User talk:Ninclow

Cursed Child
How do I do that? O.o Ninclow (talk) 19:46, June 12, 2016 (UTC)

Vote opened on Forum:Character Images and Infoboxes
Since you took part of the discussion over at Forum:Character Images and Infoboxes, I thought it would interest you to know that the vote on the matter has been opened. Cheers! --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 00:40, August 4, 2016 (UTC)

A few of your edits
I think it's best if you refrain from replacing various sources and information details, since it seems too bureaucratic. The wiki operates on consensus, not the decision of one person. ― C.Syde  ( talk  |  contribs ) 01:31, September 3, 2016 (UTC)

Are you referring to my edits to "invisibility cloak" and "pensieve"? Ninclow (talk) 09:53, September 3, 2016 (UTC)

Your comment on the Armando Dippet talk page
You really need to calm down, and you really need to understand that edit warring is typically frowned upon, and since you continued to edit war, without talking it out with the other user, it came to this. Perhaps this will teach you a thing or two about edit warring. Also I suggest you refrain from swearing since it will get you nowhere, and will in-fact make others less sympathetic of you. ― C.Syde  ( talk  |  contribs ) 06:44, September 25, 2016 (UTC)

Magical abilities and skills
I've started a discussion on Percival Graves' talk-page to resolve this dispute.

As for Grindelwald - I've reverted your latest additions... there's no such thing as "wand versatility". Anyone can take a wand from another witch or wizard and bend it to their will. Ollivander explains these subtle laws in Deathly Hallows.

Occlumency: Grindelwald actually fails to conceal the Elder Wand's location, so saying that he could successfully shield his mind from Voldemort is outright incorrect.

Divination: Grindelwald knew there was an Obscurus in New York because he sees it firsthand at the start of the film. All that "I've had vision" talk was just part of his manipulation of Credence.

Acting, charisma, and leadership: Nothing whatsoever to do with magic, and speculation... we don't know if he was imitating an American accent, or if he altered his voice with magic.

History of Magic: He knew where Ignotus Peverell was buried because his aunt lived in Godric's Hollow. It's not a "skill" that warrants listing.

08:17, November 25, 2016 (UTC)


 * Please calm down. It was you who asked for a discussion, so let's have one rationally, instead of being overly emotional.


 * You misunderstand - I'm not saying he wasn't charismatic, or that he didn't possess leadership skills, or that he wasn't a good actor... I'm saying that those things have nothing to do with his magical abilities and skills, and therefore don't belong in that section.


 * Magical dexterity: That's your opinion, and nothing more. Newt and Tina had already realized that Grindelwald was trying to unleash the Obscurus on NY and were trying to stop him... why would he try and "stay in character" at this point? Unless I'm missing something Grindelwald has three duels in the film; he duels Tina and wins, then Newt and wins, and then the MACUSA Aurors + Newt and Tina, and is defeated. On what other occasion does he use magic were you feel he's "holding back".


 * Divination: He lied. We know he lied because he encounters the Obscurus in the first scene he's introduced in.


 * Occlumency: Voldemort successfully penetrates Grindelwald's mind, and retrieves the Elder Wand's location.


 * Wandlore: Knowing a simple, basic fact about wandlore doesn't make him "well versed".


 * Wand versatility: Harry notes in Deathly Hallows that Malfoy's wand worked just as well for him as his own holly wand had, so no, you're completely wrong about that. All wands are different, after all. Scratch that last bit, I was wrong. Harry describes Draco's wand as working just as well for him as Hermione's had. That doesn't make "wand versatility" a thing... you don't know that Graves' wand was working as well for Grindelwald as his own might have done, or that it was "easily won". - 19:27, November 25, 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm getting very tired of this nonsense... an administrator has already said that your additions are too speculative so why are continuing to re-add them? I also don't take kindly to the insinuation that "something should be done" about my editing privileges. You're the one adding fanon, not me, and you know full well that I've no desire to delete the entire article, only to make it more factual, and remove these unsubstantiated claims. I saw you remove your own question regarding GG's capacity for divination from the talk-page... this just goes to show the you understand perfectly well why its considered speculation - you're adding it back purely because I removed it. Show me the exact passage of Deathly Hallows where it says the Grindelwald used Occlumency to shield his mind from Voldemort, or else stop adding it. In canon Polyjuice potion mimics the impersonated person's voice as well as their appearance, he wasn't just "putting on an accent", as you claim, his voice was different. - 08:34, November 29, 2016 (UTC)


 * No, I'm "in the right" because the burden of proof is on you to provide verification for your claims, and you can't... - 11:31, November 29, 2016 (UTC)

RE: First off
Thank you for taking the time to respond in such detail, and for apologizing (accepted). I don't want to get drawn into a long protracted debate over this, however. Especially since Seth Cooper has already agreed that most of your additions constitute fanon... therefore, I won't discuss "wand versatility" or "magical dexterity" any further.

Regarding divination; you misunderstood me. I wasn't referring to the opening scene of the movie... I meant the first time we see Grindelwald disguised as Graves - he's investigating the recent destruction of a building, and sees the Obscurus rising out of the wreckage.

As for Occlumency... that's certainly how I interpreted the scene. Of course, it's entirely possible that Voldemort deduced the wand's location on his own. An omission is not a statement, however. All we can say for sure is what Rowling tells us in the book - Voldemort demands the Elder Wand's location, Grindelwald refuses and goads Voldemort into killing him. There's no mention of Voldemort using Legillimency, or Grindelwald using Oclumency.

Charisma and so on belongs in "Personality and traits".

History of Magic and wandlore... yes, he probably did have a considerable knowledge of both fields... but you have to provide a source that says he did. It's no good saying "he had an encyclopedic" knowledge of this and that, and then providing a single example. This is the difference between an opinion and a fact. Look, here's an example:

"Albus Dumbledore was highly proficient in the field of Transfiguration, and this was evident from a young age. Examining him during his O.W.Ls, Griselda Marchbanks would later remark that he had "done things with a wand she had never seen before", and ultimately, he achieved an Outstanding grade. His aptitude for the subject is further demonstrated by the fact that he went on to teach it professionally at Hogwarts. Reputable publication "Transfiguration Today" would later offer Dumbledore a position as a guest columnist - a testament to how seriously his expertise were regarded in the magical community."

That is a fact. A verifiable fact, with indisputable sources to back it up. This...

"Grindewald possessed a vast knowledge of magical history, as evidenced by the fact that he knew where Ignotus Peverell was buried. He likely uncovered other secrets of magical lore during his research of the Deathly Hallows, furthering his expertise."

Is an opinion... a speculative opinion. Is it well informed speculation? Sure. Is it probably true? Yeah, most likely, but it is speculation none the less. - 09:36, November 30, 2016 (UTC)

Signature problem
Hi, Ninclow! Can you see a button with the letter w in a red circle which is crossed? After that comes the button with the signature and stamp. When you want to use the four tildes don't put nowiki around the tildes. When you put it around, you can see the four tildes but they don't change into sig and stamp. For changing you must only write these four tildes without nowiki then you get your sig and the time stamp.

Greets,  Harry granger   Talk    contribs  19:26, December 22, 2016 (UTC)

Blocked:
Seth Cooper:

Okay, in retrospect, I realize that I was out of line and that calling someone 'retarded' just might be uncalled for in any setting, I had a tough day and took in out on someone who wrote nonsense in an article and created silly articles, and it should have been beneath me. So if you read this, Jessica, I sincerely apologize for calling you 'retarded'. Especially since I per definition is one myself. (Asperger's syndrom and reduced motor skills).

But Seth.... Harassment? What's this all about? O.o Am I to understand  I have I been permanently blocked from the Harry Potter wikia? If so, despite quarrals of the validity of some of the canonical aspects of Rowling's universe, I have in fact worked very hard to contribrute and maintain the accuracy of many of the articles here. To disregard that is much worse than me calling someone a mean name in one instance, however unwelcome the insult. We don't know each other, so there is no reason for Scamander to put any great amount of stock in what I say, whereas the wikia is something that actually means something to me and has done so for a really long time and that I have spent hours worth of time, energy and effort into daily the past six, seven years. Ninclow (talk) 06:13, December 24, 2016 (UTC)
 * I too suffer from Asperger's and (consequent?) problems with anger management, but I recognise that neither this nor what I regard as my valuable contributions (others may have a different opinion of them) give me any licence to violate the basic rules of wiki conduct, which state amongst other things that unless there are exceptional circumstances (e.g. correcting spam or vandalism), nobody has the right to edit any other user's user page, even if it's a "constructive" edit. It is for doing this that you have been blocked for three months; you should use this cool-down peroid to work on your anger management skills, and perhaps recognise that there are times when you should refrain from wiki editing for a while (as I do). — RobertATfm (talk) 02:51, January 2, 2017 (UTC)


 * You didn't just call someone the r-word during the course of a discussion. That could've been forgiven, because A) everyone loses their cool at some point and exercises poor judgment, and B) some people honestly think the r-word is simply a synonym for "silly" or "stupid," and don't realize that it is an offensive ableist slur that has historically been used to dehumanize cognitively disabled people. And people who use the r-word out of ignorance are more likely to be receptive to correction if you gently educate them on why the word is problematic than if you scold them and tell them they're awful.


 * You vandalized another user's talk page, calling her "psychotic," and telling her that she should be killed "for the benefit of human kind" because she made an article on a fanon character. Absolutely nothing justifies that kind of vicious harassment of another user, especially given that User:Jessica Scalamander is probably a young teenager, while you, by your own admission, are twenty-two. Young editors make unhelpful contributions all the time, but the proper response is inform them of policy (such as our no-fanon rule), and then impose blocks if they don't heed the warnings and change their behaviour. It isn't acceptable to vent your frustrations on random people because you're having a bad day. (And, for what it's worth, I'm an Aspie - Asperger's is an explanation for behaviour, not an excuse).


 * Seth blocked you for three months. You can verify this by checking the notice on your contributions list. Consider yourself lucky. I probably would've imposed six months to a year given the severity of the harassment. &#x2605; S t a r s t u f f  (Owl me!) 04:43, January 2, 2017 (UTC)


 * Starstuff: It was intended to be a satirical display of sarcasm. Jessica Scamander had trolled some of the articles, writing stuff like; "I'm best friends with Newt Scamander! I hope he will marry me someday!" on the behind the scenes section, so my "response", however grusome it appeared, weren't intended to be taken any more serious than her edit. Which of course could not be taken seriously.


 * ==Huh...==

I agree that I was out of line, and that punishment for the transgression was warranted, but I just re-read Starstuff's comment for the first time since I was banned, "You vandalized another user's talk page," (TRUE) "calling her "psychotic," and telling her that she should be killed "for the benefit of human kind" because she made an article on a fanon character."

... No. Actually, I did nothing of the sort.

Ninclow (talk) 18:56, February 18, 2017 (UTC)


 * That being said, obviously, I was in the wrong. I, as you so nicely put it, vented my frustration on her and to be honest, I did feel bad about it, but by the time I got the chance to get online and apologize, I had been banned. I mean, I had changed the "accusation" that I sort of realized went too far with a word that, while technically a no-word in my country in regard to a person with disabilitties, more often is uttered when people say or do something silly or stupid. Like if I clumsely trip over an object for the 100th time, and a friend of mine will laugh and mutter the r-word, and I will tell him to shut up, and it stops there. I didn't actually fully realize how serious it would be taken, because retard is a word I'm accustomed to being thrown as easily in your direction as "dork" or "idiot". I'm not trying to explain this away or make excuses now, it's just that what I wrote came off as so much worse than I meant them to be, and then  I unexpectedly was confronted with something I had altered for the very reason I was being scolded for.
 * I also was shocked at being accused of harassment, as my understanding was that harassment were when someone repetitively go after someone else to hurt them, and my post were one in one posts intended to redicule the user's trolling, but I guess what I did wasn't any better. On my question, I was more defensive than I had the right to be, and rest assured something like this will not repeat itself.
 * I also was shocked at being accused of harassment, as my understanding was that harassment were when someone repetitively go after someone else to hurt them, and my post were one in one posts intended to redicule the user's trolling, but I guess what I did wasn't any better. On my question, I was more defensive than I had the right to be, and rest assured something like this will not repeat itself.

RE:Question:
Hello there, apologies for taking this long to reply (it's been a busy week). Leave me a talk page message when you see I'm online, we can talk privately through the chat if you want. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 19:30, March 31, 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, if you see me editing, that's normally a dead giveaway ;) --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 15:08, April 5, 2017 (UTC)

RE: Talk:Armando Dippet
Seriously, I don't care what you think. You have no right to remove that information from the talk page since it belongs to a discussion that other users such as myself participated in. If it was on your talk page, then maybe that would be permissible, though I probably would frown upon it. But it was on an article talk page, and the rules say that discussions may not be removed. You removed it, so I have reverted the removal of the said information. Continue to remove it, and I or someone else will be there to re-revert it. ― C.Syde ( talk  |  contribs ) 12:03, April 4, 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not there to make you look bad. Sounds to me like you have trouble taking constructive criticism. Your reasoning will not excuse you. ― C.Syde ( talk  |  contribs ) 20:23, April 4, 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot. Now the page has been protected. You shouldn't have done what you did. ― C.Syde ( talk  |  contribs ) 22:46, April 4, 2017 (UTC)

RE:About "what the heck" section:
Don't take it as us trying to showcase your shortcomings; it's standard practice not to remove comments from talk pages unless they're obviously off-topic, vandalism, or personal attacks (including, libel, outing, threats, etc.), so we don't open any precedents for erasing discussions. Your comments, while positively uncivil (and I'm glad you agree), are about the page and specific edits to it and, so, fall under the scope of the talk page (your Youtube comparison is not apt, since Youtube's purpose is not to record all your actions -- talk pages, on the other hand, are supposed to record all discussions about their respective articles).

I suggest you just ignore it; I hardly think anyone will think anything more or less of you for it. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 22:23, April 5, 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't really want to get into it much more myself, but those were my thoughts exactly. ― <font color="#800020">C.Syde ( talk  |  contribs ) 22:31, April 5, 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree with C.Syde65 and with Seth Cooper. You cannot just remove messages from talk pages because you are unhappy with what has transpired.


 * Themasterofdenial (talk) 00:39, April 9, 2017 (UTC)

RE Official Magical Secrets Act
Yes, there is a mention of the Official Magical Secrets Act. --Ironyak1 (talk) 20:30, April 12, 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't make the page, User:Kates39 did. I just happen to see it post when I was responding. --Ironyak1 (talk) 03:38, April 13, 2017 (UTC)



RE Movie vs Movie script:
I don't have time to talk right now, but to answer the question I saw posted before, the script is higher canon as it was written by JKR, and the film was adapted from it. --Ironyak1 (talk) 22:37, April 19, 2017 (UTC)

'RE switching to location as always stated as such
I changed it prompted by your edit from a department to a meeting room. Upon looking at the sources it is used as scene description in and described as a place in. As such, it was changed over to a Location becuase it was "always stated as such" in all the sources I looked at.

If you want to discuss if there is an Organisation of the same name, feel free to start a topic at Talk:Major Investigation Department. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 10:42, May 10, 2017 (UTC)

RE I know that you know, but...
It's kind of you to check, but things are fine. As my uncle likes to say, it's not my first rodeo. Or as the Brits might say, Keep calm and don't let the Muggles get you down :) --Ironyak1 (talk) 01:26, May 13, 2017 (UTC)

RE I am as elegant as an elephant in a glass store...
Yeah, category pages and organization can be tricky. Let me look at how things are set up currently to figure out options, but a category for Criminals makes sense. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 13:06, May 13, 2017 (UTC)


 * Categories have some consequences so getting them right takes some time. Most likely, Criminals should be a subcategory of Category:Individuals by deed and Category:Crime and a parent category Category:Murderers and any other related offenses. It sounds like there is an interest in British criminals, American criminals? --Ironyak1 (talk) 17:07, May 13, 2017 (UTC)


 * It was a question if that was the intent - to have a Criminals by nationality category. It's a bit tricky as many of the Blind Pig posters in America are international criminals (without a known country) and you have individuals in Britain like Karkaroff and Grindelwald whose nationality isn't known. It might be best to focus on criminals by deed (Murders, Unforgivable curse users, Spell Forgers, etc) as that info is known for someone to be a criminal. I've started here: Category:Criminals so this category can be added to other categories like some of the categories with people under Category:Crime for instance. --Ironyak1 (talk) 20:21, May 13, 2017 (UTC)

Auror Ranks
Hey. I was wondering why you changed the job title of E. W. Limus from Chief Auror to Commander when it is clearly stated  that he was Chief. The references you provided on the page you made - Commander of the Aurors - do not have the name Commander on them.

On the Auror page, you put C. H. Limus as the Chief and moved E. W. Limus under the title Commander of the Aurors even though they are the same person, but until today, we didn't have a clear reference to see the name properly.

The reason they were in the original order is because that is the order they appear in on the source provided from. That seems that is the order of importance in MACUSA, as that is the order they put them in on their wanted posters. -- Kates39 (talk) 18:28, May 21, 2017 (UTC)


 * When the page E. W. Limus was made, it was transcribed from this image. Today, I acquired from another user a more clearer picture of the three names in the bottom right corner of the poster.


 * Until then, only one of the other two names had a page. I made the one for the Auror Commissioner and the other user noticed as well, that the name E. W. Limus was transcribed wrongly. I have started a discussion about whether it is C. H., but now it is looking like it may be E. A. Limus.


 * The props and Rowling have not used the title Commander yet, and certainly not in the sources you have provided. They have used the words Chief, Captain and Commissioner. I don't know exactly how the American government works but I would refrain from trying to make real world connections and then re-ordering them in another way when they are listed on every MACUSA document in the original way. -- Kates39 (talk) 19:03, May 21, 2017 (UTC)


 * Great! I understand where your coming from and the original source was very blurry. I almost re-read it myself until we found the new source :) -- Kates39 (talk) 19:39, May 21, 2017 (UTC)

Please not again
I would advise you stop and rethink your removal of talk page messages. I can assure you the policy will be enforced and you will be blocked for making such edits. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 16:20, September 10, 2017 (UTC)


 * If you disagree with the policy then talk to an Administrator about it. I was just making sure you were aware of the policy and the implications, but it's your choice to make. --Ironyak1 (talk) 22:57, September 10, 2017 (UTC)


 * HPW:TPP states comments should only be removed from talk pages if they're vandalism or spam. The user policy gives a bit more latitude when it comes to removing messages from one's user talk page. But one cannot arbitrarily delete comments or entire discussions from mainspace talk pages. Discussions can be archived if they're considered closed and enough time has passed. It doesn't matter whether a discussion represents a moment we'd rather forget because it shows us at a low point. We're all human and sometimes we say or do things that we realize weren't wise in hindsight. Ultimately, it's a good idea to try to heed the saying "let sleeping dogs lie," and move on from such lapses. Edit warring to try to bury a long-dead discussion that you'd prefer be forgotten isn't going to solve anything. Quite the opposite. It's re-opening a closed can of worms. It's digging the proverbial hole deeper.


 * I'm sorry to hear you're in a rough place at the moment. But this isn't something Irokyak1 could know. We don't have a window into the lives of other users beyond what they choose to share. And, even if someone has discussed their situation before, it can't be assumed that another user has read it. Understanding and support go a long way toward making wikis into truly collaborative communities. &#x2605; S t a r s t u f f  (Owl me!) 00:12, September 11, 2017 (UTC)


 * The discussion thread has been archived. That's really the best that can be done. People probably aren't going to randomly dredge up something that happened a year ago just to cause you grief. Maybe take a wiki-vacation if things are kind of piling up for you. That generally helps me. &#x2605; S t a r s t u f f  (Owl me!) 01:33, September 11, 2017 (UTC)

RE: Category doesn't exist?
When I checked to see if the category existed, there was a button that said "Create" which meant that it did not exist when I removed the said category from those articles. ― C.Syde  ( talk  |  contribs ) 02:47, September 14, 2017 (UTC)
 * Because that category might not be warranted. That's why I reverted the edits instead of create the category. There's no proof that that category's creation has been approved. Therefore I did not create the category. I thought that would be obvious enough. ― C.Syde  ( talk  |  contribs ) 06:46, September 14, 2017 (UTC)

RE:HP Lexicon question
The HPLexicon can certainly be used as a reference (as in, an aide to see where something was mentioned, for example), but it is not a canonical source per se. For instance, this "Confrontation at the Chateau" certainly is canon, since we readily find it in, but that name, as they were the ones who came up with it, would still be considered conjectural (i.e. not an "official" name). Hope I could explain alright! -- <font style="background:#FFFFFF;color:#333333;"> Seth Cooper <font style="background:#333333;color:white;"> owl post! 21:32, September 28, 2017 (UTC)


 * Sure, it would be perfectly alright to create an article about the chateau. What do you mean by less detailed, exactly? -- <font style="background:#FFFFFF;color:#333333;"> Seth Cooper <font style="background:#333333;color:white;"> owl post! 21:06, September 29, 2017 (UTC)

Arguments
Must you start another edit war? --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 13:00, October 13, 2017 (UTC)

Opinions, yes - edit wars, no. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 15:50, October 13, 2017 (UTC)

Editing articles is based on fact, ''not opinion. ''HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 16:25, October 13, 2017 (UTC)

No, it isn't. Opinions rarely ever align with facts. This wiki works on facts - your edits are speculation until such point as a discussion proves them otherwise. Until then, the article stays as it is. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 16:38, October 13, 2017 (UTC)

Listen to me. All of the "points" you made were all opinions, until facts proved them right - the same is relevant here; until the goblin is proven to not be Griphook, it is. The discussion hasn't finished and no consensus has been reached, so until further notice it is Griphook. Harry, if you noticed, tends to stop referring to people by name when he's angry with them, so saying "the goblin" would be Harry's way of showing his anger with Griphook. So, I'll make this clear - stop with the edit war and leave it as Griphook or I'll go to one of the admins on here or the Wiki Central and have you silenced, capiche? Because if it's not Griphook you're arguing over, it's Dumbledore using Aura in the cave or Newt's explusion. It's becoming a running habit we could do without because it's compromising the factuality of the wiki. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 17:08, October 13, 2017 (UTC)

It wasn't for disagreeing with me - that's fine - it was for flouting the laws of the wiki that a discussion must be had and a consensus must be reached in matters like that. If you're not going to follow the rules - and we've seen this before with Invisibility Cloak, Dumbledore and Newt, to name just three - then you have to be dealt with. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 18:40, October 13, 2017 (UTC)

Now, now, there's no need to get angry. It was merely an opinion. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 18:48, October 13, 2017 (UTC)


 * Dumbledore: Unconfirmed, fanon.

I apologise. And, so we're clere - nothing in canon confirms either you theory on Dumbledore or Newt. As for Griphook - the goblin is not named in the book and Griphook vanishes after the vault stuff... so it is possible it is him. Until a consensus decides that, the page stays as it was before you edited it. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 20:04, October 13, 2017 (UTC)
 * Newt: Also unconfirmed. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 19:25, October 13, 2017 (UTC)

The book doesn't always address things - it doesn't address all the students in Gryffindor, or all the students in Harry's class, or what Marietta Edgecombe looks like other than she's ginger - it could easily not have addressed it. For now, we'll leave it to a consensus and see. 21:31, October 13, 2017 (UTC)HarryPotterRules1 (talk)

Not fact - we'll leave it for consensus at the moment. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 23:51, October 13, 2017 (UTC)

a consensus has already started; we're just waiting on it's conclusion. The book never says if it is or isn't Griphook, so the consensus will decide. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 01:28, October 14, 2017 (UTC)

There have already been a consensus, and it is wrong, so I chose to edit the page all the same. Ninclow (talk) 16:49, October 14, 2017 (UTC)

The book doesn't name the goblin - so'' it could be Griphook. ''That is what the consesus is to decide - whether J.K. Rowling intended it to be Griphook or not. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 19:59, October 14, 2017 (UTC)

As I have said - in this case, consensus will decide. That is how the wiki works - democracy, not dictatorship. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 21:23, October 14, 2017 (UTC)

The book does not rule out Griphook. The book does not name the goblin, so there is a chance it's him. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 21:48, October 14, 2017 (UTC)

First of all, Griphook does work at Gringotts. As for the questions - see the discussion on Griphook's page - they're all answered there. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 22:39, October 14, 2017 (UTC)

I did, yes. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 23:22, October 14, 2017 (UTC)


 * The thing is that Griphook was killed in the film, and he was the one that tried to turn Harry, Ron, and Hermione in, only he got killed as a result. Also J.K. Rowling never stated that the goblin in the book wasn't Griphook. So there isn't any evidence to prove that the goblin in the book wasn't Griphook. Yes, there may not be strong enough evidence that it is Griphook, but until it's confirmed, it should be safely assumed that Griphook did at least die around the time that he did. ― C.Syde  ( talk  |  contribs ) 23:44, October 14, 2017 (UTC)


 * Exactly why Griphook would be sent; he's expendable, so if he dies, who cares? HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 00:05, October 15, 2017 (UTC)


 * As I said - Griphook is expendable, so the Goblins wouldn't bother dealing with him. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 00:16, October 15, 2017 (UTC)


 * Griphook was, quite unfortunately for him, in the wrong place at the wrong time. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 03:26, October 15, 2017 (UTC)
 * WROOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNG! The goblins sent him to inform Voldemort - his punishment from them? To die. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 16:26, October 15, 2017 (UTC)


 * So, will the edit war stop now? HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 03:05, October 16, 2017 (UTC)

Re:Admins please LOCK?
When you say "too bad for Admin policy" and force your edits which run against it, there is no conversation to be had. You can talk to Seth as to why physical descriptors based on acotrs are not used, but until a new policy is decided on the current ones apply and I expect pages may be locked to keep them in-line with the standing policies. --Ironyak1 (talk) 23:38, October 15, 2017 (UTC)

RE:Canon policy
Hello. Can you be a bit more specific? What changes, exactly, do you have in mind? -- <font style="background:#FFFFFF;color:#333333;"> Seth Cooper <font style="background:#333333;color:white;"> owl post! 23:58, October 15, 2017 (UTC)


 * The Griphook article currently does not suggest Griphook and Unidentified goblin killed by Voldemort are one and the same; indeed, while it is not outright stated, the text in Deathly Hallows suggests the goblin was a Gringotts employee. At any rate, while I do not have my copy of the book at hand, I think the issue is that it is possible that there was more than one goblin witness made to go to Malfoy Manor to tell Voldemort what happened -- enter Griphook (again, I should say I'm speaking from memory, and cannot confirm at the present time that the book does not outright say there was only a single goblin at the scene).
 * At any rate, canon is not at all democratic; we can discuss it, alright, but it is not decided by popular vote and consensus. -- <font style="background:#FFFFFF;color:#333333;"> Seth Cooper <font style="background:#333333;color:white;"> owl post! 01:21, October 16, 2017 (UTC)


 * (Sorry I did not reply when I was here at the wiki earlier, but had to run off at the last minute.) Reviewing the book excerpt in question, I have to say you do have a point. The description of the scene is somewhat different than what is depicted in the film, leaving no room for Griphook to be present. I shall make the appropriate changes to the Griphook article to reflect this. Cheers! -- <font style="background:#FFFFFF;color:#333333;"> Seth Cooper <font style="background:#333333;color:white;"> owl post! 23:35, October 17, 2017 (UTC)


 * If I can help. -- <font style="background:#FFFFFF;color:#333333;"> Seth Cooper <font style="background:#333333;color:white;"> owl post! 23:53, October 17, 2017 (UTC)

About that issue, the key aspect is that we mustn't mix up character and actor. Generally speaking, it is incorrect to describe characters based on what the actors that play them look like (unless we are talking about wigs, or prosthetics the actors wore, or the wardrobe, or things like that specifically designed to alter their appearance), for two main reasons: first, because it potentially defies canon (multiple characters' canonical descriptions do not match the way they are depicted on the big screen; e.g., Rita Skeeter's three gold teeth, Neville Longbottom's blond hair, or indeed Grindelwald's blue eyes); second, and more importantly, because any character can be played by several different actors who will, invariably, have many, many physical dissimilarities (Lavender Brown is, perhaps, the greatest example of this out there -- Kathleen Cauley, Jennifer Smith, and Jessie Cave look nothing like each other and, yet, they all are depicting the same character).

While the actor may change, the character is still the same, and our information about the character shouldn't change just because the actor did. This is the reason why any references to skin colour, hair colour, height, etc., should preferably come from the books themselves. -- <font style="background:#FFFFFF;color:#333333;"> Seth Cooper <font style="background:#333333;color:white;"> owl post! 14:10, October 24, 2017 (UTC)


 * If no description is given in the texts (i.e. books, scripts, etc.), then no description is to be listed, simple as that. At any rate, it isn't as if any essential information is being lost — the way characters are depicted in the film (Tina's bob haircut, Jacob's moustache) is still conveyed in images showcased throughout the articles.
 * Consider the case of the Epilogue characters appearing in . The book provides little to no description of Rose Granger-Weasley, and both the Deathly Hallows film and the Cursed Child play use drastically different-looking actresses to depict her -- and yet, both are equally valid, as neither go against the (vague, or non-existant) book description.
 * Fantastic Beasts characters aren't any different. Unless some details of their likenesses are described in the screenplays, nothing prevents them from being recast differently (and equally canonically validly) in this or any hypothetical future franchises. -- <font style="background:#FFFFFF;color:#333333;"> Seth Cooper <font style="background:#333333;color:white;"> owl post! 19:30, October 24, 2017 (UTC)