one organisation in canon dedicated to preserve the habitats of faries, and toppled with the fact that Jam City have basically copy-pasted quite a bit of their content from this wiki and to some degree, from Pottermore, it would be ludicrous to think they talk of anything other than WHIFF. Maester Martin (talk) 23:39, October 12, 2018 (UTC)

I know I've pointed this out in the past, Seth, but Rowling created her fictional wizarding world to mirror the real world, meaning that unless it is important to the story or a concept of her own making, (ex. dementor/obscurial), nothing is added without it being both intentional and plain to see for one and all what we are looking at. The idea "we don't know" what the department does, is nonsense. We know that it is a governmental department of education, and all I did, in the strictest sense, was to point that out in the article. The idea that a supposedly "might do" something completely different than what we know for a fact is the purpose of a governmental department of education to be, for no other reason that it has the word "magic" in it, is, with all due respect, a bit naive, from a literary perspective in regard to Rowling's universe and how it is structured. That being said, I can of course appreciate your presistence in keeping actual fanon out of the articles, but I would say I have good reasons to say my edit don't fit that label.

Also - oh, my bad, I misread you, then. ^^' So - it sounded pretty definitive to me. If you disagree, my next question i what you would qualifies as a definitive proof of the joint timeline? Maester Martin (talk) 00:26, October 13, 2018 (UTC)

No, it didn't say exactly how long WHIFF had existed, but here's the thing: In Cases, the organisation had only two members and was so unknown that not even members of the Department for the Regulation and Control of Magical Creatures, who works with magical creatures for a living and in this regard have considerable resources within the field, had even heard of it. In HM, while we don't know how many members it has, they had grown so influential that the group could actually affect Hogwarts affairs. If nothing else, it proves Cases predates ''HM. Maester Martin (talk) 08:18, October 14, 2018 (UTC)''

If it had, it'd been established in canon. It'd be "we are the only members left", not "I think Winfred and I are the only members". Again, coincidence and deceit don't happen in fiction, not even on other mediums than books. That aside though, why do you imagine an organisation infuential enough to affect the cirriculum at Hogwarts would, or even could, decline to that stage? From a purely hypotetical, in-universe point of view, that is? Maester Martin (talk) 18:04, October 14, 2018 (UTC)

How so? Maester Martin (talk) 23:00, October 14, 2018 (UTC)

First off - what are you even talking about? I haven't made an appeal to ignorance, I have presented you two pieces of canon with clear implications, and you reject them on the basis of your ability to come up with fan theories. So - please - just - stop trying to force fallacies down my throat. I'm sorry Seth, but you are using them wrong. That isn't how fiction works, and I have a third cousin once removed with a master's degree in the history of literature who agrees with me. (And before you start with the 'appeal to authority' thing), I don't base my position on him because he has a master's degree in the history of literature, I landed on the position because the master's degree in the history of literature means that there is a reasonable expectation involved that he should have a fairly good idea about what he is talking about, I mean - he have worked part-time as translator for fantasy books to Norwegian as well.

But alas, if you have already decided to stick by your position Seth, I guess there is nothing to be done but for us to, once again, agree to disagree. Maester Martin (talk) 23:24, October 14, 2018 (UTC)

Also, I have to ask though: Hypotetically speaking, if I tweeted JKR and asked which one she agreed with, and she agreed with me, would that have changed your position at all, or would that be just an appeal to authority? Maester Martin (talk) 23:31, October 14, 2018 (UTC)

Let me try this again... I have presented you two pieces of canon with crystal clear implications, from two different canonical sources. And your reply is; always, regardless of what canonical sources or information is brought on the table, "I reject that - for all we know - fan theory - ignorance fallacy", and leaving me a confused wreck and feeling like a complete retard. Maester Martin (talk) 00:09, October 15, 2018 (UTC)

Making fan theories based on no canon information because you subjectively interpet certain pieces of canon to be vauge, doesn't mean that there is more than one possible explonation, canonically speaking. But, alas, as I said above, it would appear that there is nothing to be done but for us to, once again, agree to disagree.Maester Martin (talk) 01:13, October 15, 2018 (UTC)

And I find it kind of unamusing that you treat your made-up-on-the-spot scenarios and the direction that canonical evidence acually point towards as one and the same. I try to explain how fiction works, you keep treating fiction like non-fiction and asserting that that's not what you're doing, I disagree with you, and I'm accused of making a fallacy. And on and on we go in circles. Nothing personal, Seth, but sometimes, trying to discuss the concept of canon with you give me flash backs to conversations I've had with Christian apologists. Maester Martin (talk) 01:46, October 15, 2018 (UTC)

If that'd be what I am doing, you would be quite right. However, as a matter of fact, I am adding two and two and getting four, just like I was when we discussed the subject of aura, where I presented contextual evidence for the usage I had orignially added to the page which people kept removing because it was "speculation", even after I went out of the way to explain step by step why that wasn't the case. And what happened? Oh, yes, now I remember, what I had said all along was demonstrated to be true. And this is in no shape or form any different. So when I say "the direction that canonical evidence acually point towards", I mean, quite literally, the direction that canonical evidence acually point towards. See - here's the thing, Seth: Your assessment of my "argument", (which is to be hoenest more akin to me pointing something out, really), and your subsequent conclusion that I'm somehow logically incoherent, are both rooted in the presupposition that the way logic is applied to reality is, or even can be, applied to fiction, which is simply not the case. You will not, and you cannot, reach accuracy that way. The fact that the concept of fiction exist within reality don't mean that the content of said literature does. So at the end of the day, the fact that you don't "happen to agree" the evidence goes is, well, irrelevant. Of course, it is in no way irrelevant for whether that information is actually added to the wiki, since you're in charge of it and all and are in a position to make that call, but that doesn't necessarily mean you are correct about this. And I know you are incorrect about, because you are, as I have said several times before, ascribing variables to a fictional universe that only can exist in reality.

I have almost lost count of how many people I have presented our disagreement to, and I'm not even tried to claim what I am saying to be factual. I tell them that "I say", and then "you say", and then "I say", and then "my reply is", and rounds it off with; "Who'd you say is right or wrong?". And whenever I lay before them my argument of facts not being facts in fiction, but rather whatever the author and/or related sources establishes to be the true for his or her fictional universe, which necessarily leaves no room for anythig to exist within that fictional universe beyond that which is established canon. For context, I either showed them or told them about discussions we have had, and once I tell them about your own counter-argument and how you are saying my logic is fallacious and that I am making appeals to ignorance, and rounded off by asking who they thought to be right or wrong, each and every single one of them have said, in a nutshell, that in order for the ignorance fallacy to apply, it recquires the actual presence of something to be ignorant about. And that is, in the simplest possible terms, why the concept of "contextual interpetation" you accused me of being guilty of in regard to auras, isn't really something anyone can actually do when we are talking about something rooted in made-up concepts, because in the case of a fictional universe, we can investigate what exists within it with a 100% accuracy what exists by simply consulting the canonical information given to us by valid sources. You have canon, and then you have non-canon, there is nothing in between. And that, Seth, is what I mean about following canonical evidence the direction it leads, be it contextual or otherwise. However, Seth, you keep telling me that this is "bad logic", and yet - you are the only one I have ever talked to on the subject who hold the position you do. Ever. And as I told you above, that includes someone with a master's degree in literary history. But alas, I am left with the sense that we will never be in agreement about this regardless.

I am almost certain we will not get anywhere by this discussion, because I'm saying one thing, you are saying another, and at the end of the day, what is or isn't added to the wiki is up to you. Maester Martin (talk) 06:39, October 16, 2018 (UTC)

Okay, so - I don't usually do this anymore, because I've been told that it makes me come off as if I'm talking down to people, and if you get that impression, I'd like to apologize in advance, but let me just reply to you point by point real quick so I'm sure I don't miss anything...

'''Indeed, what you said was far from demonstrated to be true (i.e. Dumbledore was a master aurologist) and it has been expurged from the article, and it remains so. '''

There are more than enough contextual evidence to make a case for why you were wrong, but that's ancient history. I am fully aware and acknowledge that you disagree that what Dumbledore did was aurology, that you will not have it in the article, and I'm at peace with it. What I meant was - the last time I had proper contextual evidence to back up a claim, you rejected it. It lead me to one conclusion, and one conclusion only; that the word aura, can be used as a contextual synonym for the traces left behind by magic. Which it can, and Rowling herself reaffirmed.

'''Logical analysis is applied to an argument. An argument is either valid or invalid, in that its reasoning is well or poorly constructed. The fact that we are arguing about fiction is irrelevant: bad reasoning is bad regardless of what it is about. It is poor reasoning to assume something to be true just because that something hasn't been disproven, regardless of what one is talking about. '''

While logical analysis applies to an argument, what the argument is about is absolutely relevant, because it tells us something about how it applies based on the subject matter of the argument. You keep telling me that "logic always apply", but I have never said it don't. I have only ever said that it apply differently to fiction as opposed to non-fiction, because one is rooted in actual existence, with "variables" meaning that we are restricted by whatever limit to our knowledge we can have on any given subject of reality, because of our obvious lack of omnicience. In regard to fiction, however, things are a little different. In fiction, there isn't any "variables". There are no "for all we knows", "maybes" or "perhapses". There isn't anything we "don't know", because everything there is to know is "on page" for us to look up. And before you start asking me if I know what will happen in the last Fantastic Beasts movie or something along those lines to "prove me wrong" - I don't know. But that knowledge, has Rowling even come up with it yet, have yet to become established canon, and won't become established canon until she make it so.

Canon exist "on page", not in Rowling's head, that's only where it originated from. And luckily for us, she just so happens to be in a position to add to the fictional universe in question for that very same reason, and she is not done bulding on it yet. (Hopefully, she won't be quite done even after the Fantastic Beasts series - one can hope, right?). In short - what you are describing here, Seth, is what we call a fallacist's fallacy, where a conclusion is made that the truth value of an argument is false based on the fact that the argument contains a fallacy. I disagree that I've made a fallacy in the first place, but for even if I were to concur that I have, so would you have if I had been making a fallacious argument, which would recquire me to have an absolute lack of evidence, which I don't have, it would've been - I don't know, the Modal fallacy, for example, or - False dilemma, but not an appeal to ignorance.

That being said, I have on quite a few occassions already told you that in light of the doubts I have that we will come to an actual agreement on the subject, nothing is stopping us from just ending it here before either one of us manages to piss the other off. (Note; I'm not even remotely aggrivated by this, and fully willing to just put this issue to rest at your behest whenever you ask me to.)

'''I'm saying this for the last time, as it's become rather tedious by now to repeat this over and over again: our purpose here is to record cold, hard, canonical fact. Anything that isn't established in canon in some way or another, is not to be added to the Wiki. If it's not on the paper, if it's not referenceable it's not established.'''

That's quite literally exactly what I have been telling you all this time while debukning your "for all we know - fan theory" arguments... Maester Martin (talk) 23:42, October 17, 2018 (UTC)

You regard them conjectural, I consider them to be contextual. Who is right or not is one issue, whether it will be added to the wiki is quite another. And if you think back, even if I were to concur that I might be guilty of having been a bit hasty in adding such contextually supported scenarioes of the type you don't agree to be canon, and even a bit insistent on it, once we "sit down and talk about it", for a lack of a better term, I have never once added anything after we both have presented our cases and you have made it clear why you don't want me to.

Again, the wizarding world of Harry Potter is on page, not in Rowling's head. Either something is established canon, or it isn't, there is nothing we "don't know" until yet a new element is presented to us. You can agree, or you can disagree, but we have what is "on page" and nothing more, and your "for all we know" scenarioes treats fiction like non-fiction by making it out to sound like this isn't the case. However - I'm done with this discussion when you are Seth, I have no interest in wasting your time with this if you have anything better to do. ^^'

Oh, as for your PS:


 * You have several time said "You're making an appeal to ignorance, you're using faulty reasoning", and used that as justification for saying I am wrong. I disagree that I've been appealing to ignorance - I've talked with too many Christian apologists not to know the general shape and sound of that fallacy by now - but even if that was what I had been doing, the fallaciousness of my argument wouldn't necessarily meant my conclusion was wrong.


 * Oh, I see - sorry, I should've been clearer in what I meant: Unless I have somehow confused the names of two fallacies, the modal fallacy is the thing were you're confusing possibility with necessity, which I meant to say were a fallacy I could have been arguably said to have made back when we discussed whether Dumbledore is an aurologist or not - not this siuation, that wouldn't make sense. :P Sorry for the confusion. ^^' Maester Martin (talk) 08:19, October 18, 2018 (UTC)

FIne then, we'll just say you won the discussion, shall we?. :P Maester Martin (talk) 15:19, October 18, 2018 (UTC)

When a "Hogwarts" specific article is needed
Hi there, Seth!

I guess I'd just like to have a clearer guideline as to when a "Hogwarts" specific article is needed; because I find myself having contradicting thoughts on the matter. For example, as mentioned in Talk: Hogwarts Quidditch Captain, I think this page was once simply "Quidditch Captain" and for some reason got a name change, which none of the other actual Quidditch positions got. In this case, I don't particularly think there's a need to have a separate article just specifically for Quidditch Captains from Hogwarts, just as I don't think Beaters, Seekers etc. need to have a Hogwarts specific article, but that's just me.

That being said, due to the shear amount of info on both Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry and Headmaster, several times I almost feel that "Hogwarts Headmaster" (Headmaster of Hogwarts School of ~) could get its own article, but I don't know if this would just be hypocritical and double-standard, when I feel differently for the Hogwarts Quidditch Captain's case.

I guess what brought this on is the discovery of the Hogwarts house-elves article; I feel it made sense, but I think on some level I don't really understand why the same logic couldn't be applied to Hogwarts Headmaster. IDK, I feel like I'm missing something crucial. -- S a m m m ✦✧ (talk) 21:28, October 14, 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification! I guess my problem was mainly to determine whether something hasn't been made as an article because "no one took the time to go through with it and make it" or "it was deemed not needed and can be included elsewhere," if that makes any sense. I'll work on trusting my judgement a little more lol. I've reformatted a redirect specifically for the Hogwarts Headmaster to its own page.


 * On a different note, when you have time, can you take a look at Talk: Telephone booth? I want to say I'm now guessing there isn't a separate "British Ministry of Magic visitor's entrance" page because "no one took the time to go through with it and make it"? (Even though someone did but was turned to a redirect?) Urghhhh or is it the kind that doesn't have enough info so could just be included in a general article...? (sorry, just when I feel like I got it, I still have doubts.) -- S a m m m ✦✧ (talk) 23:13, October 14, 2018 (UTC)

Re: Long overdue
Hi there Seth! Decided to finish placing a navbox to all applicable articles, so only just checked your message. I feel so honored!!

BTW, was checking RecentChanges, and found out about Harry Potter Wiki:Awards‎‎; I think there might be a few users missing on the list, not sure if there's a lot or just one, but I noticed User:Kates39 wasn't on it.

Slightly different topic but more like back to the previous conversation; I will definitely work on "being bold" lol. IDK why I always subconsciously come up with the scenario where'd I be scrutinized and judged, which isn't actually a bad thing but I think it caused unnecessary pressure. xP

I tried to be less fearful and worked on consolidating Unidentified Hogwarts employees, in which surprisingly, after consolidation, actually doesn't have clashing conjectural titles for different individuals. I did notice something and brought it up on Talk: Unidentified Hogwarts employees; in short, I'm interested to know how it was determined that all 1992 Quidditch spectators were Hogwarts employees, as Lucius Malfoy was also present during the same match (I don't think he was a Hogwarts employee, unless he could be counted as one?)

Another issue is at Talk:Flying (class), though User:Rodolphus has brought up a similar point in sections above back in 2010. I think I actually had this question before HM was released, because I couldn't find where the statement about "flying class is for first year only" was from. I've added when I see that statement, but I also kind of think, if it turns out to be false, it's probably best to take it down ASAP to not misinform people further.

Sorry for bombarding you with a long post again. xD

Hope all is well! -- S a m m m ✦✧ (talk) 23:17, October 16, 2018 (UTC)


 * Are you able to drop in chat real quick?-- S a m m m ✦✧ (talk) 23:00, October 18, 2018 (UTC)

Multiple Accounts
We banned User:QuestionOfTheDayOfficial for sockpuppeting, and just in time User:Reverb frost disputes our ban stating that multiple accounts are allowed, as long as they aren't used for disruptive behaviour.
 * 1. Could having multiple accounts be permanently banned from this wiki, it is only used by people seeking to create disruptive behaviour and/or troll (except for bots, those are understandable)
 * 2. The blocked user did disrupt the community in a sense that he was posting threads breaking rules set by the mod team.

In case of Fandom cracking down, I'd like to know whether you're to defend our actions or not, and if you'll put this rule in place.

On a completely other note, I'd like to request being made an admin, or at least a vote to make me an admin. Why? The discussions need one. First of all there's all the trivial matters, changing category names, (I believe admins can) hiding posts, etc. But also more complex matters, such as user involvement. Users will feel more engaged and listened to if it's an admin their talking to. There's the yellow star in the corner of their pfp (at least in the community apps) e.g. As us mods have stated before, in total there are like 9 discussion posts shared between admins, 9! You've basically left us to take care of the kindergardeners, something User:TheDarkMarc has put forward on and on, and I agree with him, we take care of all the nine year olds, while the grown ups edit, ignoring completely the discussions. We wish to change that, we want to create a space where (at least mostly) editors talk and use. I think that for that to happen, people need to feel more engaged with the heads of the community, not some janitor that was assigned to forever clean up the waste that is the discussions. I sincerely hope you and your co-admins consider this option. Cheers,   CosmicChronos       Talk to me       Contribs    14:49, October 19, 2018 (UTC)