User talk:Starstuff

Books
Hi. I saw that you worked on categories recently. Would it be a good idea to get thethe books category better organised? My idea was to add categories "Book by authr", "books by genre". "Books" by subject" Maybe you could help me. I am not very skilled at working with categoriwes.--Rodolphus (talk) 11:52, March 22, 2016 (UTC)
 * While this is a good idea, I don't know if it's really feasible to clear out the root-level Category:Books, given that there are a lot of books within canon we don't know anything about besides the title. But I don't think it would hurt to add some subcategories along the lines that you've suggested. &#x2605; S t a r s t u f f  (Owl me!) 17:59, March 22, 2016 (UTC)

re: Deletion Discussions
Actually, I did. Forum:Discussion of an article deletion. But as you can see, despite bumping it over and over again over the course of a long period of time, nobody cared to grace the discussion with a response. As a result, I just decided that either nobody cared or people didn't feel like saying they were fine with it, so made the needed changes.

Centralising deletion discussions is not common practice on any wiki's. In fact, many wiki's ask users to use the talkpage of the article that has been called for deletion: this has to be the only wiki which doesn't follow the common format. I can only assume that this is down to the founders of the wiki not actually changing the templates or knowing much about wiki's in general (no offence meant obviously, I wasn't here when the wiki was created). --Sajuuk 18:14, March 22, 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't mistake a lack of response for consensus. Especially when it concerns overhauling a major wiki procedure. "Bumping" isn't a reliable way of bringing discussions that are falling under the radar to wider attention, because each "bump" is as likely to be lost in the Recent Changes list as the initial post. Sometimes the only way to bring attention to a discussion is to ask people to weigh in.
 * I imagine deletion discussions were centralized on a single page to make it easier for people to keep track of ongoing discussions. This is a small wiki. We might have a maximum of ten or so ongoing discussions at a time, which removes the need for specialized discussion pages like they have on Wikipedia (Articles for Deletion, Categories for Deletion, etc.). &#x2605; S t a r s t u f f  (Owl me!) 18:36, March 22, 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay. Well, I don't like to "ask" people. I mean I asked "one user" who didn't even seem to care about the message and didn't even respond in the discussion. That was enough of a reason for me not to bother spamming talkpages for a response that seemed unlikely. And on many wiki's on Wikia, a lack of response is usually taken to mean consent for the change.
 * And I'm not even trying to copy Wikipedia. Even some wiki's on Wikia, which aren't that active these days, still use the article talkpage for discussing article deletions, it's literally the common practice on 99% of wiki's on the internet. That way, the discussion can be found simply by looking at the deleted article, not hunting out a deletion category.
 * This is why the newer Wikia Forum module would be better, but Wikia plans on replacing it at some point anyway. It has the ability to highlight a thread so people cannot complain about missing discussions. Wiki-style forums are, to put it bluntly, crap for wiki-wide discussions because there is absolutely no way to get anyone's attention with them.
 * I am disappointed that this wiki has so few editors. It's a popular series and is still on-going (through Pottermore) and yet few seem to care to edit. Maybe more should be done to encourage contributions: there's a wiki I'm a member of which struggled similar to this wiki for contributions, but had a nice boost of activity by enabling the Forums module and allowing some open discussions about the series, which has helped to make the wiki more active than it would've been without said discussions. Maybe it's something to consider to help in procuring more editors and interaction.
 * Or another method would be to use the chat. I mean, I've been here only a few months, but the chat seems like it doesn't even get used by anyone, which makes it rather redundant: maybe it could be used as a place for more interactive chatting between community members. --Sajuuk 18:39, March 22, 2016 (UTC)


 * I know that asking people to weigh in on a discussion can raise concerns over canvassing. But we haven't reached the critical mass that Wikipedia has in terms of userbase, and thus we can't rely on discussions meeting enough eyeballs to generate a response, even if they're brought to our equivalent of the Administator's Noticeboard (the Wizengamot forum). Sometimes the only way to bring attention to a discussion on a small wiki like this is to actively contact people about it.
 * The practice on this wiki is to delete article talk pages along with articles after closing a discussion as delete. Which is another reason we probably don't conduct deletion discussions on article talk pages -- it would make maintaining an archive of deletion discussions more difficult.
 * I've been here since 2008. The height of activity on this wiki was probably 2009 to 2011. I think the movies played a major role in popular interest in Harry Potter world, and when they ended, mainstream interest tapered off. But I do agree the wiki could do more to try to bring in Potterphiles. &#x2605; S t a r s t u f f  (Owl me!) 19:48, March 22, 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm going to create a forum post about enabling the Wikia Forums module. It'll obviously need forum moderators to assist (which we can do through the Discussions Moderator flag), but it might help in improving the community (the forums also include some neat tools to get discussions to be noticed). When you get the chance, please post your opinion in said thread (when it's available). --Sajuuk 13:57, March 24, 2016 (UTC)
 * Discussion made. See here: Forum:Wikia Forum system%3F --Sajuuk 15:06, March 24, 2016 (UTC)

Delete
What page do you post to find out whether something has been deleted? If one cannot find a name, it has either been deleted or the spelling of it has been altered. (Vaudree (talk) 20:20, March 22, 2016 (UTC))

Durmstrang's Location
Hello! I’m sorry for the poor formatting in my edit of the Durmstrang Institue-page. I’m still learning how to contribute on harrypotter.wikia, and I’ve been anxious to fix the information about Durmstrang’s location. I was hoping that some skilled wizard or witch could work their wikia-magic and do it, but I’m feeling pretty ignored in this matter. Maybe you can help?

The biggest problem here isn’t that Accio Quote would be an unreliable site. The problem is that THAT particular article is the ONLY place on the whole internet (that I could find) that claims that Rowling has said that she thinks Durmstrang is located in Sweden or Norway. What makes it even less factual is that it’s not an interview. It’s stated to be a reading followed up with a QA. Which means that the person who wrote the text most likely must have recited what was said directly from their memory. This leaves the door open for misinterpretation and misheard sentences. How can we be sure that this is what was said when no one else can verify this information? Especially since a lot of other facts (like new information provided by Pottermore, which is all written by JK herself) contradicts that one article? We were just blessed with a gorgeous map that shows all the schools' possible locations, and Durmstrang isn’t even close to Sweden or Norway. Why are we ignoring this? Why are we STILL clinging to that one source from 16 years ago?

And even if we assume that the article from Accio Quote is 100% accurate, even Rowling herself says (in that very article) that she’s not CERTAIN where Durmstrang or Beauxbatons are located. So why is the harrypotter wikia stating it as a FACT that Durmstrang “IS the Scandinavian wizarding school” and that Durmstrang IS located in Sweden or Norway? Shouldn’t JK’s own words be reason enough to keep this information speculative? Also, what if JK has changed her mind? Is she allowed to say one thing on a reading in 2000 and then officially state something different in 2016? Or will the first statement forever be the only true fact, despite anything that is said or done after that?

And more importantly, when one piece of information contradicts another one, what source will you prioritize? One, unverified article from 16 years ago, or several verified statements, one from this very year? At the very least, it’s worth to discuss.

I don’t mean any disrespect to any of the contributors on this site, and I’m truly sorry if I’ve upset anyone. I love harrypotter.wikia, and I’m impressed by all the work you guys put into this place. All I want is for it to be the main got-to site for any Harry Potter-fan who is looking for reliable information.Lokrume (talk) 11:51, March 31, 2016 (UTC)


 * Did you read my answer? Or is there someone else I should talk to about this? I think it is a pretty serious matter when the text on the wikia page doesn't match the source it's referencing. And when there are reason for discussion, I think we owe it to the books and JKR to make sure that harrypotter.wikia is an accurate place for HP knowledge and not missleading in any way.Lokrume (talk) 11:35, April 3, 2016 (UTC)

Infobox links
Heya Starstuff :)

Sorry it's taken me a few days to get back to you, but I've been out sick. So here's what I've done to fix your C issues. Instead of wrapping it in tags, I've given it a named class,, and then have styled that via MediaWiki:Infoboxes.css. The result is that there's one style for the tag and one for C. I think it gives you what you were looking for on the Longbottom page. Lemme know if you see any further problems. — CzechOut 17:59, March 31, 2016 (UTC)

RE:Little Hangleton graveyard, Reliable source?
Hello, hello! I really can't confirm the names that come from the Goblet of Fire video game, since that's probably the game I've played the least. Anyway, I don't remember one is very much able to do much exploring during the Little Hangleton level (it's essentially a big boss fight). Though, skimming through walkthroughs on Youtube, it seems that the Charles Epanel one, at least, is correct (see this, around the 0:20 mark).

As for using HarryPotterProps as a source, I think it's fine. We've already used it as a source in the past. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 03:06, April 1, 2016 (UTC)

Update Template
Is there an update or expand template on the wiki? There are no strings on me (talk ) 21:05, April 6, 2016 (UTC)
 * Well a template for updating and expanding information on a page. There are no strings on me (talk ) 21:11, April 6, 2016 (UTC)
 * Well my skills with typing are a bit limited and for what i feel that has to be expanded i'm not really sure i could successfully pull it off. There are no strings on me (talk ) 21:43, April 6, 2016 (UTC)
 * Well i'm busy right now on other wiki's i just want The Wizarding World of Harry Potter page be updated for the Hollywood version. There are no strings on me (talk ) 22:11, April 6, 2016 (UTC)
 * You could leave a message on the article's talk page suggesting these updates. &#x2605; S t a r s t u f f  (Owl me!) 22:26, April 6, 2016 (UTC)

Universal Studios Hollywood Map Update
Just thought i would share this link with you.  There are no strings on me (talk ) 03:01, April 7, 2016 (UTC)
 * It would be better to post that link on Talk:The Wizarding World of Harry Potter. That way other people could use it as a reference. &#x2605; S t a r s t u f f  (Owl me!) 03:19, April 7, 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh well that is good advice. There are no strings on me (talk ) 03:29, April 7, 2016 (UTC)

RE:Deletion process
Oh, I see. I had already responded to the discussion in Talk:Antidote to Veritaserum when you left me a message, since I was prompted to intervene by a user. I didn't find it odd that the discussion for deletion was on the article talkpage, since it also concerned if this particular antidote actually existed in canon through analysis of Dumbledore's line that references it (I figured it was a discussion on the article subject itself as well, rather than a discussion solely about the merits of deleting vs. keeping the page). I hadn't really noticed his message in the Candidates for Deletion talkpage.

That said, I don't think you need me to tell you you're absolutely right -- no one is above community consensus, the policies, or established practice. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 00:23, April 8, 2016 (UTC)

Spambot vandalism
Yo. I already reported that spammer you blocked to VSTF, they would have deleted the spam and globally blocked the account from the service. When you see spam like that, instead of deleting and just blocking locally, let the VSTF know on VSTF Wiki, as they'll be able to global block the account (and possibly the IP), as well as add the spam into the global filters so that it's unlikely to happen again. Hope this helps. --Sajuuk 19:59, April 8, 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Will keep this in mind in the future. &#x2605; S t a r s t u f f  (Owl me!) 21:55, April 8, 2016 (UTC)

About the Headmasters' portraits and date of death
I see you've been removing the dates of death on the articles concerning portraits of the former Heads of Hogwarts. I do think they were improperly sourced: this interview transcript seems to be more relevant for that particular piece of information (the relevant quote is: "Some have been asking why hasn't [Snape's] portrait appeared immediately. It doesn't. The reason is that the perception in the castle itself and everyone who was in the castle, because Snape kept his secret so well was that he abandoned his post. So all the portraits you see in the headmaster's study are all headmasters and mistresses who died, it's like British royals. You only get good press if you die in office."). -- <font style="background:#FFFFFF;color:#333333;"> Seth Cooper <font style="background:#333333;color:white;"> owl post! 22:25, April 11, 2016 (UTC)
 * The rest of the quote provides full context: "So all the portraits you see in the headmaster’s study are all headmasters and mistresses who died, it’s like British royals. You only get good press if you die in office. Abdication is not acceptable, particularly if you marry and American. I’m kidding! [laughter]"


 * JKR was clearly making a joke, comparing Snape to Edward VIII, the only King of England in history to abdicate (because he wanted to marry Wallis Simpson, a twice-divorced American, and people were forbidden to remarry while their ex-spouse was still alive in the Church of England at the time). She wasn't literally saying that headmasters and headmistresses only get their portraits hung if they die while in office. It's a huge stretch to derive that interpretation from the quote.


 * Anyway, the incorrect information about dates of deaths has infiltrated many articles, and needs to be removed. &#x2605; S t a r s t u f f  (Owl me!) 23:14, April 11, 2016 (UTC)

Signature question
Hi Starstuff,

I'm kinda new to wikia and was wondering how exactly to create custom signatures?

Felix Scamander (talk) 16:15, April 14, 2016 (UTC)

Policies and procedures
Hey Starstuff - if you're around, I'm hoping the Wi<span style="color:rgb(84,84,84);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small;font-weight:normal;line-height:18.2px;">z engamot can weigh in on the discussion I'm having with SuperSujuuk on the Talk page policy. It seems he has expectations based on other wiki's that are not clearly expressed here and deleting people contributions based on these expectations. I undid these changes as removing talk comments is expressly against the current Talk policy, moreso as they were not off-topic, spam, or vandalism. Hopefully we can have a discussion about best practices so that everyone is clear before they are enforced against people making useful contributions. Sorry to be a bother, but this seems to be an on going issue? Cheers Ironyak1 (talk) 20:52, April 21, 2016 (UTC)

Active Admins
Do you happen to know how many of your colleagues are still giving this wiki regular attention? 21:56, April 30, 2016 (UTC)
 * Five including myself. Six if you include User:Nick O'Demus, who last edited in February. &#x2605; S t a r s t u f f  (Owl me!) 22:21, April 30, 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Alex (Jiskran)

Images
Hey there - My workflow for these Unidentified Headmasters has been to use the "Add features and media" - "Add Photo" which (as you no doubt know) doesn't prompt for any of this info. I assumed wrongly that it was presuming "Fair Use", but upon looking closer, that isn't the case. So sorry about that - I'll go back and add the necessary info and possibly crop or re-source some of the images. (Fair use and Copyright gets to be quite layered when it's a screen capture of a video taken of a flip-through of a book based on images of props from a movie based on a book). PS Thanks for adding the OOU to your new actor pages (even though it'll cut down on the "fluff" edits I've been getting to make ;) Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 03:49, May 1, 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointers about a better workflow and rules of thumb to follow for determining a license. I also noticed that the file naming convention seems to favor using the article name first, then additional info (size, source, desc, etc) so I'll use that format. I happened to notice that you made an improved Antonia Creaseworthy image from Paintings of Hogwarts. Are you a lucky owner of this book? --Ironyak1 (talk) 06:28, May 2, 2016 (UTC)

Block
Can you block Jdogno7? He has been engaging in persistent edit warring and apparently has a very long history of doing so here. I'd like to recommend a pretty long block, somewhere in the region of 1 year or infinite, since the user is clearly not improving the wiki. --Sajuuk 08:56, May 1, 2016 (UTC)
 * If I recall correctly the recently-expired block was at least his third; and since he's only been back a day or two and is back to his old disruptive habits (including bizarrely unique uses of language, such as saying "deities" where anyone else would normally say "gods", or misusing the term "virtual [reality] game" to mean any video game, rather than those few which specifically need a VR rig in order to be playable) and is incapable of seeing that he could be is wrong, I reckon an infinite block is the only way to go. — RobertATfm (talk) 10:05, May 1, 2016 (UTC)
 * The user above me is correct, they've just come back from a 1 year block. Therefore, 100% support that the block is infinite. --Sajuuk 10:36, May 1, 2016 (UTC)

To SuperSajuuk "Can you block Jdogno7?": Why? "He has been engaging in persistent edit warring and apparently has a very long history of doing so here.": Is that so? "I'd like to recommend a pretty long block, somewhere in the region of 1 year or infinite, since the user is clearly not improving the wiki.": "...the user is clearly not improving the wiki.", How so?

To RobertATfm "...is back to his old disruptive habits...": What do you mean by that? "(including bizarrely unique uses of language, such as saying 'deities' where anyone else would normally say 'gods',...": How is the term deities being used in a manner that is bizarre? "...or misusing the term "virtual [reality] game" to mean any video game, rather than those few which specifically need a VR rig in order to be playable)...", I concede on this point as I understand that Virtual Reality implies the use of a VR rig. "....and is incapable of seeing that he could be is wrong,...": Not true. I have admitted I was wrong with what constitutes a virtual reality game.

Jdogno7 (talk) 10:49, May 1, 2016 (UTC)

In the situations that you're constantly changing it in, you use "gods". It's only if we had a page on "Zeus" that you'd refer to him as a deity. As we don't, you use "gods". Kindly please stop spamming my "Activity Page" with all your constant unnecessary and unneeded edits. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 17:56, May 1, 2016 (UTC)

"In the situations that you're constantly changing it in, you use 'gods'.": Why? "It's only if we had a page on "Zeus" that you'd refer to him as a deity.": Why? "As we don't, you use 'gods'.": Again why? "Kindly please stop spamming my "Activity Page" with all your constant unnecessary and unneeded edits.": What makes it your activity page? It is your opinion that they are unnecessary and unneeded.

Jdogno7 (talk) 18:11, May 1, 2016 (UTC)

Because "diety" is only used on the page for a god, e.g. Zeus, Hades, etc. When referring to them generally, you use the overarching term of "god" as it clumps them all together. That is why.--HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 03:12, May 2, 2016 (UTC)

Haileybury
Other than the images what was wrong with my addition to the Haileybury article?

Randomized Quotes - Snape
Sorry to bother, just looking for some input from a higher power. I added a feature to Severus Snape to allow for a random quote to be displayed, instead of the common back-and-forth edits to restore someone's favorite top quote. This change was undone as being too "extreme", but I'd like to restore it. The current discussion is here, any input you have is appreciated! --Ironyak1 (talk) 17:48, May 3, 2016 (UTC)

The Adventures of Martin Miggs
Hi,

I work for SciFiNow a SciFi and fantasy based magazine in the UK. We are currently putting together a preview spread on Fantastic Beasts and we have included a boxout on other stories within the Harry Potter world that we would like to see made in to films. The Adventures of Martin Miggs is one of these and there is a image you uploaded that I was wondering we could use for it? Could you let me know if that would be ok. I will supply a credit note as required.

Hope to hear from you,

Link Templates
I'm hoping you might be able to take a look at the Forum - Link Template discussion. SuperSajuuk and I have spent some time working through several different options and have found an approach that should work well for both Article and Reference links for the common sources. Any input you have is much appreciated! Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 00:55, May 14, 2016 (UTC)
 * User:SuperSajuuk and I have finished up these link templates that allow for quick and consistent links to the major sources for use in both Appearances and References. Please check the forum discussion on this matter and provide any feedback as we are ready to move these into wider use throughout the site. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 01:52, May 24, 2016 (UTC)

Game Boy
There isn't any information on the Game Boy video games. I have those, but there is not much at all on the wiki. Do you think that can be added next? I'm to worried to do that here, as I haven't done much here at all. --Mario101luigi202peach404 14:55, May 16, 2016 (UTC)

Block request
BourkyGuard vandalised and then proceeded to vandalise his user talkpage. Please block when possible. Thanks. --Sajuuk 17:02, May 17, 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. Gave the user a month because I usually treat sexual vandalism as more serious, given the Potter books are aimed at a younger audience. &#x2605; S t a r s t u f f  (Owl me!) 21:10, May 17, 2016 (UTC)
 * No worries. I just treat any edits blatantly done to disrupt the wiki as just vandalism, no matter what the content of the vandalism is (have seen plenty of vandalism where words are replaced with sexual expletives), just needed to inform a bunch of sysops and see which one would pop up first to do something about it ;) --Sajuuk 21:12, May 17, 2016 (UTC)

Pending Wizengamot Business
I was looking at your proposals and have some thoughts, but I am a little wary of moving forward to new business when two substantial issue remain unresolved. I strongly suggest that both of these items need to have next steps and a timeline determined for their resolution: FWIW, I have a pending request from last week on this topic. I have some other projects I want to tackle (like looking at new designs for header and footer templates) but am holding off until the current issues are settled so there is time and space for the discussion needed. Anything you can do to help resolve the issues above is appreciated! --Ironyak1 (talk) 01:37, May 18, 2016 (UTC)
 * Forum:Rights_Requests
 * Forum:Wikia_Forum_system?


 * The voting policy stipulates that the administrator who opens a vote should be the one to close it. However, since the admin who initiated the forum system vote has since retired, I'm not sure where that leaves us. I'll ask Seth how he thinks we should proceed, and whether he thinks the vote has had enough time.


 * As for the other matter, I've already weighed in on it, and no further action needs to be taken at this time, since it's a discussion rather than a vote. Someone needs to let it drop. &#x2605; S t a r s t u f f  (Owl me!) 02:16, May 18, 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the quick reply! voting policy also stipulates that
 * "The administrator who has begun a process may not partake in the voting directly" (which isn't the case)
 * "If a clear consensus, (+7 votes) is reached before the allotted time has expired than the administrator may close a vote early." (but there is no allotted time is defined).
 * I would suggest that the voting policy needs a default allotted time for all votes, unless the admin specifies a different allotted time with a reason. Some of the issues lately I feel are arising from items being left unresolved with any clear expectation of when, if ever, they will be addressed or how to go about finding resolution. (Understood about the discussion vs vote issue). A little setting of expectations may help! Just my 2 pence as always (but I may suggest something along these lines once we sort out the other pending policy issues) Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 02:37, May 18, 2016 (UTC)


 * In the past, there wasn't really a need to set a standard length for votes, since there were way more active users and consensuses (both positive and negative) would generally emerge pretty quickly. And, when it was necessary to set a timeframe, it was typically done on a case-by-case basis. But the circumstances have definitely changed, and we could stand to benefit from setting a standard length for votes. (The current method of tallying votes is also counterintuitive, IMHO, and deserves to be reexamined). &#x2605; S t a r s t u f f  (Owl me!) 03:12, May 18, 2016 (UTC)
 * It's for all the reasons being mentioned here in this talkpage discussion that would make the ability to highlight threads in threaded forums far more useful. Additionally, there are scripts we can implement for adding vote tallies with support/neutral/oppose templates, which would garner clearer consensus easier without the fugly method we're currently using that leads to nothing happening because nobody takes the time to solve these discussions.
 * The current process goes like this: User starts discussion -> some posts are made, if any -> vote is attempted -> discussion and vote dies -> the issue is never resolved -> repeat bumping to bring it up again -> nobody cares, discussion and issue stay dead. This is completely unhelpful and does not allow for anything to improve on the wiki, because nobody cares about resolving issues.
 * I have responded to the two threads you linked me on my talkpage btw. --Sajuuk 09:29, May 18, 2016 (UTC)

fantasticbeastsmovies.com source
I saw that you sourced some new Honeydukes labels from fantasticbeastsmovies.com. I was chatting with them earlier on Twitter about Newt Scamander Signatures (I went with the MinaLima one as I can independently confirm it's at ) and they said that they're willing to send along high-res copies of anything we might be interested in: fantasticbeastsmovie@gmail.com They seem real friendly and got in on the Privet Drive premiere so pretty neat source IMO --Ironyak1 (talk) 11:26, May 19, 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's great! Thanks for letting me know! :) &#x2605; S t a r s t u f f  (Owl me!) 21:46, May 27, 2016 (UTC)

Spoiler Alerts
There is a current Forum discussion about whether or not there should be spoiler alerts like the one for {Pottermore} on the wiki. Given the recent Pottermore video where JKR expresses her strong hope that the fandom doesn't spoil the Cursed Child experience for fellow fans by giving away all the secrets, I am suggesting that any page with material from the Cursed Child play has a spoiler alert warning added until 31 July, when the screenplay comes out and everyone has equal opportunity to be informed. Others feel that there should never be any spoiler alerts on the wiki. Any thoughts you have on the matter is appreciated. --Ironyak1 (talk) 18:42, May 25, 2016 (UTC)

Block request #2
Celeste_o. has been vandalising articles and talkpages despite several warnings to stop. --Sajuuk 11:53, May 26, 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I've been busy over the past few days, but it looks like Cubs Fan2007 has already handled the situation. &#x2605; S t a r s t u f f  (Owl me!) 23:02, May 27, 2016 (UTC)

RE:Forum vote & Rollback rights
Hello, sorry for taking so long to reply. About the forum system vote, I think it can definitely be closed by now, it's been almost a month. And I guess either of us could do it, since BachLynn obviously can't, now.

About ArrestoMomentum's request for rollbackship, I guess we could approve it. I didn't do it the first time around since he was here for only one or two months, I think. I think by now he's shown to be a fairly active and constructive editor, so I think it's fine. -- <font style="background:#FFFFFF;color:#333333;"> Seth Cooper <font style="background:#333333;color:white;"> owl post! 16:34, May 27, 2016 (UTC)

Screenplay vs Film pages
There is an interesting discussion going on about the new CC script book and FB screenplay and whether they merit their own pages or not. Given you made the edits to HPW:CANON that more clearly defined the different tiers of canon, and how itens fit in, I think your input would help sort out how best to arrange articles for these new sources. Thanks! --Ironyak1 (talk) 17:58, May 30, 2016 (UTC)

Harry Potter Wizard's Collection Covers
As you have this collection, does it state anywhere if MinaLima did the covers for the disk cases? I am uploading higher res images of these and the look very MinaLima-esque so was just wondering if that is confirmed somewhere and these can be added to Category:Images by MinaLima Design.

On a separate note, if you ever get a chance to make a high res scan of the blueprint map I would absolutely love to see it! Other printings and scans I've seen just don't seem to capture all the architectural details and notes. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 09:55, May 31, 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for hunting down the page for the MinaLima covers. I'll add them to Category:Images by MinaLima Design (as more high res images are added, this is becoming more and more a fun page just to peruse - not quite House of MinaLima fun, but still neat.


 * I can imagine the size of the blueprint has limited the ability to create a good scan. Definitely don't risk injury to your copy or scanner over it. I would love just to see the details so some close-up digital pics that could be stitched together would be awesome too and make for an interesting patchwork display (like the wrap-arounds of Diagon Alley in  if you have that.) I'm probably half-blind from trying to decipher it in  so any details you could share are much appreciated! 8) Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 04:12, June 4, 2016 (UTC)

Welcome back!
Just wanted to say Hi - it's nice to see you! (and then leave you to your lengthly to do list ;) --Ironyak1 (talk) 22:51, June 1, 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey! I've been somewhat busy over the past two weeks. I want to finish up work on a couple of articles based on new Fantastic Beasts info, then I'll look into the matters you contacted me about above. :) &#x2605; S t a r s t u f f  (Owl me!) 22:55, June 1, 2016 (UTC)
 * Seriously not pinging at all - go work your article crafting magic! --Ironyak1 (talk) 23:08, June 1, 2016 (UTC)

Play images and infoboxes
As expected, disagreements have arisen around the use of images and descriptions from for the character infoboxes. As the same discussion was being held on a couple talk pages, I suggested that we move it here Forum:Character Images and Infoboxes. As the films and play are of the same level of canon, there does not appear to be a solution based on the Harry Potter Wiki:Canon policy so any input you have in helping sort through the options is appreciated. Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 15:11, June 2, 2016 (UTC)

re: citations
Wikipedia is not a valid reference source, because it's a wiki. Therefore, the information you find there is liable to be changed at any time possible. Just like how it is not acceptable to reference online dictionaries such as dictionary.reference.com (with the exception of the OED's online dictionary), it is not acceptable to use Wikipedia as a source for something, there are better sources that aren't so likely to be changed by random users. Additionally, do not just hit the Undo button to restore some aspect of an edit, as you reverted other needed edits at the same point. --Sajuuk 12:00, June 5, 2016 (UTC)
 * There are scores of articles on this wiki which cite Wikipedia as a source. It's certainly arguable that there are better written and more authoritative sources out there, but Wikipedia is perfectly serviceable for our very modest needs, which is backing up basic defining information in articles like "pear (fruit)" and "porcupine." You aren't improving the quality of articles by removing citations simply because they don't suit your fancy. In fact, you're actually doing the exact opposite, because now we've got an article that contains uncited statements. This is yet another example of you making up your own rules and trying to enforce them even though they run completely counter to established policy and practice. Such disruptive behaviour is unacceptable. &#x2605; S t a r s t u f f  (Owl me!) 12:22, June 5, 2016 (UTC)
 * Then it's something that we fix, especially given that Wikipedia does not allow external sites to use Wikipedia as a source. You clearly have no idea how to assume good faith when a user tries to improve this place, all you care about is enforcing your policies like they're some law. Removing bad citations is not "disruptive", it is called good faith editing and improving the wiki, something you think is blasphemous. No doubt you'll go crying to Seth on his talkpage over this conversation, like you always do every time someone calls you out on your reasoning.
 * Stop being so hostile to me, this isn't your wiki and I'd appreciate you stop acting like you own this place, because you don't. If you want to be seen as semi-professional, then stop citing Wikipedia, period. Had you not opposed my bot for some sort of personal reasoning, I would already be using it to remove the wikipedia references.
 * The little I've seen of some of your contributions on this wiki shows you have no idea how Wikia operates anyway (like when you called a user posting on your wall at Community Central, something seen as allowed practice on Wikia, as "block evasion"). --Sajuuk 12:32, June 5, 2016 (UTC)
 * If you think an article contains a low-quality citation, the best thing to do would be to replace it with citation that find more reliable, e.g. changing Wikipedia citations for Encyclopedia Britannica citations. Removing a citation and leaving information completely uncited isn't fixing the problem, any more than removing a tire and leaving a barren rim is fixing a flat tire.
 * I find it ironic that you accuse me of being hostile, and yet the above post consists largely of ad hominem attacks and sour grapes over times you haven't gotten your way. I will be contacting Seth because something needs to be done here, but I'm not going to act unilaterally. &#x2605; S t a r s t u f f  (Owl me!) 13:00, June 5, 2016 (UTC)
 * Lol, nothing in my post is ad hominem, just stating why you are wrong in an honest manner. Not my problem if you don't like me telling it like it is. Don't worry, I already linked a page on Wikipedia explaining not to reference their articles, but apparently that doesn't matter to you whatsoever :D --Sajuuk 13:03, June 5, 2016 (UTC)

Conflict with Sajuuk
Sorry to see this all got so out of hand. Anyone in a communal environment who thinks they are 'just telling it like it is' has failed to grasp the fundamental need for give and take. I feel I was wrong in my support for Sajuuk's bot rights, and I'm glad you and Ironyak expressed your reasons for opposition so well. 15:52, June 5, 2016 (UTC)

User rights
If you don't want him back it doesn't make sense that he's already content mod, isn't it? <font style="background:#F75D59;color:gold;"> Harry granger <font style="background:yellow;color:black;">  Talk  <font style="background:yellow;color:;"> <font style="background: #99CCFF;color:#993300;"> contribs <font style="background: #99CCFF;color:#993300;"> 10:55, June 6, 2016 (UTC)
 * There isn't a risk of him unblocking himself, since Content Moderators can't block/unblock users. It's probably prudent to remove Content Moderator rights from an indefinitely blocked user, though, but only bureaucrats can grant/remove these rights, so I'll contact Seth. &#x2605; S t a r s t u f f  (Owl me!) 18:16, June 6, 2016 (UTC)


 * Oh yes, I forgot that only bureaucrats can do so. Let's see what Seth will decide. <font style="background:#F75D59;color:gold;"> Harry granger <font style="background:yellow;color:black;">  Talk  <font style="background:yellow;color:;"> <font style="background: #99CCFF;color:#993300;"> contribs <font style="background: #99CCFF;color:#993300;"> 18:19, June 6, 2016 (UTC)


 * ✅ -- <font style="background:#FFFFFF;color:#333333;"> Seth Cooper <font style="background:#333333;color:white;"> owl post! 00:28, June 7, 2016 (UTC)

Some user without history or profile/talkpage
http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/SparkleKiewert moved the book Philosopher's Stone page to Sorceror's Stone. 20:30, June 7, 2016 (UTC)