User talk:Seth Cooper/Archive22

Contributions  Edit Count    [ Moves ]  User Page   Work Page    Sandbox

RE:About the "what the heck sction"
In response to your reply as well as C.Sydes input:


 * So... Yeah, I don't really know what else there is to say. I JUST finished telling you about how I couldn't ignore it because it's upsetting me on a personal level, and your advise is to ignore it. Sorry, chief, had this been literary ANY other discussion I've ever partaken in, I'd prudently just bow my head and respected your decision, bathing in the light of your wisdom and guiding hand and all that, but with this one, to expect me just to "ignore" it isn't good enough to make me comfortable with it being there, because whether keeping it there is intended to showcase my shortcomings or not doesn't make a lick of a difference, because regardless, that's exactly what that section does. Sorry for being so blunt, but seriously... "Rules", "policies", whatever you want to call it - "discussion", "debate" whatever label you choose to give the section to justify keeping it, it's not going to make me feel any better about it being there. Now that I remember it is there, as long as it is, I will spend about 100% of my energy lamenting about what a horrible person I am and nil at appreciating whatever progress I may or may not have made. Sorry, I'm not trying to be difficult, but self-confidence isn't anything to write home about, and thus, that's just how my head work.


 * An important part of being a good editor is being able to take constructive criticism.
 * In what way does keeping a so-called discussion where I lost my temper and treated people disrepectfully equal "constructive criticism?" Because I can tell you,  a so-called discussion where I lost my temper and treated people disrepectfully is not a shining example of "constructive criticism", it's still just  a so-called discussion where I lost my temper and treated people disrepectfully.


 * Regardless it doesn't mean you can remove the discussion from the page and pretend it didn't happen.And I'm not going to. As you can see in my discussion about whether Newt was expelled or not, I daresay I have come a long way since then, but that's beside the point. The point is that when I see the "What the heck?!" section, I don't automatically think; "Aaaaaw, see how bad I was then and how much better I am now, that's nice!", I get furious at myself, I start disliking myself, and end up in a very dimly lit place. I've visited it one time to many and do not care to do so again. The service is crappy and the rooms are bad.


 * These things happen, people do all kinds of things on the internet that they regret. it's how they learn from them.
 * Removing a failure to treat people respectfully from public view is not the same as pretending it didn't happen or that I didn't learn from it, it's merely a way for me to prevent myself from forgetting how and why I learned from it by being too busy beating myself up over bad choices to appreciate any potential progress.


 * I've done things on the internet that I'm not proud of. But I accept them and move on.
 * Not wanting to look at something is not the same as not accepting. For example, I had a rat in my apartment, and although I don't want to look at the picture my brother took of it with his phone after we found it dead in a trap, I sure accept that it was there and that I have to buy a new dishwasher because of it.


 * I suggest you do the same.
 * I'm trying to, but the "standard procedures" won't let me.


 * Most people probably wouldn't care about what happened with you in the past, since it's the past, not the present.
 * No one can possibly know what anyone else will think. Because Legilimency is fictional, and whatever the extent we can consciously identify ourselves.


 * Ninclow (talk) 10:55, April 6, 2017 (UTC)

This user vandalized the Founder pages. Zane T 69 (talk) 00:22, April 7, 2017 (UTC)

Aura / Albus Dumbledore
I hate to bother you about this, but Ninclow made this edit to Dumbledore about how he studied "the methods used by the Master Aurologists of Sudan to sense" magic in the Horcrux cave. I tried to separate out the facts of what Dumbledore did versus the speculation in this edit. Ninclow didn't want to accept this and changed it again. On the [Talk:Albus_Dumbledore#Aura_.2F_Magical_Detection talk page] User:Kates39 agreed that it seems quite a leap to connect this pieces of information and state them as fact, instead of in a Behind the scenes comment, but that isn't listened to either.

Ninclow said they were using the wiki's definition of Aura, which when I checked isn't provided by the references listed. So I provided a clearer definition from the OED on this edit and it is repeatedly undone. No solution possible on Talk:Aura as they say " "aura" was described the traces of magical energy left behind by magical use/activity" without providing any examples or evidence in canon.

Not sure what to do - apparently you are the only arbiter capable of settling these things? Thoughts on how best to handle the situation as it seems to be an ongoing and repeated issue. Many thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 12:57, April 7, 2017 (UTC)

1) I did not say that "they were using the wikia's definition, I said that I used the definition from the page.On which aura had been defined as "a subtle field of magic", which did not only make sense with Dumbledore's comment that magic leave traces, how he located and identified the weakness payment but also fit perfectly with the manner in which Aurologists was mentioned.

2) I have no problem with people having another opinion than me, but when they start changing wiki content just because what was already there (and had been for some time) suggested I had a point, now THAT rubs me the wrong way.

3) I did provide a reference by elaborating on the context in which the word "aura" appear in Fantastic Beasts. If you choose to dismiss and/or ignore it or otherwise deem it to be insufficient evidence, that is hardly my fault. Ninclow (talk)

Hey
Hello Mr. Copper,

I am Reverb Frost. Well I have an idea.. I thought if possible then can we change the name of this wiki?? I mean if u think so! Like wat I have in mind is Harry potter wiki --> Potterverse wiki!! how is it?? I hope u like it and think on my idea of changing the name. Thanks for reading.. Have a nice day!!

Reverb frost (talk) 17:53, April 7, 2017 (UTC)

Need a new Mod
Hey Seth, Since Jay has resigned from her Mod position we need a little extra help to keep the Discussions running smoothly. We have done a lot of research and consideration and us current Mods have all come to the conclusion that http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/User:Nylinajatii is the best choice for an additional Mod. She's very kind, helpful and clear, if you could promote her as soon as you can that would be great!Thanks! --TheOriginalDoctor (talk) 16:49, April 14, 2017 (UTC)

Discussions Category Changes
Hey Seth, I'm glad your back we were starting to worry about you a little.

Anyways, Us Mods think it would be best if the 'Fun Fact' and 'Contest Questions' were deleted, since we are trying to make the Discussions have better quality and in-depth conversations. This is partly us trying to make the Discussions more suitable for Forum users for when the inevitable 'Merge' comes into place.

On that note, Is there any other specifics you would like us to make for the Discussions to be 'ready' or more suitable for the users and activities that are currently on the Forums? Let me know! --TheOriginalDoctor (talk) 15:04, April 25, 2017 (UTC)

Family categories
I was hoping you could provide some guidance on how the family categories should be applied. If we look at Tom Riddle as an example, beyond "Riddle family" should he be part of the "Gaunt family", "Slytherin family", and "Peverelle family"? More over, should the Category tree itself place the "Gaunt family" under the "Slytherin family" so that all pages with the "Gaunt family" are automatically under "Slytherin family" as well?

Another example would be "Albus Potter" - in addition to being in "Potter family", should he be under "Weasely family", and "Prewett family", and even "Peverelle family"? It's not clear if the intent is to track genealogical relationships or just surnames (where only Molly is a member of both Weasely and Prewett, but not her children or grandchildren).

Unfortunately, the category tree is such a tangled mess that ensuring pages only have the most specific category is not doable in many cases. Thanks for any insight you have to help fix it! --Ironyak1 (talk) 05:20, April 26, 2017 (UTC)


 * Yeah, will do. What a tangled web we weave... :) --Ironyak1 (talk) 15:57, April 26, 2017 (UTC)

Pure-blood debate
Sorry to drag you into another etymological debate, but if you have a chance, your insight would be appreciated at Talk:Pure-blood. In re-reading all the Pure-blood related texts, I think the common definition of pure-blood (as all ancestors must be pure-blood) does not actually fit the evidence, especially that given in. Any thoughts you have are most welcome as always. Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 03:39, May 6, 2017 (UTC)


 * Have time for a quick chat? --Ironyak1 (talk) 02:13, May 7, 2017 (UTC)

Family categories
If you have a chance, can you take a look at Forum:Organizing_Family_categories and leave some feedback? I think the proposed solution will work, but want some input as it affects many pages. Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 16:19, May 7, 2017 (UTC)

Film props and physical descriptors
When you have a chance, can you weigh in on Talk:Newton_Scamander please? We could use an interpretation of whether film props and other representations like FWC are suitable sources for physical descriptors of book characters. Kinda of an extension of the whole CC / Lavender Brown issue that we discussed a while back. Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 02:10, May 10, 2017 (UTC)

"Inferi" articles
FYI, there is some oddity in pywikibot that is returning deleted pages when requesting RecentChanges. As such, the bot is resurrecting them and often tagging them with the Appearances notice. As you've had to re-delete some recently, I just wanted to let you know I'm working through to make sure they are filtered out in the future (although an inferi army has its uses - maybe the bot is seeking immortality ;) Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 17:17, May 11, 2017 (UTC)