Belac Reteet

aka belacreteet

  • I live in missouri
  • I was born on December 10
  • My occupation is student
  • I am it

Hello, Belac Reteet, and welcome to the Harry Potter Wiki (HPW). Thank you for your edit to the Category:Werewolves page. I hope you enjoy it here and decide to stay.

Before editing, be sure to read the wiki's policies. Please sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to automatically produce your name and the current date. Be sure to verify your e-mail address in your preferences. Before attempting any major article rewrites please read the layout guide. If you have any questions, check out the policy and help pages (see here for editing help), add a question to the Community portal, view the forum or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!

-- ProfessorTofty (Talk) 22:42, January 16, 2013


A half-breed is the child of a human and another, non-human creature. Neither Animagi, werewolves, centaurs, nor any of the other things you added that category to are that, so they aren't half-breeds. But thanks for trying to help with our categorization, regardless. -- 1337star (Drop me a line!) 05:21, January 17, 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have to agree; Sirius is clearly stated to be "Pure-blood", just as McGonagall is shown on Pottermore to be half-blood. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 22:32, January 17, 2013 (UTC)
Warning: Please stop. If you continue to vandalise pages, you will be blocked from editing the Harry Potter Wiki. Continuing to edit in a certain manner after you have been asked to stop is vandalism. Regarding Remus Lupin-- the term is used a racial slur, not as a technical term. And I don't see how you could ever try to claim that Rita Skeeter or Sirius Black are half-breeds. ProfessorTofty (talk) 22:34, January 17, 2013 (UTC)
You seem to be under the impression that the term "half-breed" encompasses anyone who is considered an Animagus. I don't know where you got this interpretation, but this is not considered to be such, nor has it ever been. Animagi aren't mentioned anywhere on our page regarding Half-breeds, nor has the term ever been used in association with them within the books. ProfessorTofty (talk) 22:38, January 17, 2013 (UTC)
Okay, that's fine and all, but you kept adding it to pages gung-ho after two people had already asked you to stop. In any case, we don't even know for a fact that Animagi do have animal DNA. We go by what is said in the series, and on canon based on how the terms are normally used within the franchise and within the Wizarding world. And neither "half-breed" nor "part-human" has ever been used in association with Animagi. You may want to have a look at our Canon policies. ProfessorTofty (talk) 22:54, January 17, 2013 (UTC)

Re: Okay

Hey, no worries. There's actually plenty to do around here once you know your way around, it's just a matter of familiarising yourself with the wiki and how things are structured. There are many articles that can use cleanup, or are stubs, and a number of projects that could use attention, but not everybody has time to get to. ProfessorTofty (talk) 00:16, January 18, 2013 (UTC)

LOL. You don't have to keep telling me "I'm Belac Reeteet" in every one of your messages, I can see that in your signature. ProfessorTofty (talk) 03:09, January 19, 2013 (UTC)

Category additions

Okay, here we go again. The category "Creatures" should not have been added to Vampire, as Vampires is a subcategory of Creatures and so we do not add both categories to a page. And the "Creature" category shouldn't exist at all. At this time, I am going to ask that you stop adding any additional categories to pages unless you are willing to familiarise yourself with our category structure. ProfessorTofty (talk) 22:09, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

You can add those categories to it, but no individuals, because they are already listed under the subcategories. ProfessorTofty (talk) 22:16, January 20, 2013 (UTC)
It sounds good. And one other thing, please don't start a new section every time you leave a reply, it just clutters up space. Just reply within the same section unless you're starting an entirely new topic. ProfessorTofty (talk) 22:22, January 20, 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I am sorry, but a Horcrux is not a Being, nor is it any way a form of Undead. I do not want to do this, but you are not leaving me much choice. The next time you add inappropriate categories, you will be temporarily blocked from editing. ProfessorTofty (talk) 23:07, January 20, 2013 (UTC)
Horcruxes are not sentient, I don't know where you get this idea. And breaks are cut if behaviour is modified, but immediately after being warned about adding problematic categories, your next edit was immediately adding more categories. I would suggest just stopping with categories for a while and find something else to edit on the wiki. ProfessorTofty (talk) 23:21, January 20, 2013 (UTC)
Please do not type in all caps. What I gave you permission for was to add the Vampires category to the Undead category, not to add Vampire itself. I am sorry if that was unclear. It might serve you well to read my discussion with that particular user on his page, rather than shouting at me. ProfessorTofty (talk) 00:48, January 21, 2013 (UTC)
A horcrux is not sentient in and of itself. As the page for Horcrux says, a horcrux is a powerful object that contains a portion of one's soul. It is true that some of the chosen objects themselves may be sentient, but that's still really stretching it to say "a horcrux is sentient." Regarding Vampire, no, you may not add it to the Undead category. The category Vampires is a subcategory of the category Undead. Therefore, all of the pages regarding Vampires are already in the Vampires category, and adding the Undead category also would simply be redundant. As for how long you are grounded from adding categories, there is no set date. What I want you do right now is stop worrying about the categories for the time being and instead make other edits. Find some other projects to do, make some other edits on pages, and then we'll see about maybe doing the categories thing again. But I wouldn't worry about those to much anyway. On the whole, we're really very satisfied with the categories that we have. We don't need a bunch of new category additions, and we do have plenty of other projects that do need work. ProfessorTofty (talk) 03:51, January 21, 2013 (UTC)
And don't pester me about replying, each other. I reply to all messages left to me, and I don't need to be rushed to do it. ProfessorTofty (talk) 03:52, January 21, 2013 (UTC)

Re: Sentient Horcruxes

I think you may have a case about Horcruxes being sentient, however, I'm not qualified to determine it alone. I would recommend posting a message about it on the talk page for Horcrux, and let's see what the community thinks. When you post the message, please be sure to include the following-- {{Talk}} above it. That will leave a notice that it's an "Active Talk Page" with an issue that needs to be discussed. Oh, and about creating categories, I'm not going to say that's off-limits entirely, but I would ask that you ask first before creating to make sure that it's something that's wanted. ProfessorTofty (talk) 04:50, January 21, 2013 (UTC)

All you have to do is type it exactly like I did above - {{Talk}} Just put that above your message and it should work. ProfessorTofty (talk) 20:29, January 21, 2013 (UTC)


Ghouls are never stated to be undead in the HP universe, Newt Scamander classified them as beasts in Fantastic Beasts, should we discuss it with the others on the ghoul talk page? --Rodolphus (talk) 20:04, January 21, 2013 (UTC)

There is the clickable red word "discussion" above the article. Click on it and you can edit the talk page.--Rodolphus (talk) 11:25, January 22, 2013 (UTC)


The Living Dead page gives you all the information you want. MinorStoop 04:50, January 23, 2013 (UTC)

Categories shouldn't contradict content. You may, however, activate a thread on "Undead" category's talk page. If enough users are interested, you may get a consensus on how to fix it.
I won't participate, though, since I'm away for a couple of weeks. MinorStoop 18:45, January 23, 2013 (UTC)
PS. There's no need to post more than once on talk pages. :) MS


Hi. Sorry to bother, but it seems we may have gotten off on a slightly sour note during the conversation here, and I wanted to make sure everything was, to use the modern term, "chill" between us. I don't know you very well but I am sure that over time we might become friends of sorts, and if not friends then acquaintances. --Hunnie Bunn (Owl me!) 23:09, January 24, 2013 (UTC)

Category additions, again

Well, here we are again. Once again, you have started up with adding categories to pages, despite my express request that you lay off of this, such as adding Stanley Shunpike to the category of Death Eaters, despite it being generally accepted in this community that Shunpike was not a Death Eater and despite Arthur Weasley saying that he thought Stan was "about as much of a Death Eater as this satsuma." I had really hoped you could modify your behaviour by spending some time making some other constructive edits on the wiki, but at this point, I see no choice but to block you from editing for a period of two weeks. Once the block is expired, I strongly encourage you to change your editing behaviour, or the block will likely be extended for longer.

BTW, I'm ProfessorTofty. ProfessorTofty (talk) 02:27, January 25, 2013 (UTC)

Welcome back

First of all, welcome back. However, it is disappointing to see things starting off on this foot again. It is always troublesome to an admin when a blocked user comes back and the first thing they see is a list of excuses trying to justify their behaviour. The fact is, regardless of whether you were intentionally intending to do anything wrong, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. You were given a very clear instruction: do not continue adding new categories but instead spend some time making other edits to articles. And, instead, your next action was to add the article Stanley Shunpike to the category of "Death Eaters." As I explained in my previous message, it is made quite clear by the books that Stan Shunpike was not a Death Eater. His comments were boasts and his actions in support of Death Eater activity took place entirely under the influence of the Imperius Curse. Furthermore, there was Arthur Weasley's statement that Stanley Shunpike is "about as much a Death Eater as this satsuma." Additionally, the fact that the Stanley Shunpike article has been on the site for years and up until now has not been categorised under the category of Death Eaters might have been a hint. Slack will be given if it is seen that a sincere effort is being made to improve editing behaviour. But if you go right back to adding questionable categories, it's going to be straight back to a block. ProfessorTofty (talk) 05:08, February 9, 2013 (UTC)


Hi. Thanks for the Phantom and Harpy articles, but I noticed they're both OoU (Out of Universe). This means that they make references to the books or series in the main article. Just figured I'd let you know this isn't allowed, because some users get blocked for OoU too often. This is just a friendly reminder, though. Cheers, --Hunnie Bunn (Owl me!) 23:18, February 10, 2013 (UTC)

RE: Nagini

Yeah, but Harry had his mother's love on him. This can also be seen as a protective field. It can't have been the Killing Curse. -- 08:38, February 11, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah but actually when Voldemort touched Harry, he actually was hurt. His scream wasn't a happy scream, but a scream in pain. Also, other spells have the same colour, such as Expelliarmus and Stupefy. It is very likely there's another spell with the colour green; such as the green curse Bellatrix Lestrange used to crash part of the Great Hall in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 (video game), which wasn't the Killing Curse either. -- 11:20, February 12, 2013 (UTC)

Stan Shunpike and Categories, Part II

First off, your comparison of Stan Shunpike in relation to Pius Thicknesse is a bit thin on the ground, because we don't have him categorised as a Death Eater either. The fact is, the general information given is that both were acting against their will under the influence of the Imperius Curse, hence, not Death Eaters. If we were to add everyone who had been acting under the influence of the Imperius Curse on the Death Eaters' behalf as Death Eaters, then the ranks of that section would swell. In any case, the problem again, is not so much your reasoning for why you felt the category addition was okay, but the fact that you made such an addition, one that could be considered questionable, not longed after you had been given a clear request to stop adding categories and focus on making other edits. Given that you have recently received a warning now for adding Out of Universe information, I would really suggest you have a read over the information found in the sections of Harry Potter Wiki:Policy. ProfessorTofty (talk) 01:07, February 12, 2013 (UTC)

Point 1-- Generally, here, we consider someone to be a Death Eater if they are known to have the Dark Mark, thus branded as a Death Eater, or in lieu of that, if they have been named specifically as a Death Eater and there is nothing contradicting that. For example, Fenrir Greyback is classified as a Death Eater ally and not a Death Eater, because while he was allowed to wear Death Eater robes in return for his services, he was not actually branded as a Death Eater. Point 2-- Indefinitely, at least until you have spent some time making other productive edits, but at least a couple of weeks. In any case, you probably won't be blocked if you make more category additions and they turn out not to be problematic, but you do so at your own risk. Point 3-- No, whatever point it is you're trying to make there, I don't agree with it. You were given a very clear warning that you would be blocked from editing if you made anymore questionable category additions. You continued to add categories anyway, and you got blocked. Point 4-- Yes, I have seen The Hobbit. ProfessorTofty (talk) 01:49, February 12, 2013 (UTC)

Re: Harpy

No, I will not. Please see the edit history for that page for the reasoning why. And if you continue to edit war in that manner, that's another thing could get you blocked. ProfessorTofty (talk) 01:51, February 12, 2013 (UTC)

The main reason it's not independently notable enough to warrant its own article is that there currently has never been a mention of harpies in the Harry Potter canon outside of the Holyhead Harpies. As such, anything said about them would be entirely speculation. There is also already a mention of the traditional mythological harpies in the "Behind the scenes" section of the Holyhead Harpies article. Now, if any new information were to become available from a canon source (such as Pottermore), then it may become deserving of its own article. - Nick O'Demus 02:08, February 12, 2013 (UTC)

Re: Hobbit

I enjoyed it reasonably well. As for the book, I'd never read it before, and I've actually been listening to it on audiobook over the past few days. ProfessorTofty (talk) 02:28, February 12, 2013 (UTC)


So here we go again. You are adding creatures to this category, despite our previous discussions regarding our category structure and subcategories. I have had enough. The next time you do this, you will receive a month-long block. ProfessorTofty (talk) 23:36, February 12, 2013 (UTC)

Don't be dramatic. Nobody is asking you to have a consultation before making every edit, only to read and follow our policies and to pay attention to the directives you have been given in the past before such matters. As I have indicated before, a good place to start would be to make some edits other than adding categories to pages. ProfessorTofty (talk) 17:57, February 13, 2013 (UTC)
No, you may not. As indicated on the page itself, we consider Peeves most likely to be amortal, "the condition of never having died and being unable to die, as one was never alive to start." Please, I am begging you, just stop with the whole categories thing, either adding them or asking me, and just make some other edits. ProfessorTofty (talk) 18:05, February 13, 2013 (UTC)

Re: Valentine's

Thanks, you too! Happy Valentine's Day! ProfessorTofty (talk) 21:39, February 14, 2013 (UTC)


Hey, just figured I'd make sure you were okay with the re-write to the Mortality article. I felt bad completely re-doing all of your writing, but at the same time I wanted to make sure it was in-universe. --Don't forget: Elvendork! (It's unisex!) 00:45, February 20, 2013 (UTC)

Re: Ordinary objects

To a limited degree, I actually agree with you, but the ship has already left the port, sailed, and returned to harbour on this one. Suffice to stay, it's already been discussed in the past, though if you want to read up about it, I'd be happy to try to find you the links. ProfessorTofty (talk) 23:16, February 23, 2013 (UTC)


I know that the existence of an "Immortals" category is perfectly justifiable, as is the page of the same name. I only reverted your addition of the page "Ghost" to that category, because as I explained ghosts are already dead :) Hunnie Bunn! 00:47, March 8, 2013 (UTC)

I've never really thought about that... good point. The question, then, is what to classify individual ghosts as; surely Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington wouldn't be an immortal, but if a ghost is immortal and he is a ghost wouldn't he therefore be immortal? Hunnie Bunn! 00:57, March 8, 2013 (UTC)
It would seem that you have once again decided to just jump in with adding potentially questionable content, again having to do with categories, without discussing it first. I am again going to ask that you stop doing so until the matter has been talked over. ProfessorTofty (talk) 01:03, March 8, 2013 (UTC)

Re: Category additions X

You can't just badger people into accepting your point of view. At least one other user, Nick O'Demus, disagrees with your idea that zombies are immortal and reverted your edit, as nowhere is this stated in canon. Personally, I find the idea myself highly questionable, that a creature that is dead could be considered immortal, "living" dead or not. And as for vampires, I don't see any proof that they are necessarily immortal. Regarding your category, it has not been deleted, but it currently contains no pages, and is likely to be deleted unless valid pages that everyone can agree upon are added. ProfessorTofty (talk) 18:59, March 9, 2013 (UTC)

Haven't I warned you before about pestering regarding replying? I was at work while I was on earlier, and I work at a job where I sit at a counter at a computer and I'm allowed to do things on the Internet when not helping a customer. Most likely, the reason that I responded to the person before you is because their question allowed for a quick an easy response, while yours deserves a little more consideration. As for the four that you mentioned, Fawkes or any phoenix for that matter can reasonably be considered immortal. However, the remainder, no. Immortality is in essence the property of not being able to be killed and while both Voldemort and Herpo sought immortality, neither achieved it. As for Nagini, I'm not sure how she could be considered in any sense immortal when all it took to kill her was to slice her with a sword. ProfessorTofty (talk) 23:04, March 9, 2013 (UTC)

RE:Immortals II

My only problem is that we can't classify a species or genus as immortal but individuals therein as both immortal and mortal. They're complete opposites, it just wouldn't work. And as a ghost is someone who has died, and immortality is the state of never dying... I'm afraid perhaps we'll have to listen to the Professor on this one. --Hunnie Bunn! 13:17, March 10, 2013 (UTC)

Mortals category

I saw your message on ProfessorTofty's talk page, it wasn't him who deleted it but a different admin, who deemed it "too broad for practical use". --Hunnie Bunn! 17:51, March 10, 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't know who did it - it was an admin or bureaucrat because nobody else can delete things, but one quick glance at ProfessorTofty's contributions shows he didn't delete it, as that would appear there. --Hunnie Bunn! 17:58, March 10, 2013 (UTC)
My apologies, but - please don't be mad - I checked the deletion log and it was the Professor after all. Sorry. He says in his deletion note "As noted, it was far too broad for practical use". --Hunnie Bunn! 18:14, March 10, 2013 (UTC)
Belac, I'm not a power editor on this wiki - I'm unable to help you. Second, it's likely that PT is probably more in the right than you are. MinorStoop 18:59, March 10, 2013 (UTC)
As you can see here, I'm on the fence about it - in other words, it isn't too big of a deal for me what happens. I'll provide reason and logic in arguments, but I'm not a first-rate editor (first-class, true, but not first-rate). --Hunnie Bunn! 19:05, March 10, 2013 (UTC)
Yes, your mortals category was deleted because it was empty. I was not the one who removed the items from the category, that was Nick O'Demus, but I did remove the category itself once it became empty. The reasoning is that mortals by definition covers anyone that is not immortal, therefore the category is far too broad, and we're not interested in having it. Also, for the record, I do not "hate your guts" and that skates very close to being a personal attack. I have done my best to deal with your edits in good faith. The fact that you are currently still even able to edit is proof of that. Many would much less patient than me and would have already blocked you again. Again, I would suggest what I have suggested to you many times before-- lay off the categories thing for a while and find other ways to make productive edits. There are so, so many other things we need help with, I can't even begin to count them, though I could easily list a few off if you were interested. ProfessorTofty (talk) 22:34, March 10, 2013 (UTC)

Re: Sorry

Just so you know, it's never been personal to me. I'll admit that I did find the whole "I'm Belac Reteet" thing a bit irritating, as well as well as having to do undo some of the contributions after I had asked you to hold off. But that's it. I have to deal with everyone fairly, and the thing is, my response would have been pretty much the same no matter who it was that was making those contributions. And it's not just me; a number of others have undone your contributions as well, and/or expressed concerns or disagreed with one of your positions. And disagreement in itself isn't a problem, and there have been a couple of times with some of your discussions where certain things have been accepted and then integrated into the wiki. But if there is no consensus, then you sometimes you have to accept that and move on. And the offer I made before is still on the table-- I'd love to direct you to some areas of the wiki that could use some help at the moment. We've got plenty of projects for anyone looking to help out. ProfessorTofty (talk) 14:33, March 11, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, adding categories is easy, maybe a bit too much so. I don't feel though, that they necessarily define the page, so much as the actual contents of the page itself. "Living Brain"? Not really sure what that would be about. We already have a Brain article that I suspect likely covers most, if not all, of what I think you might be thinking of. As for other things to do, there quite a few. For example, many of the articles with the Category:Stubs could use more work, and they are numerous. All of these could use more info. There's also those articles lacking a list of appearances, all of which need a list of what Harry Potter works they appeared in to comply with our guidelines. Finally, for the moment, I'm looking for people to have a look over our candidates for Quote of the Week and vote on those that they feel should or shouldn't be included in this. ProfessorTofty (talk) 23:00, March 11, 2013 (UTC)
I know what you meant, but seeing as those brains are the only one's we've seen in the series, I think you're going to have trouble making a case that it's worth having a separate article about them. ProfessorTofty (talk) 00:46, March 12, 2013 (UTC)

Re: Mortals

I think you misunderstand why I replied on the Horcruxes talk page—I supported your position, not you. Your message gave me the feeling that you think this is a personal matter, when it should be solely a debate about organization and canon. I am a staff member on another wiki, so I completely understand Proffesor Tofty's position. The matter seems to be mostly resolved now though (although this wiki's policy of splitting comments across two talk pages makes it very difficult to read the conversation properly or interject something). Regardless, I will give my opinion on some mortality-related subjects in the appropriate places. --SnorlaxMonster 13:37, March 12, 2013 (UTC)

Mortals, Part II

I thought the whole matter was settled, with the decision being that we were going to add it to infoboxes? I've gotten to this one and this one so far :) You can see what I added here. --Hunnie Bunn 19:42, March 12, 2013 (UTC)

RE:Account difficulties

Hi, it's nice to see you back. I don't know why it isn't working... then again, I'm no expert in that area of the wiki. Sorry I can't be of more help - maybe someone else here on the wiki might be able to assist you better :)--Hunnie Bunn (talk) 19:27, April 9, 2013 (UTC)

Just a suggestion-- sometimes these things are nothing more than a brief temporary error, especially when the error message you receive is as vague as that. I'd say just give it another try now and see if it works. You might also try using a different web browser, or another computer entirely, sometimes that can sort out such problems. ProfessorTofty (talk) 01:29, April 10, 2013 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.

Build A Wizarding World Collection