Harry Potter Wiki
Harry Potter Wiki

New pages

Henrietta Fischer mentioned a High Council when talking to Newt. I assume that is a special group/organization within the ICW. Should there be a page for it? Andrewh7 (talk) 23:39, 3 June 2022 (UTC) Andrewh7 Should there a page for the player's wand in MA and the player in Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them VR Experience? Andrewh7 (talk) 03:10, 7 June 2022 (UTC) Andrewh7

"There's a private entrance for members of the High Council". Andrewh7 (talk) 18:43, 7 June 2022 (UTC) Andrewh7
What should I name the page for the VR player character page? Andrewh7 (talk) 01:26, 8 June 2022 (UTC) Andrewh7
That could work. Andrewh7 (talk) 23:52, 8 June 2022 (UTC) Andrewh7


Hey I'm new to wiki here, just out of curiosity I wanted to ask how to become a wiki manager Thanks! Good day and Jubilee Platinum is happy. ~~talisrael~~ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Talisrael (talkcontribs) 12:48, 7 June 2022.

Slight page issue

Hi, there are currently two sections on the candidates for deletion page for "Image (7)" which should ideally be merged together, for simplicity. Another editor created a new section rather than contribute to the existing one. Thanks. RedWizard98 (talk) 16:22, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

That's good. Also, it's been bugging me that many editors, often new ones, don't seem to know about the signature policy. Either they fail to provide or add it incorrectly, with moderators like Mr SB have to correct. I think we need a template informing editors about the signature policy, to better inform the community. Thanks. RedWizard98 (talk) 20:38, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, we should definitely make this template. I think Sammm has expressed some interest in it prior as well, so I think creating one would be ideal. Should you make it, I make it or someone else? RedWizard98 (talk) 21:57, 8 June 2022 (UTC)


Hi, also, all of this user's image uploads are unused fanon images and they are still uploading them. We are not a wiki for fanon. Kind regards. RedWizard98 (talk) 21:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Also, EvanR12136 is adding false information to articles despite being told not to do so on his talk page. RedWizard98 (talk) 01:45, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Evan412136 has ignored his warnings, and has continued to add false information to articles, as seen here. Either this is a poor understanding of the series or being intentionally misleading or nonsensical. Thanks. RedWizard98 (talk) 20:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
User has again added false information, either deceptively or without proper understanding, and he has been warned clearly, so I think now a block is in order. Users cannot add false information to articles without penalty, otherwise it will continue. Kind regards. RedWizard98 (talk) 23:46, 14 June 2022 (UTC)


Hello Kates39, what do you think about this category? I have a feeling it is somewhat unnecessary and purely descriptive in nature, like an old category called "Mischief makers". Kind regards. RedWizard98 (talk) 20:40, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Concern over user behaviour/fanon

Hello, Viviansend has displayed extremely inappropriate behaviour, such as using foul language to insult the wiki in their two recently deleted fanon articles, which is totally unacceptable, not to mention they have broken the fanon policy numerous times too. I don't like fanon, and I hate foul or abusive language. Kind regards. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RedWizard98 (talkcontribs).

A {{last}} warning has been placed on their talk page, and if the user continues their inappropriate behaviour, they should be blocked immediately. MalchonC (talk) 16:33, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Great, thank you for letting me know. I will keep an eye on it. - Kates39 (talk) 22:09, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

"Re:Final warning"

It's "not prohibited"? Am I receiving an official warning for a non-violation of the talk page policy then, or did I misunderstand you? It would've have helped immensely, mind you, if you could be just a bit clearer on the sort of changes to talk page messages you have such a problem with. First you ask that I refrain from heavily editing them, such as when I removed several paragraphs of text and replaced it with a one-sentence question in a prior discussion with RW98, which was fair. Now, however, I made a relatively minor change to the wording of my message without changing any of the actual content, and then suddenly that's being labelled as a massive change too? Where do you draw the line, exactly? And if there is no blanket ban on editing talk page post save fixing grammar in the talk page policy on this wiki, perhaps it should get one? WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 23:08, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Prohibited by what policy? I still didn't see any strictures on the subject when I looked over them yesterday. And please note that I am saying this with all due respect; if you did in fact notice that my change made the post more polite, then to suggest that I wasn't fixing a mistake doesn't really make no sense. So what if the tone of the post is changed? What's wrong with the realization that an edit came off as more hostile than you intended, and wanting to fix it so it reflects your actual sentiments? As long as the same arguments and/or propositions posited in support of a particular perspective remains the same so the overall content they're only potentially responding at the time remains the same as they were already answering to. If we were talking an edit that was overtly and intentionally uncivil and it was left there, and then changed post-response to make the interlocutor responding to it sound unreasonable, that would be one thing, but I see only pros absolutely no cons with having a post written in the heat of the moment amended to avoid a potential conflict before it happens. That is granted, again, that the changes does not entail a removal of the information being responded to. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 16:50, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

While you might not think it is "right", as an authority on myself, I can tell you that I would like that. Not only would any difference in the post be surface-level and ultimately irrelevant to whether or not the person I exchanged with made a good or a bad case for their side of the argument, but I'd view it as a sign of intellectual honesty. I'm not in the habit of looking for malintent in messages if there's no obvious reason to think it's supposed to be understood that way, and if somebody changed a message directed at me because it was hostile, not only would I appreciate that they had gone through the trouble to not stay hostile if they had thought better of it, but I would take offense to it on both our behalfs if a staff member on this wiki, moderator, admin, bureaucrat, it doesn't matter, got all high and mighty by inserting themselves into an exchange they were not a part of if I had not asked them for a redress because we couldn't resolve it ourselves.
The editors on this wiki are, after all, adults. If the staff members were to play the part of baby-sitters and micromanage our interactions with one another without the editors in question having asked them to do so, and without allowing their fellow grownups to try and sort out their own differences by themselves first, that would not only have been neither necessary, nor desired, but it'd also be unbecoming of the staff member and demeaning to the editors in question. Which is not to say that I'm accusing you of doing that at all; I'm just saying, your understanding on my sentiment on the matter is completely off.

We don't have to argue about it, however. I can make it a priority to comply with your request going forward, and to keep your reasons in mind while doing so as a matter of principle, but I would still like to know what policy, if any, I violated that grounds this prohibition, if only for my own benefit. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 19:56, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Page protections

Hi, unfortunately I think more indefinite protections are needed on some Hermione articles. I cannot work out how the last account was unable to avoid the abuse filter, and I am personally very suspicious about their identity. We shouldn't have to do this, but it looks like we have no choice. Kind regards and enjoy the weather. RedWizard98 (talk) 19:12, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Also I don't think the user Talisrael is properly following the image policy, as they're repeatedly uploading images with largely insufficient file information, such as templates, sources and licenses, which leaves a lot of work for others to do, and I've tried to inform them about how to do it. Kind regards. RedWizard98 (talk) 19:20, 20 June 2022 (UTC)


User is still deliberately adding false information about boggarts. A longer block would therefore be in order, so the message gets across. Kind regards. RedWizard98 (talk) 21:54, 21 June 2022 (UTC)


Hi, honestly this user's behaviour regarding image uploads is now extremely irritating to me and others, they've been repeatedly asked to fill out the file information for their uploads but have consistently failed to do so, and I think it's either ignoring the policy or just plain laziness, especially given the incredibly generous amount of notices on their talk page. I think this needs looking at because others should not be expected to do this for users who frankly can't be bothered. Kind regards. RedWizard98 (talk) 12:48, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Following expiration of block, this user is still completely failing to follow/understand image policy, providing largely inadequate file information and also uploads files with non-English and unclear titles that someone else is forced to clean up and rectify. RedWizard98 (talk) 15:52, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

The Evil Eye talk page

All right, I can take a hint... So I should just stop editing the wiki then, shall I? WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 21:37, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Not in as many words, maybe, but when it has been painstakingly explained six ways from Sunday how RW have been completely and deliberately mischaracterising my edit, and you somehow still end up regurgitating that same falsity that has been corrected almost nine times, I start to wonder. See, this has nothing to do with you "telling editors not to argue and edit-war", that's all fine by me. It has to do with the fact that in nineteen times out of twenty, my interlocutors seems perfectly content with not going through the trouble of paying even a modicum of attention to what I'm saying, and it's gotten really, really old. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 22:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Again, telling editors to stop edit-warring and arguing is what I have to do because it is against the policy of the wiki and it disturbs the peace.

And again, that's not what's in contention...

Why certain editors on this fandom are so fond up on inventing an issue where none exist

The fact you don't feel your opinion is being heard is not a reason to do that.

It's not so much that I "feel my opinion isn't heard" as it is that I'm objectively surrounded by people who can't ever seem to actually listen. Who almost never engage with anything I say, but only these half-baked caricatures of my arguments for and/or objections to X, Y and Z. Case in point: RedWizard98 told me not to use Wikipedia as a source for canon, and on his talk page, on the Evil Eye talk page and on the admin attention talk page put together, I have explained at least EIGHT TIMES that I wasn't doing that, and then you join in, wag your finger at me and go; "don't use Wikipedia as a source for canon, WIOK". Three talk pages, x amounts of messages clarifying what began as a misconception of RW's and snowballed into an outright lie wasn't what happened, and you STILL wagged your finger at me, and went: "don't use Wikipedia as a source for canon, WIOK". Is it any wonder I was half-prepared to hurl my PC into the opposite wall? Nobody. Ever. LISTENS.

Interpreting that into an implication that people want you to leave is inaccurate and unfair. I am telling you to find a better way to approach a disagreement.

Which is impossible when almost no one can be bothered to pay a modicum of attention to what I'm actually saying...

It's really not worth getting aggravated over a word. It's possible that readers could think the word "apotropaic" in any form is indicating the topic is related to a particular type of protective magic which is not found in canon.

I am not aggravated over a word. I am aggravated by the fact that RW is blatantly lying about me with complete impunity, and of the above. As for your second point: Given how the word is not part of anyone's daily vernacular, it is infinately more likely that they will be unfamiliar with the word "apotropaic" and look up the definition on google or in a dictionary; neither of which makes any reference to the real-life concept of "apotropaic magic" at all. Just because the concept of "apotropaic magic" exists in the real world, and that said concept has a Wikipedia page dedicated to it, doesn't mean that the word "apotropaic" has no usage outside of that concept. What we would call "apotropaic magic" were practiced throughout the ancient Near East and ancient Egypt. Fearsome deities were invoked via rituals in order to protect individuals by warding away evil spirits. And yet, last I checked, the word "apotropaic" in and by itself was only introduced into the English language in the late 19th century. It's the same as saying that because psychological projection is a thing, the word "projection" has no other usages at all. Which, as we both know, would be completely completely ridiculous.

And as for what the word "apotropaic" is indicating in the context of my edit? Well, it's not "apotropaic magic", it's a shortened, descriptive, paraphrased re-statement of what David Nakayama wrote: "Wearing an evil eye as an amulet is believed to provide protection against evil forces".

The word "protective" is fine and it still conveys what you wanted to say.

No it doesn't. Calling the evil eye "protective" is to assert as fact that the eye shields the wearer in some way, which we haven't been told is a fact. Calling it apotropaic, on the other hand, restates what David Nakayama told us: Namely, it is believed to protect against evil forces. That's what "apotropaic" means, you see, it's defined as "supposedly having the power to avert evil influences or bad luck". RW also removed my mention of from whence we're told canonically that the mark came from the history section, where it actually belongs. He want to have it in the top paragraph, where it suffices to have a reference to antiquity and deprives the history-section of canon-historical information about the symbol. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 22:03, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I would like to ask your permission to restore that bit on the history section, at least. For factual accuracy, you understand? WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 06:02, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for illustrating my point above about fellow editors not paying attention to what I write and/or disregarding it when I try to engage them with actual facts. Appreciate it. But no, "apotropaic" wasn't part of it, don't worry... -.-' WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 11:48, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

My bad... Well, I won't pretend to get why you lot hate facts so much, but fine, I will exclude this one from the article. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 15:26, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Out of interest, by what policy is it decreed that you cannot edit articles using words that "isn't found in canon"? RW said seemed to think that was a rule, see, and even though that sounded like complete make-believe to me, you seem to agree with him. And - well, the wiki has several articles where the word "proficient" descriptively in numerous article, and I have yet to find anywhere in Rowling's writings where that word has been used. And I checked - online books and ctrl + f came really in handy - should I go over each one and excise the word from the wiki? WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 23:31, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

What's with the intellectual dishonesty all of a sudden? WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 21:09, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

You just said that "apotropaic is also a term given to a particular type of magic," which isn't only not the case, but I have even explained the whys and the hows of said fact. More than once. Then you claimed that the word "protective" "still conveys what you are trying to say", which isn't only not the case, as I have already explained the difference between "apotropaic" and "protective" is, and which by extension should explain what I wanted to say when I used the word "apotropaic" instead of the word "protective", but the fact that the symbol of the evil eye is apotropaic in nature is established as true in canon, has yet to receive due consideration. Even though I've mentioned that more than once, too. Granted, the word "apotropaic" might not have been used, but the informational content of it has. I'm reminded of a fanfiction I read once, where Merlin from the BBC show was transported into modern day:

"It was an absolutely beautiful summer day, but the world around him wasn't. The stone beneath his feet was gray and fine, though just beyond Silas was a smooth black top with white and yellow designs on it. He stared, dumbfounded at the ground for a moment – where was the dirt? – and so when something loud and large passed by he jumped.
What. Was. THAT?!
Entirely encased in metal, it was the strangest thing he'd ever seen in his life. It had wheels, like a carriage but they were so much larger and thicker and there was no horse pulling the thing! It moved forward without any indication of being pulled or pushed. Through clear – though solid – glass he could see people within. He was utterly perplexed. He could hear an odd rumbling, growling sound from the contraption as if an animal were trapped inside."

To suggest that because the word "apotropaic" wasn't used in the source I cited, we cannot use it descriptively when a canon source did (indirectly, but yes it was), is tantamount to suggest that the above was not referring to a car just because it wasn't referred to as a 'car' in the text. And the intellectual dishonesty bit? Well, it is because you basically repeated your previous post to me word-for-word, as though the objection(s) you brought up had not already been addressed. Which they all had. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 22:09, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Re: Unused Images

I had created the unused page in my userspace as a place to avoid clogging up Special:unusedfiles. It seems to be easier to see a bunch of unused files at one time. I mayh add some to pages, although it seems, editors on this wiki are adverse to adding lots of images, much less galleries. I suspect that if I add some, it will get removed and rendering any effort to be moot. SeichanGrey (talk) 01:10, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

just remembered now. Take a look at the history of Sherbet lemon, and you'll see I added a gallery that included one image, but was reverted. If that's the expectation when I add pictures to galleries, then I probably should refrain from doing so. Despite that, I do still wish to include images. SeichanGrey (talk) 20:29, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
even if I did integrate the images, how can i guarantee it won't get removed? SeichanGrey (talk) 13:32, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Otto Eduard

Hello, I have a query for you; do you think this man from the recent film is supposed to be a Muggle? Because I am largely certain he is. RedWizard98 (talk) 22:32, 29 June 2022 (UTC)


Hello, you may need to unblock this user, as the abuse filter has wrongly blocked them. They are certainly not a vandal. Kind regards. RedWizard98 (talk) 03:07, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

He already has been unblocked by Lady Lostris. SeichanGrey (talk) 23:54, 2 July 2022 (UTC)


Hello, I think we have gotten to the point where we need to protect several Hermione-related articles against vandalism, which is ongoing, including the Hermione Granger talk page.

Also, there are quite a few more non-notable wand and other articles (like the Hog's Head Inn sign) that need resolving and/or deleting. RedWizard98 (talk) 18:25, 4 July 2022 (UTC)


Heh, absolutely no worries at all. The speed with which you noticed and rectified your mistake was commendable, I never even noticed I was blocked until I was unblocked lol. Yes it is sadly hectic. Hopefully a long-term solution to this Hermione Granger business can be invented soon. I hope you are having a great summer too :) -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  18:21, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Hermione Granger pages

sigh. SeichanGrey (talk) 23:39, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Please reconsider leaving redirects

Hi, When files are renamed, I see those files are renamed and a redirect is left behind while not updating the file links. The end result is causing problems. When the file is moved to its new file name, its former name is a redirect and is being “used”. Its new name is not “directly” being used and therefore and being considered by software as unused and fills up special:unusedfiles. Please iiiiiThis is causing problems with the files being considered unused and considered “unused”, thus filling up special:unusedfiles. This occurs because they simply are not directly “used” but to the redirect that points to them.

Example files are File:Wizard headshot 3 POAG GBA.png. Even the first file I see in the unused file list is File:Harry_Potter_slaying_the_Serpent_of_Slytherin_COSF.PNG, which is generating an entry there despite it not actually being an unused file before the rename.

Please reconsider the approach and updating the file links instead of simply hitting rename. Thank you. SeichanGrey (talk) 12:28, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

1987 President of MACUSA

The reference for the President of MACUSA by 1987 just says Year 3 and not what chapter, and according to the history, you are the one that added it. Do you happen to remember what chapter you got it from? Andrewh7 (talk) 01:03, 8 July 2022 (UTC) Andrewh7

Back to top button has disappeared

For some reason that Back to Top button has disappeared and can no longer go straight to top anymore. It was a lot more efficient and easier to do that than to scroll all the way up or find some other means to try and avoid doing so. Any chance you can look into it and fix it? Andrewh7 (talk) 23:03, 8 July 2022 (UTC) Andrewh7

Unidentified MACUSA Presidents

For the Unidentified MACUSA Presidents mentioned in HM and WU, could they be added to the list on the President of the Magical Congress of the United States of America page, even though they are not named and still unidenfified or do they need names to be added? Andrewh7 (talk) 23:03, 8 July 2022 (UTC) Andrewh7

Re: Unused files

Hey Kate! Thank you for bringing this to my attention. So I noticed that the redirects showing up as being unused are images used in galleries. There is also a known bug that sometimes images used in galleries are listed as not being used even though they are. I'm currently testing whether this issue is related to them being redirects or them being used in the gallery. Depending on the result, I will file a new ticket for this or add to the existing one. Lady Lostris / 9?cb=20190922130322 SOAP 11:06, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I filed a ticket for the file redirects in a gallery not showing up as used, cause I found that if you put an image on any page outside the gallery and then rename it without updating the file name, it does show up as used, so the bug is related to redirects in the gallery. Lady Lostris / 9?cb=20190922130322 SOAP 14:47, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Order of Merlin Third Grade

Greetings! Sorry I'm bothering you about unimportant things but after I did a thousand edits I'm not supposed to get a third-degree Merlin Order? I would love for you to answer me as soon as possible Sincerely Talisrael (talk)talisraelTalisrael (talk)

Page protections

Hi, this is very belated but I think indefinite admin-only protections need applying to several Hermione themed pages, as you can see the vandalism is extremely ongoing on these pages by the said troll. Kind regards. RedWizard98 (talk) 18:08, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/notability issues

Hi, recently I've put quite a few pages for discussion on these two talk pages, that no one else has commented on (like en:Tom Riddle's Battle of Hogwarts ultimatum which I think has little encyclopaedic value, among others), that I'd appreciate if you'd comment on.

In particular, there are many non-notable wands that arguably need deleting that have been there for quite some time now, notably Delphini's. I also think the links on the LEGO template are damaged. Kind regards. RedWizard98 (talk) 09:34, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Also, this article (Witnesses who witnessed the duel between Albus Dumbledore and Gellert Grindelwald in 1945) I swear was created a while ago, and we agreed as a community to delete it for being non-notable? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this may be a case of the creator wanting to re-create a formerly deleted project. RedWizard98 (talk) 23:20, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
I have read the deletion log. It was prior deleted under the title "People who witnessed the duel between Albus Dumbledore and Gellert Grindelwald" on the 16th January this year, following a community decision. I think re-creating this article was rather unacceptable to say the least. RedWizard98 (talk) 23:25, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for replying; curiously are you planning to re-delete this article? I also think the user who disregarded the past consensus needs reprimanding. Thanks. RedWizard98 (talk) 09:13, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

My block

To be honest, this badgering and constant arguing is ridiculous. I've been losing the energy to edit here because of a variety of issues, including this. I don't appreciate your uncivil questioning of my supposed "intellectual dishonesty". I don't know what else you want me to say. I've given you an opinion, and it appears it won't be accepted until I change it to your opinion. It is quite futile to even say a word here because I know it isn't going to be good enough unless I say, yes put "apotropaic" in the article. Unfortunately at this point, I have to repeat myself because there is nothing new to say.
There have been many situations just like this discussion in recent times, and I know I'm not the only editor who is fed up of this routine. Edit-warring, arguing, failing to just accept a difference of opinion, badgering, incivility. The approach taken to discussions just doesn't appear to be changing. To take such a discord about a single word to this level is too much. Please take the next seven days I have blocked you for this to seriously think about how you can change this approach. Please do not badger me off-wiki about it like has been done in the past.

Before I say anything else, I want to get the facts of our interaction straight. And the fact of the matter is that about two thirds of your final message to be in categorically false. First of all, this "discourse", as you called it, was not "because of the word". In case it slipped your notice, I have been bending over backwards and done everything short of pulling out the crayons to try and explain to you what the problem is. The problem, for the nth time, and please try to take note of it this time, is that when I post a messages to discuss the content of a given article, in nine cases out of ten, my fellow editors cannot, apparently, be bothered to pay the attention necessary to actually engage with what I'm writing to them. In nine cases out of ten, they tend to engage with these vague strawman versions of them, and no amount of clarification on my part makes a lick of a difference. Somehow, it just doesn't sink in.

Case in point: RW98 accused me of using Wikipedia as a source for canon information, and how I couldn't use the word descriptively because it "didn't appear in canon". I explained to him over and over again that he misunderstood the edit, but not only did he keep reasserting it and falsely report me for something I didn't do, (and did so with complete impunity), but when you joined, you repeated what he was saying, despite all the times I had corrected it. And then I brought the matter to you, and this ludicrous obsession with excluding the word "apotropaic" from the article was all you got out of it. The fact that this misconception of what the word "apotropaic" refers to, and the blatant disregard for my corrections on the matter, was only the latest example of this and the straw that broke the camel's back, went completely over your head. The fact that have explained that it's not about the word "apotropaic", repeatedly, and you still accuse me of getting worked up over the "word", that's what's ridiculous, K.

Also, you did not give me an "opinion" about what should be in the article, you gave me a directive. You placed a restriction on the kind of edit I could make my telling me I could only restore my edit if I excluded the word "apotropaic", ostensibly because the word was "not used in canon", even though I didn't even use it the way I was accused of using it, and the way I did use it was already applied in a canon source. Not only was the fact that what the word "apotropaic" refers to appears in canon disregarded by both RW98 and yourself, but this is the second stricture you've imposed on me recently that I've found no precedent for in the policies of this wiki. In both cases, I asked if you could clarify by what policy these things were prohibited, and you failed to reply both times. When I receive censorious instructions that appears to be pulled out of thin air, and warnings to boot, and with no actual rule having been violated as far as I can see, I tend to get a bit annoyed.

And finally: As much as you did not appreciate my criticism of how you engaged with me when I used the words "intellectually dishonest", I can assure you K, that if there's something I appreciate significantly less than that, it is when somebody entrusted a position of authority over other people misuse their privileges. Because that's exactly what you did, as far as I'm concerned. Now understand me correctly: I'm not accusing you of abusing them, as that would require a level of malintent you don't possess, but you did misuse it when you blocked me for a week for failing to join the echo chamber. It wasn't "uncivil", it was criticism. Not about you, it wasn't a personal attack, it was about how you engaged with me. I'm sorry to hear that you're having some bad days, but that doesn't mean you can just take it out on me. Even the summary you threw together in order to justify the block was a bit strawman-y, however inadvertently it might have been on your part. The summary you threw together to justify it did not only consist largely of things that had already been addressed or otherwise behind us, but you also framed them as if I'm exclusively to blame, with no acknowledgement that other parties involved even existed.

I resent being blocked just because you feel "badgered" and couldn't take criticism as well as you should have, but you know what? I will let it slide. I have vented my frustration, and I will leave it at that. Going forward, I will simply assume that you had a bad day, like we all do on occasion. I will be treating this as an isolated incident and move on with my life. All I can do now is hope that the next time I'm in a conflict, the other party is held to the same standard of accountability as me for once. In the meantime, given what a drain you tell me that I am on you, I think it will please you to know that I have decided to leave you alone for a while. The next time I need staff input, I will ask somebody else. If there are external factors that are making you disinclined to edit the wiki, I want no part of it.

Cheers. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 23:34, 13 July 2022 (UTC)


This user has been wrongfully blocked, again by the abuse filter. Personally I will be advocating for the deactivation of this robot if it cannot be programmed not to target false positives. RedWizard98 (talk) 11:27, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

This has already been cleared up, thank you for the respectful report, Kare.
RedWizard, as I've told you on Discord, you have been told numerous times that abusefilters aren't infallible. You want them to block everything, they can't. Things like this happen. If you want me to disable the filter in general so no false positives happen again, I can do that, but will you then also clean up the vandalism without complaining about it? Cause you can't have both, that's simply not how it works, no matter how much we'd love it to. And this is not a matter of "cannot be programmed not to target false positives." I would very much appreciate it of you can in general take on a more respectful tone with and about other people on this platform, thank you. Lady Lostris / 9?cb=20190922130322 SOAP 19:28, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
You're very welcome, Kate! Hectic is just sadly a part of wiki life from time to time, but we can all just try to limit the effects of it by working together. You've been doing a great job at that, so thank you and the rest of the community as well. Working together and seeing vandalism for the annoying but in the end insignificant nuisance that it is really is the best reaction to this. Lady Lostris / 9?cb=20190922130322 SOAP 10:52, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Fanon report

Mr WeaseleyIsOurKing89 has continually falsely claimed that Eulalie Hicks is a Muggle-born. Both the MuggleNet interviews by Jessica Williams say she was raised in the No-Maj born by a grandmother of unknown blood status; it never says both her parents were Muggles, or wizards or Squibs.

His edits are intentionally dishonest and he knows it. He has also added a large amount of general speculation to Hick's article and has established no discussion to justify it. Curiously, didn't he just claim he was leaving this nasty, narrow-minded wiki project for good, yet is continuing to edit in a less than desirable way? I won't have false information posted on any article and I will call it out. It angers me beyond good measure. Kind regards. RedWizard98 (talk) 17:28, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

For the nth time, RW98, and I have began to lose count of just how many times I have corrected you on this already: The source, which is a quote from an interview with Jessica Williams about her character's background, actually said was:
"... Eulalie was born in Harlem to a non-magical family, a No-Maj. And later, as a young girl, she discovers that things would start to fly off the walls in the apartment that they were living in. She was really close with her grandmother and her grandmother told her that back in the day, there were signs that her great, great, great ancestors could practice magic."
As you might recall, a witch or wizard born into a non-magical family is called a Muggle-born. For Muggle-borns to have a more distant ancestor that were also magical is also very common, as the magic gene is hereditary and said ancestor is where they got it from. Before you accuse people of disseminating fanon, try to fact-check your assumptions first. And if you really think that the sources I provided for every other detail I wrote is invalid, why don't you list them on the relevant talk page and explain exactly why or how you think that is the case, and we can sort it out there? WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 11:31, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Also... "nasty, narrow-minded wiki project"? I dare you to find anywhere where I used those words. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 11:45, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

End this right here right now. Kate has had enough hassle caused by this feud already, I'm sure the last thing she needs is you two arguing literally on her talk page. Just stop. -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  12:23, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you MrSiriusBlack. The feuding needs to stop and certainly shouldn't be taking place on my talk-page. Please be considerate. - Kates39 (talk) 17:59, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Witnesses of the 1945 duel page

Hello, the issue of this largely non-notable article still has to be resolved. It was agreed early this year to delete this and the majority consensus has not shown to have changed, and deleted articles should really not be re-created without approval. If you would prefer, I would like the approval to turn this article into a re-direct for the duel article, that, or the page be deleted again, or otherwise resolved on the discussions page. Kind regards. RedWizard98 (talk) 22:46, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, are you planning to delete this article? This is not notable and is based on a misunderstanding of what notability is. If you'd prefer, I would happily turn this into a re-direct. Regards. RedWizard98 (talk) 17:21, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello. Apologies if you had a difficult week, hopefully this one will be better. RedWizard98 (talk) 19:09, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Eulalie Hicks & J.K.R.

Hello! I just have a possibly strange (but genuine) question regarding this tweet. The main policy page says that J.K.R.'s word is law, does that make J.K. Rowling's linked tweet canon to the HP universe? /gen I need to learn human interaction (talk) 14:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Fanon spell

Hello, as someone who has played Wonderbook: Book of Spells (the Book of Spells), I can confirm that en:Cumulo is not a spell in it, or from anywhere else - it's fabricated. Kind regards. RedWizard98 (talk) 17:38, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Main photo JK Rowling

Greetings! Can you change the main image of Rowling as there is no objection and it is a more recent image. Regards

Talisrael (talk) 16:53, 3 August 2022 (UTC)talisraelTalisrael (talk) 16:53, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

But you see, the discussion remains open like this indefinitely, and by the way you may not have noticed but a month ago (maybe a little more) I uploaded the photos from the premiere and only a week or two ago I uploaded the photo you want to put as an informational photo, the user who objected objected to the photos from the premiere no Image from Rowling's website. I think if you don't change it will remain a picture from a decade ago (example: you wouldn't put a picture of Emma Westson at the age of 20, would you?) Regards

Talisrael (talk) 20:55, 3 August 2022 (UTC)talisraelTalisrael (talk) 20:55, 3 August 2022 (UTC)


I had posted a request for bot permissions right [[1]]. I am wondering if you can be the one who opens a formal vote. Thank you. SeichanGrey (talk) 18:23, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Spoiler warning

Hey, I think I don't need the Fantastic Beasts secrets of Dumbledore spoiler warning anymore, what do you say? Two months have already passed for those who want to see the movie...

Talisrael (talk) 13:42, 5 August 2022 (UTC)talisraelTalisrael (talk) 13:42, 5 August 2022 (UTC)