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)