For future references


If your article has been tagged or deleted, please do not take offence - this is not meant against you. You may defend your article on its talk page or deletion page, or talk to an administrator. Never remove the {{delete}} tag before the vote is done - repeatedly doing so may result in a ban of three days minimum. If your article is deleted, please refrain from rewriting it without consensus from your fellow editors.

TBH, I actually unintentionally did the same thing a few days ago (thought it wasn't on an article I created, since I haven't created any on this wiki lol,) albeit with good intentions (as is yours, I have no doubt.) The person who placed the tag was nice enough to reconsider the case and switching it to {{Verify}}, which well, is a different situation then the current one but yeah. No hurt feelings? If it isn't clear, it really isn't personal (I didn't look at who the editor was before placing the tag.) --Sammm✦✧(talk) 10:29, June 9, 2018 (UTC)

Hey there! Sorry for the late reply! I had a prior engagement that pretty much took the whole day, and while I did make an edit (followed up by another shortly due to seeing typos,) it was because one of the writers of HM actually directly replied to my answer, so it was a quick update.
Anyways, I'm super sorry about impression I gave; I think I saw your reply on my Talk page after I sent out my response elsewhere. This is the second time I'm told about the all-caps thing, and I'm truly sorry for what it represents. I use it to, um, simply capitalize stuff, for the lack of better explanation. When bold and italic aren't enabled in edit summary, that's why I used them. As to why I use them when I could bold and italicize, and think it was just a habit a bit hard to break. I'll keep it in mind from now to avoid it. Again, I'm really sorry for coming across as being angry. I wasn't angry at you, nor was I angry at the situation. I wasn't angry at all. D; Deeply sorry about any unpleasant feelings I caused! --Sammm✦✧(talk) 03:45, June 10, 2018 (UTC)

RE: Dumbledore 'correct image

In this case, the "correct image" would be the one that was voted to be featured in the infobox. It is generally considered that for major characters, a vote should be held and community consensus determined before changing that picture. If you feel a different picture should be featured, or that we should feature multiple pictures in a tabbed format, open a new vote on the talk page for the article in question. Note that there is also an unwritten policy that characters featured in the Harry Potter films should have an image from their most recent film (Half-Blood Prince for Dumbledore since that's the last time he was alive) so an image of Harris as Dumbledore is unlikely to be chosen as the main image. -- 1337star (Drop me a line!) 20:49, June 11, 2018 (UTC)

re: Researching in gaming?

Hey, there! I will pay extra attention should my character is required to go in the Artefact Room again. I supposedly would soon, but the Nearly Headless Nick SQ is currently unaccessible for me (a known issue according to Jam City support;) but yeah, hopefully it'd be fixed soon. IDK if you've already narrowed it down as to the timeframe you'd look into, or that you are just watching all playthroughs to and see when it'll be featured; on the top off my head, the following incidents happened in the said room:

  • You can see brief statements on Ben Copper's article and text-search the room, he helps searching there both times in SQs involving Hagrid.
  • Moondew is collected there for Rosmerta's extra sweet butterbeer.
  • Penny's SQ, they brewed forgetfulness potion there.
  • Tulip's boggart and practicing.

You seemed to pay way closer attention to the game, so you'd probably gather much more though. lol --Sammm✦✧(talk) 23:19, June 15, 2018 (UTC)

Ah, thanks! ^^
Yeah, I sat with three different youtube videos depicting the room and paused it as the camera angle shifted and just wrote down everything I saw.. The same is sort of also the case for the history section. If you could help me find the clips where those five incidents in the room takes place, I could easily get on expanding the article. :-D Maester Martin (talk) 23:25, June 15, 2018 (UTC)
Didn't realize you've replied me here. IDK what you mean with the above though. All you need to do is look at the citations, which, should label when incidents occur, and go to whichever places you watch videos to look for the specific plays accordingly; only exception being the SQs, for those I suppose you'd just have to put "Side Quest" as keywords when you search. I don't usually watch other people's walkthrough, mostly only do so for year 1, because that's the only year I didn't record my own gameplay. Can't help you on that end.--Sammm✦✧(talk) 22:47, June 17, 2018 (UTC)


Sorry for the late reply, my summer semester is about to start, and my laptop (which I need being workable, due to my major) continues to be unstable, plus my obsession with playing HM, with all of the above, my responding time is slow. So yeah, sorry about that.

I honestly don't really know what to make of the cryptic message you left "For future reference..." and I don't want to presume anything, so I cannot come up with a response besides what I just wrote.

As for Jacob's age; I personally tend not to go into "deduction mode," as in I'm happy with the loosest range (attended and expelled from Hogwarts before 1984–1985 school year) lol. I'm alright with sitting back and wait for more info (if there's any!) to be revealed. I do think your points are sound, though I have problems with the "sense" of the wizarding population in canon's portrayal; they seemed awfully gullible to me. I try to imagine myself in their shoes though, like, I don't really have a reason to doubt what's printed on newspaper, so I have to regrettably admit I can't really fault the canon's public for believing the piece of rubbish called Daily Prophet. In that sense, if people believe whatever that's printed, it wouldn't matter how young (or old) Jacob was. That being said, I do really hope they aren't completely brainless who can't do their own thinking.

I'm again completely clueless about your comment on halfbaked links. Really don't know what you are referring to, sorry. --Sammm✦✧(talk) 01:35, June 22, 2018 (UTC)

Oh! So that's what you were referring to! Thanks for pointing it out and the clarification! By cryptic I just meant, I really couldn't tell what it was referring to until the message just now, as I have left various comments while editing. I agree what I wrote could be read as supremely unpleasant (after reading it in regular waking hours) and I appreciate the advise. I hope there won't be a next time, but if it unfortunately happens again, and if it's not too inconvenient, I think being told exactly what set people off (or potentially) would be more sufficient. If that makes any sense.
And lol, okay, so it's safe to say after the part about Jacob's age could be removed as it's not meant for me?
I've learned my lesson (due to personal preference) when I reached HMy3|ch|11 before it was released. It wasn't that I don't like waiting (I prefer not having to, but that's not the reason,) it was that when they finally released it, people who reached it prior to the release didn't get correct chapter titles and descriptions. While it could be a one time thing I unfortunately experienced, I don't care to go through it again, so I intentionally delayed my completion of HMy4|ch|2 until I got confirmation that the following chapter was released. I've done the same for HMy4|ch|4, so I'm currently just wrapping up my flying class, since I now know the next chapter is out. =D You? --Sammm✦✧(talk) 02:27, June 22, 2018 (UTC)

re: About Rakepick

I think, it's safe to say you completely misunderstood what the comment you quoted was meant for. It was for the reference tag directly before it, saying "According to Rakepick, if 'it isn't deadly, it simply doesn't hold [her] interest'." SO, since, according to THIS statement, it was actually a direct quote coming from Rakepick, it would have an actual source, SO, I'm asking for that said source, for, unless you yourself is a fictional character who happened to know Rakepick in person, or is a writer of this game, this reference, is incomplete. Or, unless it wasn't a direct quote and is one of those deduction thing; if that's the case, there shouldn't be any "according to," cuz it wouldn't even becoming from the character, just deduction. I do not believe it is an unreasonable request to ask for accuracy.

As you seem persistent on writing flourishing sentences here and there (they are by no means a lot in proportion, but could just be found scattering in places) (and I'm sure in another POV, I'm the one persistent on removing stuff) I think it's safe to say we agree to disagree. The wiki's aim, when it comes to canon content, is to be as factual an encyclopedia can be; using logic to deduct does not equate to fact, it is not wrong, but there's a difference, especially when what's logical varies from person to person. One can say relying a teenage to defeat a megalomaniac who's a threat to an entire nation is hardly logical, or question where the logic is when the Head Misuse of Muggle Artefacts Office doesn't even recognize muggle currency or the fact muggles don't usually use floo.

I will not turn it to an editing war, but please at least don't ruin the format, and I'm saying this not to be mean or base on my own personal opinion, but the fact that, after you've added back the stuff, it does actually mess up the the article, and it is very visible in source mode; there should not be a chunk of purple highlighted text, that means you did not properly close either bold or italic text.

--Sammm✦✧(talk) 01:19, June 25, 2018 (UTC)

1.Thank you, and please, next time, make sure what was being pointed out before making a response; and I will be specific so there can be no misunderstanding,

You asked; "according to Rakepick, when? where? Please actual source". I don't need one, because its self-evident and self-explainatory. You don't graduate from Hogwarts and become Head of Magical Law Enforcement the next day, and you don't join Gringotts and immediately becomes Head Curse-Breaker, because you would have the academical qualification, but lack the experience needed in the field to do an even remotely worthwhile job.

You spent time justifying something it wasn't even about, coming to me, as if I'm being unreasonable because oh, you don't need [actual source]; when the {{fact}} template AND the editor comment you quoted, prior to your removal, were placed directly after the reference in question, indicating specifically what needed to be clarified.
I'm not going to pretend that, how I read it, the tone was anything but pleasant. Initially I had not a clue what your reply even mean, because it didn't answer the question at all. I came to the conclusion that, you thought, that editor comment was meant for the passage that comes afterwards, which I also removed in that same edit but for a different reason. Correct me if I'm wrong. If that was the case, then yes, the editor comment would seem ridiculous; I'd much rather you simply ask, "that editor comment, is it meant for the part you removed afterwards? Because I think it's rather self-evident and self-explainatory?" and I would then point out that NO, it was not about it at all, and proceed to clarify like I did. Perhaps you took little time to fire up why it was self-evident, but it could have all been avoided. Perhaps to you it wasn't unpleasant at all? I do not know, but to me it was, and I hope that, if something like that happen again, that I raise a question that looks so preposterous and "why would you even need to ask", ASK me if you are reading the question right first, in case you actually aren't, before jumping down my throat and giving me a paragraph of something irrelevant.
In case it wasn't obvious, yes, I'm slightly annoyed and a little upset over it, and while it's not the end of the world, I REALLY would like to prevent it from happening again, which is why I'm taking the time to write as specifically as possible.
2. I honestly don't know what you are referring to, please explain.
3. You are messing up because a stylization you did is not properly closed; on the contrary, it does not make it right just because something is not visible to the naked eye.

Can you tell that I actually just typed 3 sets of <p> </p> before this particular sentence? No, all you see is ONE break line (according to Preview anyways; was actually expecting 3,) which, does not needed to be typed out with codes at all, simply pressing the enter key twice would have the same effect. I've also now placed 6 sets of <nowiki></nowiki> before this sentence, and they are not visible, doesn't mean they are not redundant, because they really are. They take up the byte size when they are literally useless. I brought up nowiki, because that is also what your edit is incorrectly consisting. It is actually visible, and I could identify why it was acting up, corrected it, only to be reverted back.

You are using ' as quotation marks which isn't wrong per se, but it will not be correctly displayed if having italic or bold placed in between, due to the nature of wikitext, and that's where the nowiki shows up. To be honest, since {{quote}} also uses " as the quotation marks, there's no reason not to just follow it to avoid the overall, unnecessary, complication. If for some reason a single apostrophe is absolutely insistent upon being used in such way, then honestly, technically it should be and ; use those, and there would be no problem. Take your pick. Bottom line, what you did also blindsided source mode users to being able to quickly locate bold and italic text; like I said, when done properly, the purple highlights only indicates the stylized parts, it is rarely paragraphs AND cross-section long, which was what your previous edit caused. Just because it isn't affecting visual mode users, doesn't excuse the fact that it is indeed hindering source mode users. Readers are not effected? Lucky them, but please be considerate to the ones that are; why make the lives of specific editors harder when they can be avoided altogether? And for the record, the nowiki code isn't even placed correctly, the usage is to have an open and a close, you have no opens and 3 closes; just because the wrongness isn't actively showing up (for now) doesn't make it right.
I can tell I'm getting slightly aggressive, because to me it is frustrating, as it is a simply situation; something isn't correctly used, correct it. I do not understand why whether or not the wrongness is visible is relevant; a wrong is a wrong. I apologize if I'm sounding condescending, I just really don't know how to express my POV another way.--Sammm✦✧(talk) 03:32, June 25, 2018 (UTC)

As if what I had already written isn't long enough, since you so kindly asked me to "enlighten" you on your talk page, though I disagree with that word usage, here I am. I'm going to go fix the multiple incorrect code usages, and removing certain passages, AND add the missing factual reference; if you are still going to insist putting the removed passage right back after you hear what I'm going to say, the least you can do is to show the courtesy of manually adding back what you think should be added back, and not just reflexively use the auto undo function, also wiping out the fixes, like you did last time. I said this because that's exactly what happened; you'd left no formatting change.
So, what I'm going to remove, is:

Quicklya proving herself to be very efficient and gifted employee, it soonb became glaringly obviousc that the job for which she had been hired was one at which she was very good.

Compromising goes both ways, while I personally don't find it necessary, I am just one person, and you've persuaded me that, for some reason, "Burnishing herself in ability and status" is so important, that it absolutely have to be mentioned in her article. Yes, I admit I'm being sarcastic, but well, maybe to you it really is so very important, so yeah, sure, why not, it stays, even though without the sentence the whole paragraph still reads fine.
Back to the point, why the removal? "Quickly"a and "soon"b? And we know this, how? Oh, because, she eventually got the Head position, she must be excellent at everything, and just being excellent isn't awesome enough, she must have achieved those in record time, right? I am talking utter dragon dung. I know nothing, just because I assume so does not make it right, and who am I to confuse or convince the readers that this is what actually happened? Let's not forget again, in canon, there was little said about Curse-Breakers; we know it's a dangerous job, but for all we know, the bar is set so high, that every Curse-Breaker are fairly competent in general! You have to have comparison for "Quickly" and "soon," for how would you know what's fast if you don't have something slow to compare it with? There is no one at the moment to compare it with, and why wouldn't the fact that she is epic beyond proportion be enough for itself? Why must some adverbs with no backings need to be thrown in? There's also "glaringly obvious"c; it is biased, because, to whom? To you? To other people? To me? Who is it that thinks it's glaringly obvious?
Ultimately, your paragraph can be simplified as:

She proved to be a very efficient and gifted employee, and she was very good at her job.

I even still think the above is redundant, but I will at least keep this shortened version, since we need to let the world know how awesome Rakepick is, and it doesn't matter how obvious it is, we have to actually state it aloud so that no one can miss it. I'm sorry, I'm being rude again. To me, I felt it is redundant, because she IS good, when I say "apparently," which I have no idea why it seemed to have once again like "speculation" been taken as if there's a negative connotation;
Side note: "apparently" = as far as one knows or can see.
synonyms: seemingly, evidently, it seems (that), it appears (that), it would seem (that), it would appear (that), as far as one knows, by all accounts; ostensibly, outwardly, supposedly, on the face of it, so the story goes, so I'm told; allegedly, reputedly.
As far as I know, for as far as the game is building her up to be, she is pretty brilliant. She is apparently good, if that's too mild for you, I'm sorry, she is evidently superb. They mean the same thing to me, while obviously superb is superior than good, I'm sorry that my vague expression may or may not have led you to believe that, I, don't really believe she is that good, or that only describing her as good is an insult or something. The fact you have to nitpick my word usage, really makes me feel like it was completely missing the point. Sue me for saying "apparently," to me that's like saying she is obviously good, just that "obviously" is, obviously more firm. (obviously also has the synonym "evidently," I will keep in mind to use this from now on, just so I won't piss off other people.)
I was sidetracked again, sorry. Why I think the passage is redundant, is because, her awesomeness should have been proven by the incidents with the Sphinx and Manticore; those, to me, made her skills and talent being self-explanatory, I didn't understand why it is needed to be stated so heavy-handily, as if the readers aren't capable of forming the same conclusion, as if they needed to be spoon-fed to understand that she is good at her job, as if seeing that she handled the Sphinx and Manticore they still won't know she's good at her job. To me, that passage itself has no substance, other than adding more words to make the article longer. But that is just me, perhaps there really are a lot of people who wouldn't get it, so yeah, sure, it didn't have to be completely removed, my bad.
I've said my very long and very winded piece. I have made an effort to communicate, I am not trying to dictate the article, but editing is a group effort, to my understanding, there is a need to state how skilled and good at her job she is, so I'm compromising to still have the a simplified sentence that essentially convey the gist of the piece in the article, I hope it can be accepted. If not, I'm all ears. Let me know why it's not. --Sammm✦✧(talk) 08:17, June 25, 2018 (UTC)

Hi there! Sorry for the belated reply! My first week of summer semester is hectic! And I know I need and want to actually spend time on writing a proper response, hence the delay (the edits I've been doing didn't take 1/50 of the time estimated needed, so. lol)
Sorry for not splitting the headline the first time, I'm actually not sure what I was thinking at the time, probably cuz the last section on your Talk page was left by myself and for some reason I convinced myself to continue using it. My bad. The second time (the part that started with "As if what I had already written isn't long enough",) that whole part, I actually did mean for it to be a part of the same thing; originally I was planning to continue to write, but I was aware I got pretty ill-tempered, plus the length was already quite long, so I decided to send out what I've written and go cool down a bit, which is why there's like almost a 5-hr time gap between the two lengthy parts; since I have not gotten a reply from you in between, and since they were meant to be sent out in one go in the first place, that's why I didn't separate them. Sorry for the confusion.
  1. Thanks.
  2. Okay wow, so this is entirely my bad. I'm so very sorry. Your edit summary was:

    If you believe my codes are inaccurate, please, feel free to enlighten me on my talk page. She wasn't 'apparently' good, she was good. OotP member Hagrid called called her dangerous. Also, your logic is flawed.

    It proves that, responding when not thinking straight really wasn't a good idea. I think I actually read it right the first time, which is why my first reply did just give you the most straight forward answer to where your codes were wrongly used: "there should not be a chunk of purple highlighted text, that means you did not properly close either bold or italic text", and you proceeded to ask how that was messing up the article, so on so forth.

    By that point, when I was writing my two part response, I forgot the "enlighten" comment was about the codes. I think I reread your edit summary wrong and kept seeing "words" instead of "codes" in my brain. So, with the wrong context (thinking the whole thing was about the debate on what stays in the article,) when reading, I read it with the connotation as if I have something to enlighten you about, as if I know something you don't; that is the part I disagree with, I don't believe I know more than you do, just that I didn't agree with certain written parts in the article, which we can perhaps debate about. I didn't feel offended, but because I was subsequently writing on your talk page, I just didn't want you to feel like I was here to "enlighten" you, you know? And that's why I then seem to randomly bring up how I disagree with the "enlighten" word usage. While the paragraph did touch about code, I was referring to my argument about why I was going to remove the particular passage alongside fixing the codes; I was here to hopefully make an argument, not to "enlighten" you, if that makes any sense.

    Again, I'm terribly sorry and I reemphasize, the out-of-nowhere comment about the word usage is entirely my fault for being upset and consequently seeing the most innocent comments to be disagreeable when they really aren't. What you wrote was not offensive (at least not to me) in the slightest, it was because I retardedly read it wrong later that led me to respond inappropriately. Sorry for the confusion.
  3. I'm not sure whether or not I have watched many of the gameplays on youtube has anything to do with, well, anything, for I am aware of what Albus said, and I have screenshots of it. (In the future, please kindly not throw it in my face that I don't have interests in watching other people's gameplay when I'm fine with experiencing the gameplay on my own. I know the same things by not having watched those plays, so I don't see why they are relevant.)

    I am also entirely confused about what your "third" argument was even about. I have never once doubted that "Rakepick was considered an excellent student by many," or her ability. I don't understand the reason behind writing me three paragraphs of something I already know and have nothing against. The paragraph you quoted from me, was me questioning the proof of "Quickly" and "soon," asking where the evidence of those two particular statements are. If there is no evidence, then the long sentence you previously wrote could be cut down to the shortened version, and by altering it, it still doesn't change the fact the new version still acknowledges Rakepick's skills, just excluding the unfounded adverbs. I said unfounded, because I have yet heard from you why those two adverbs are sound.
  4. Not sure what you are responding to, as I previously did not have a #4.
  5. Good to know, then I also hope in the future, as you document accordingly, also cite accordingly <ref></ref> with {{HMy4}}, so that other editors won't have to add {{fact}} after every unsourced statements.
  6. That remains to be seen, still waiting for the reason behind "Quickly" and "soon."
  7. Hmmmm. IDK man, "a bunch of articles in the newspapers and a biography dedicated to her competence" is evidence that "she's good at her job," that, I agree to; "Dumbledore, as well as every other character in the game who know her by reputation and have an opinion on her ability" is evidence that "she was very good for her job," that, I also agree to. As those are the reason why she was "glaringly obvious" she was good at her job, it makes more sense for them to be written in the same sentence to back up the sentiment, which by the way, I think you handled superbly upon the revision.
  8. Noted, will keep in mind.
  9. It's all good. Thanks for explaining it to me. I think what bothered me more, was that the edit summary's word count is tight, and you used parts of it to correct me that "She wasn't 'apparently' good, she was good" combined with the auto-undo that wiped the code fixed; that combination was that led to my combustion of frustration lol. I was like, are you seriously going to correct me on what I wrote in an edit summary, instead of actually seeing the changes made within the article? That was my thought process.
  10. It took me a couple of reads to understand what was written, I now see how thoughtful you are with the possible scenarios, so thank you for sharing it with me. And with your reasoning, I now understand why the reemphasis was done separately. Like stated in #7, I think your revision is nicely done.
  11. I do not know if you are suggesting I have in fact "remove[d] things without giving a reason" so "as long as it doesn't happen again ~", or if you are just telling me that because you for some reason thought I wouldn't know, either way, thanks? If it is the first scenario though, let me know cuz, that, I would have to respond to.
--Sammm✦✧(talk) 21:12, June 30, 2018 (UTC)

Albus' Wand

Albus Trailer Wand 1.png

Here are 2 screenshots from the trailer that clearly show the same wand design as was featured on Pottermore, from the "bumps" that mimic those of the Elder Wand's and the golden cap to the handle. Garr9988 (talk) 04:02, July 4, 2018 (UTC)

Quick response

Hi there, Maester Martin! First of all, I haven't forgotten about the Rakepick discussion; I just.... really don't have the time for what I want to spend on replying D; Will come back to it when I do have time, I promise!

And I also don't think you are coming across as difficult, it's like I said, I think it's obvious I'm the one lacking for a clear delivery, because I have to reemphasize what I wrote, Seth has provided a picture, did you take a look? Here: HeadGoblinRef.png I intentionally inserted the image as this size, so that hopefully it wouldn't be missed. It is from the film. It was not some end credit.

And thanks, I will relocate the rest so that other users can chip in. --Sammm✦✧(talk) 00:00, July 5, 2018 (UTC)

No worries, I figured words are easily lost when there's a lot of them. I don't particularly care for Bogrod, and I agree there's a possibility that the film meant to retcon his position, but I don't have the energy to hypothesis (so thanks again for the consent! I believe someone out there would be interested in discussing it with you! =D). I do however suggest you to take a closer look on Seth's revision diff=1143194&oldid=1143166, he did not merely move your ref into BTS, he actually added some content. In case it is missed, here goes:

The novel implies, however, that even though Bogrod enjoys some seniority (being assisted by a younger goblin on command), he does not run the bank: another goblin reminds him that they are to follow higher instructions regarding Bellatrix Lestrange.

Those are not my word or my edit. --Sammm✦✧(talk) 00:47, July 5, 2018 (UTC)


Actually... We can ban them. In fact, that's what the mod team and I have been doing this whole day. Fortunately, the user has been range blocked, so hopefully they wont be annoying us anymore. Cheers, CosmicChronos Talk to me Contribs 13:30, July 7, 2018 (UTC)

Discussions Moderator, with banning perms yes.

CosmicChronos Talk to me Contribs 13:48, July 7, 2018 (UTC)

Edit discussion

Of course Hagrid's "coward" insult could have taken some sort of effect on the centaurs, but when is it said that that is the direct cause of their action? It is not stated in the book, and if Rowling has stated so elsewhere, I think the source should be cited. Otherwise, it is misleading to give fans non-canon information based on personal interpretation, however likely said interpretation may seem. Centaurs are proud creatures, yes - so why should their pride be hurt by the comments of humans or part-humans? It is possible that Hagrid's comment stung them, but it is also possible that they are too proud to care what he says.

As for the possible prophecy, I don't think it's fair to call this interpretation "ridiculous" - honestly, I'm surprised at this Wiki for it. We had been given an indication of its possibility, by Harry himself, as I stated in my Behind the Scenes point, while taking care to note that it is merely a possibility rather than pretending that it is canon. At the very least, I think Bane's comments in Philosopher's Stone are worth noting in relation to the centaurs' choices in Deathly Hallows.

The interpretation that the centaurs only fought because of Hagrid's insults leaves no explanation of why they did not act sooner. However, the theory that they delayed action due to what was written in the stars perfectly explains it, in my opinion.

Jordy267 (talk) 13:01, July 15, 2018 (UTC)

I did not remove an edit on the basis of "I think this could be the case", I removed it because it is not a canon statement. It is canon that the centaurs join the battle at that point, but correlation does not equal causation. Hagrid called them cowards, but he also told them Harry Potter was dead. To assume that one of these statements, but not the other, is the reason for their action, is flawed logic. For the sake of a slight changing in words, I think you are setting a little too much store by your personal interpretation. If it is canon due to comments Rowling has made since the Deathly Hallows was published, then I will of course concede. But my rewording of the page was an efficient way of making sure it is safely within canon while allowing readers to make the same inferences as your own.

Regardless of the centaurs predicting another wizarding war (which was predicted by Firenze in OOTP anyway), the possible prophecy I refer to is a prediction that Harry would be killed by Voldemort (and again, I think it is reasonable to discuss since Harry suggested it to Ron and Hermione). Any prophecy involving an action from Voldemort himself would cause the centaurs to resist targeting him beforehand in order to let that action come true. I never claimed any impact of a prophecy about the wizarding war.

Jordy267 (talk) 13:45, July 15, 2018 (UTC)

British spelling

The wikia only uses British spelling, not American spelling even if that spelling is from a country where the spelling is different than British spelling and/or it was spelled that way in the book, movie, and etc. It doesn't matter if America has a different way of spelling, it stays in British spelling. I don't like it, but that's the way it is on the wikia. IlvermornyWizard (talk) 02:43, August 11, 2018 (UTC) IlvermornyWizard

I am aware the wiki uses British spelling as a general rule, but this is not a matter of "what the wikia does" or me neglecting wiki policy. It's a question of canonical and grammatical accuracy: I didn't change it from defence to defense because it is the Ilvermorny page and Ilvermorny is American, but rather because those two speciic uses of the word on that page is listing the subject of Defence Against the Dark Arts in such a way as to denote DADA as exists at Ilvermorny. And at Ilvermorny, they'd use American spelling on defense. Hence, my change of those uses of the name of that subject. Had the text been descriptive of the subject in a general sense, were we just talking of the subject, period, of course, British spelling. But for those two specific uses, denoting DADA? Anything other than American would be inaccurate. Maester Martin (talk) 11:46, August 11, 2018 (UTC) 

RE:Year 5 DADA professor, identified

Let me guess, is it Rakepick? I'd say we wait until the information is officially released before we put it in the article proper; in the meantime, it can be put in the BTS section if it can be properly sourced. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 00:27, August 19, 2018 (UTC)

RE:Inquiry of the day:

Just use one of the several gif-makers accessible online, I guess. I normally use Giphy (not that I make gifs that frequently). But, anyway, here, I made you the gif you're looking for. Cheers --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 01:09, August 22, 2018 (UTC)

Forest Vault Guardian

I saw you are working on the HM articles as well. Great work. What do you think? Should we create an article on the Forest Vault guardian?--Rodolphus (talk) 12:22, August 25, 2018 (UTC)


If I can help. What do you have in mind? --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 23:34, August 25, 2018 (UTC)

I was thinking a gif showing Rakepick fire the Blasting curse, and how Jacob's sibling deflects it when he/she learns the Shield Charm? Maester Martin (talk) 23:36, August 25, 2018 (UTC)

Remembered that that would include the exclusively in-game tracing of the symbol. Could you perhaps instead make two? Once just showing Rakepick casting the Blasting Curse, and one showing Jacob's sibling deflect it? Maester Martin (talk) 23:44, August 25, 2018 (UTC)

I cropped the out-of-universe spell casting. Check it here. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 00:07, August 26, 2018 (UTC)


I'm not sure if I've understood what you mean. Wouldn't creating a category and setting up a category be the same?

Personally, I always do it by first adding the category I wish to create to an article. Then I click on the category and add a description and subcategories. Then I click publish and the category is there.--Rodolphus (talk) 11:58, August 26, 2018 (UTC)

When you are on a category page, there should be an edit button. Click on it and the editing screen should open, It looks exactly like as if you were editing an article. There, you can write a description and add subcategories.--Rodolphus (talk) 12:26, August 26, 2018 (UTC)

RE:Jacob's sibling gender

The answer would be no, the way I look at it, anyway. If the character has no set gender, we oughtn't to be the ones choosing one way or the other. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 20:42, August 27, 2018 (UTC)

Re: On second thought...

Not sure what kind of arrangement you are proposing; I've read what you wrote in one of your editing summary, namely "Please don't remove biographical info I record from the game in chronological order without proper justification"; I've not changed anything you wrote and only fix the technical aspect that are coded wrong, while added the fact template to indicate what's in fact missing (the correct usage of the template, mind you,) and you still have the auto-undo reflex. By removing the rightly placed indicators, the action is actually counterproductive because it hinders other editors to help place the reference. It should only be removed when the ref is provided. You can provide it later, cool, then remove it later, when you do provide it.

For the image size; I've taken into account your wishes for your personal esthetic (I said this, because I can also argue that after the fix, it also looks good, so it's neither here or there,) but the fix is that, for any visual editor users, for example "[...]|thumb|220x220px|[...]", the "220x" part is redundant, because only the "220px" part is what's actually determining the size; on the long run, this is accumulating a bunch of numerals that are junk to the page. My new edit may look like pure-reverting but it isn't, I've changed the 250 (the minor tweaks) to your desired 220.

Other than that, like I said, I don't know what arrangement is needed. The wiki is open for editing for any unblocked registered user, idk what you have against {{fact}}, but if it's correctly placed, it's nothing personal and should only be removed until refs are shown. --Sammm✦✧(talk) 15:51, August 28, 2018 (UTC)

Sammm鯊 and the Rakepick article

Hello! Sammm鯊 left me a message about the revert tug-of-war on Patricia Rakepick. She was quite right in adding {{fact}} — the article is sorely lacking references, and the want only increases as the article expands. You have to remember that no matter how much effort you have put into it, you do not own the article, and anyone is welcome to change it or indeed suggest improvements — and of course such suggestions are not directed at anyone exactly; the onus on making such improvements is on anyone who can do it. Disagreements should be calmly resolved, preferably starting with a discussion on the article talk page (or the other user's talk page), and not blanket reversions.

That being said, I am very sorry for your loss. If there's any way I can help, let me know. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 18:17, August 28, 2018 (UTC)

That excerpt does strike me as overly-literary prose, yes. Encyclopedic tone evokes academic writing, clear, understandable, and to-the-point: the very same content can be conveyed by saying simply "She cast Confringo, which her protégée successfully warded off with a fully-fledged Shield Charm." (NB: "protégée" is a French word, and in most Romance languages adjectives/nouns are not gender-neutral like in English. "Protégée" is the feminine declension, the male form would be "protégé" -- as the character's gender is not given, we should either avoid the word or replace it with "protégé(e)", which looks weird to me, IMO.) --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 19:26, August 28, 2018 (UTC)
In French, the general rule is that female adjectives end with an extra "e". So you have "protégé" (male) but "protégée" (female); "blond" (male) but "blonde" (female); "joli" (male) but "jolie" (female); "né" (male) but "née" (female). --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 20:38, August 28, 2018 (UTC)


Hi, I just wanted to apologize for my behaviour. Something went wrong while dragging a picture. I just wanted to tell you that this was my first time, it was really an honest mistake. I really didn't mean to offend you. You are doing a really great job out there. Again, I'm really sorry if you got offended, I didn't meant it. :)

Faizan Awan (talk) 12:59, August 30, 2018 (UTC)

Okay Brother, Apology Accepted :) Faizan Awan (talk) 15:11, August 30, 2018 (UTC)

RE:On the subject of "free will"...

Hello. I think the best option would be to detail the character's potential involvement while still listing other possible options, so that people are directed to the proper articles to see what happened differently. Bill's article would have something among the lines of "Jacob's sibling asked Bill (or, alternatively, Ben Copper or Patricia Rakepick) for advice. Bill told them that... etc.", and Ben and Rakepick's articles likewise, mutatis mutandis. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 20:43, September 2, 2018 (UTC)

Listing the other possible characters who were asked to do/say/whatever something makes it clear that there is no "correct" option; while, say, Rakepick's article says Rakepick was asked to do something, leaving a note like "(or, alternatively, such-and-such was asked to do it)" leaves all possibilities open and refers the reader to the appropriate articles to read what happens if they choose another character to do something. Which is an improvement on having three separate articles, each claiming a different character did the same thing, with no explanation given. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 22:59, September 2, 2018 (UTC)

Your recent uploads

I think I should direct your attention to the image policy. When uploading pictures to the wiki, one must assure said pictures are formatted and categorised properly, to keep the file namespace neat and, more importantly, "searchable".

Next time, when uploading a picture, make sure you fill in the picture information template properly -- make sure to come to me if you have any queries! --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 21:07, September 2, 2018 (UTC)

Read the full instructions on the Special:Upload page. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 22:59, September 2, 2018 (UTC)

Formatting issues

Hi there Maester Martin! I have not thoroughly gone over your replies on Seth's page (I think I quickly glimpsed through it once) due to working my rear off of the final assignments I had for my summer semester. Though that particular crisis now ended, I'm not sure when I'd be able to properly reply to you, and I just want you to know I'm not ignoring you on purpose.

That being said, I'm not sure if this was intentional so I'll just assume that it's not, but I've noticed during a couple of your edits, you've reverted some of "what was fixed" back to "something that would have to be fixed." I'd like to point you to the following pages and the specific content so that hopefully, the efforts would not be reverted again.

  • Help:Editing#Internal links

    When you want to use the plural of an article title (or add any other suffix) for your link, you can add the extra letters directly outside the double square brackets.

    For example, you would write:
    Harry lives with the [[Dursley]]s.

    • This one is actually from HPW's custom help page, so there's no excuse for not following it and insisting on having extra letters to achieve the exact same effect.
  • wikipedia:Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Punctuation and footnotes & wikipedia:Help:Footnotes#Footnotes: the basics

    The ref tags should immediately follow the text to which the footnote applies, with no intervening space [...] Any punctuation [...] must precede the ref tags.


    Ref tags should follow any punctuation (usually a period), not precede it; [...] There should be no space between the punctuation and the tag

    • I think this is something almost like second nature that on Wikia it wasn't emphasized on, however, through observation, this rule is in fact largely followed, and if you have any doubts, I suppose I can go ask an admin just to be 100% certain, but I'd honestly be super shocked if they deemed the rule as false, after all, that'd mean this whole wiki would need to be fixed, which is, well, unlikely.

What is the point of this post? I'm not even asking you to following them on your rounds of edits, implementing certain rules takes time to get used to, so it's no biggie for publishing incorrectly formatted content; I am however asking you to kindly not undo the fixed content, which was what was happening, for plurals and placements of ref tags.

I am writing all this very calmly (though I'm kind of sad that I need to state this fact,) and I hope it wouldn't be taken as some personal attack, because it is not.

I'm sorry to hear about your father's passing, and I hope by editing it'd help you get through this hard time.

If this info is hard to swallow coming from a fellow editor, let me know and I'll ask for Seth's input. Happy editing! --Sammm✦✧(talk) 23:50, September 3, 2018 (UTC)

Hi there! Yup you've nailed the proper placement of ref tags! As for the bold, wands <--- this is done like this '''[[wand]]s''' so it will not have the problem you described, at least, if I'm interpreting the problem correctly. Hope that helps! --Sammm✦✧(talk) 02:34, September 4, 2018 (UTC)
Yes, Potions <--- is done like this '''[[Potion]]s''', is this what you want? The bold needs to be the most outskirt of the target, not anywhere in between, the closing part just needs to be placed after the "s" for it to work.--Sammm✦✧(talk) 02:55, September 4, 2018 (UTC)
Then I can honestly say I don't understand what the problem is, because what I have demonstrated, does go to the page you wanted and without the problem you fear of seeing; and I can say if done correctly, it would have never happened in the first place. Thank you for once again explaining why you attempted to fix them in the past, maybe, some were in fact formatted incorrectly to result in the s not being bold. To be honest, I actually don't think I have seen you revert the situation you've described (too many times for it to get on my radar, at least,) the plural issue you undo that got me writing to you is mostly on the ones that aren't bold, within the regular content, like Aurors or Centaurs, so yeah, hopefully links like those won't be reverted again, because, well, if not me, I know User:Ironyak1-bot when doing sweeps would also correct those anyways, but it'd all be moot if they keeps getting reverted. Cheers. --Sammm✦✧(talk) 16:58, September 4, 2018 (UTC)

Re:"I can be condescending too"...

Hi there, Maester Martin! You are correct, it should not have been a goal, however, I feel that, the simple "Repeat [...]" without actually providing any valid reason, when it was first used, was already condescending. I could have just follow it and state the "repeat: [...]", and that'd just be two people not even trying to understand the other part. Hence I'm saying the phrasing is being intentionally condescending without people later pointing it out to me. However, unlike the other person, I provided the reason why.

Also, you Ismelda Murk example is actually completely not helping the case, because, unlike Diego Caplan's page, IT HAS CITATION! That is the whole point! The characters who didn't appear in the ceremony, must have at one point, been proven to be in the same year as Jacob's sibling, therefore meaning they were present at the ceremony, despite not being shown. For Ismelda, it was proven in HMy3|ch|2|2p that she's in Jacob's sibling's year, so that's the citation. For Diego Caplan? I don't know, cuz it was not provided by anyone, and that user use "it's not needed" as a reason, which is not reason. --Sammm✦✧(talk) 19:31, September 8, 2018 (UTC)

Please look closer as to what I actually wrote; you are putting words in my mouth, I have never once said "Diego Caplan cannot be a fifth year"; in fact, I have eyes, it looks like he is in the same year as Jacob's sibling, all I'm asking, is for the reference to be provided! AND, since he was not shown in the ceremony, that sentence would have to have something else to back it up. Just to be clear, even if he were in the ceremony, the statement should still have a citation anyway, and in that case, it'd be the chapter when the ceremony happened. Some people might think the statement is self-explanatory, I was just pointing out, that couldn't even be used as a reason because he definitely was not in the ceremony. As usual, I was not questioning the truthfulness of the statement, I'm asking where it came from, as per the wiki's rule. Just because I asked for a needed citation, does not equate to me calling the statement false, and I hope this is the last time you misinterpret the action. I say misinterpret, because I've never said the character in question cannot be a fifth year. And I certainly never thought like that. --Sammm✦✧(talk) 19:59, September 8, 2018 (UTC)
Maester Martin, you wrote on my talk page:

your argument that Diego Caplan cannot be a fifth year because you were in the same house and didn't see him at the sorting is still invalidated by the existence of Ismelda Murk.

I have never argued that he cannot be a fifth year, I was pointing that out to make sure you get it. I understand how you came to the conclusion, you've now explained it twice, and if it wasn't clear, I'm sorry the phrasing made people think that's what I was implying. Please don't feel the need to further analyze my choice of phrasing; it's done, some people understood, some people read more into what was said. I don't see the point of arguing over it, if you do, just please don't do it on my talk page.
Your opinion on whether what I said was false or incorrect, is frankly irrelevant; while I thank you for sharing your opinion with me, I don't understand the need of doing so. If you think that:
  1. "I think [he] cannot be a fifth year" (which was what you basically said, since you think that was my argument, which it wasn't)
  2. that would mean "I think the statement of him attending to Hogwarts at 1984 is false"
  3. because, "if attending to Hogwarts at 1984 is true"
  4. then "he would be a fifth year" (when Jacob's sibling is a fifth year)
  5. which, according to you, is the opposite of what I think.
  6. Hence, I'm telling you I've never think the statement to be false.
If you didn't think I had thought it to be false, GREAT! Then you should also wonder why you accused me to think he cannot be a fifth year, because like I said, I've never thought so, much less said so. You did not outright say you think "I think it to be false," but you are capable of thinking "I was arguing he couldn't be a fifth year," think on that.
And yes, Rodolphus provided the citation needed. As far as I'm concerned, the case is closed, and discussing how my words is misleading to some (while at least one other user understood and made an effort to solve the issue,) is, just unproductive to me. I heard what you said the first time, and I'm sorry that to you it has all sorts of implication that, I REALLY WAS NOT IMPLYING. I do not know what else to say, short of, please drop it. --Sammm✦✧(talk) 21:22, September 8, 2018 (UTC)

re:Could you lend me a hand? ^^'

Hi, um, I hope perhaps using the "compare select revisions" on the edit history to view how it was done to what was asked of you, would help? I think that's how I learned it on a different wiki... For example, Seth helped you fill out the thing for file:RakepickinClass.png, the edit can be seen at:

IDK how familiar you are with this function, but basically the Latest revision made by Seth, all the stuff after the + signs (everything,) was him adding the info needed for that image. As far as I'm aware (though I wished this could have been improved;) this is always another step after the image is uploaded, regardless of how it was uploaded (within the article or uploaded on its own;) you'd have to manually place the template you filled out onto the image page afterwards. (Not sure if bots would have a quicker way to do it)

Not sure if this helps D; If it doesn't, I probably didn't understand the situation correctly. Sorry. --Sammm✦✧(talk) 07:04, September 11, 2018 (UTC)

I did, my reply was formed after I read what you wrote to Seth. Viewing differences between revisions is the quickest way to see just exactly what was added or removed, that's how it's always obvious when auto-undo was done. Good luck! --Sammm✦✧(talk) 07:26, September 11, 2018 (UTC)
Hi there, Maester Martin! Before we start, I apologize in advance for all the very possible delay on my future replies: The device I'm most familiar with when browsing and editing, a MacBook Pro, just died between last night and this morning; I'm lucky that there's a PC I could use and that my first 18 years of life I was actually a Windows user (and whelp my age is revealing,) unfortunately, the next decade I've been more used to Macs, so, like I said, my responding time from now on would be way slower... hopefully my laptop could be fixed, sighs.
Back to the core issue, there's a couple of question I need to understand before we can figure things out:
  1. Why were you viewing Rakepick's article in source mode?
    • Don't get me wrong, I encourage anyone to use source mode in general, however, why Rakepick's page? Why there? Am I reading this wrong and you are viewing another page's source mode? If not, well, no, you aren't going to find anything because it's the wrong place to look to begin with.
  2. Did you look at the link I very specifically give you to look over?
    • If yes, what exactly is it that you think you can't find or wasn't there?
    • If no, then I can only ask, why not? And please do so, because that's the only way to start attempt understanding.
To clarify things, you shouldn't be looking at any ARTICLE's source mode, but an IMAGE PAGE's source mode, but since from all of your previous responses, you aren't usually a source mode user, going straight in and expect you understand everything you are seeing, is well, very optimistic, hence, I've picked a CASE STUDY for you to look at. Please observe what's on the given link:
  • The left hand side (Revision as of 03:06, September 1, 2018 (edit) [break line] Maester Martin (Talk | contribs)) (the time and date you see is probably different from what I pasted, because our Wikia settings are likely different due to our time zones) IS BLANK from Line 1, because you've never edited it after you uploaded the image.
  • The right hand side (Latest revision as of 13:54, September 2, 2018 (edit)(undo) [break line] Seth Cooper (Talk | contribs)) (the time and date probably different, reason same as above) IS WHAT HE DEMONSTRATED that you should be doing from now on. This edit, is him placing THE template that he helped filled out accordingly.
If after the breakdown I described above and you still aren't sure what's going on, please try to describe what you are seeing when you click on the link I ask you to view. I can not help you otherwise. --Sammm✦✧(talk) 19:21, September 11, 2018 (UTC)
I feel like my brain is about to be fried, probably like how my harddrive is, as I attempt to back up my files while using single user mode and having to use unix commands that I know nothing about; suffice to say it's time for me to take a break from that attempt. Orz
Your response #3 looks like it has potential, but still a bit off; no, the template you need to add is for image pages only, and should and would never pop up anywhere in an actual article, editing or not. #1&#2 got me thoroughly confused.
Just to be sure; <--- THIS IS THE LINK you should be viewing. Because from the reply I could not tell if it is, the stuff I explained, the right and left parts that show yours and Seth's revisions, IS IMMEDIATELY what you'd be seeing below the "edit" button. What you described "image appearing in "Patricia Rakepick", literally has nothing to do with what we are discussing; everything you need to observe is on that page itself, no clicking to go to other places. Also, ALL IMAGE PAGES would have that section (pages they appeared on) should they actually appear on any pages, some images would have A LOT of appearances, it just does what it says to do, letting the viewer know what pages the image appeared on. Nothing more.
Again, because I'm not sure how familiar you are with the setup of Wikia, I'll try to cover it from the most basic I can think of. This is just to verify we are on the same page. The reason why I think #3 is still a little bit off, is because I think you are starting to get it, but not completely. It has something to do with "Namespace;" there are several types of namespace on Wikia (and Wikipedia etc.) All articles, are located on "(Main)", the main namespace, in which you do not have to type anything else in front of the title to designate the title to be created in that namespace. There's a couple of namespaces I'm sure you recognize, such as:
  • "Talk:"
  • "User:"
  • "Category:"
  • "Template:"
Those are different namespaces for different purposes, but are very much editable just like the main namespace. For images, they are, well, files, so the namespace is "File:"; each image has its own page under the File namespace, which is where the template Seth mentioned should be placed on.
I hope you won't think me explaining the above is insulting; it's because, frankly, the act on checking a main namespace article when we are talking about placing a template on a file namespace (from the beginning), is quite problematic, I need to know for sure if you know the differences between namespaces or probably nothing would make sense.
When a file is uploaded, if you didn't select a copyright status prior to uploading, on the file's page (the file namespace) in the "About" tab, it'd automatically display the following text: "There is no description yet. Add a description." With "Add a description" being a clickable link that does the same thing that directs you into editing it via source mode. Then you place the template you filled out and press Publish.
I'm not sure if I can explain it more. =/ Let me know if you are still not seeing the revision comparison, cuz that's well, quite odd, and I'd ask a Staff about what could be the cause of it. --Sammm✦✧(talk) 01:23, September 12, 2018 (UTC)
Hi! I've been rather busy this past week, hence why I didn't reply earlier. I see Sammm鯊 was kind enough to give you a hand, still in need of help? --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 18:58, September 12, 2018 (UTC)


Ninclow, we need to talk. You are well aware of the reasons that led to your account being permanently blocked in the past; chief among them was an endless conjecturing of scenarios and arguing over them that resulted in nothing but counter-productive and frankly disruptive back-and-forths.

It's been painfully obvious for months now, to anyone who's been paying attention, that this account was just you trying to circumvent your ban (which, I might add, is grounds alone to ban this account indefinitely if we so chose). But still we (or I, at least) decided to give you the benefit of the doubt, and let you carry on — and yet, just a couple of months later, you seem to have fallen back into your old habits.

Consider this your last warning. If you persist in this argumentative behaviour and disinclination to let matters rest when consensus, evidence, and policy are not on your side, you will be banned from editing at our earliest discretion. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 20:57, October 1, 2018 (UTC)

Please don't. Just save it for when you have tangible, concrete proof of something, and not just a hunch. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 21:01, October 1, 2018 (UTC)
To have concrete proof of something is to be able to directly reference a canon source to support a claim. Not to suppose something must be true because you feel it's right, or to speculate at length about something and consider it demonstrated by proof positive. (Though I'm not sure why you are bringing it up, the image in Gellert Grindelwald's army seems to have been taken from a scene in the trailer in which Grindelwald is making what very much sounds like a call to arms; it seems appropriate to illustrate the article). --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 21:19, October 1, 2018 (UTC

I have provided a direct reference to canon sources, and I haven't speculated. I haven't "supposed something becasue I feel it to be right" in more than ten years. What you seem unable to realise, Seth, is that the sentence "Professor Slughorn are pure-blood" is not the only way for Rowling to establish the fact. But alas - I find it unlikely that we will agree in either case, so why even bother, eh? Maester Martin (talk) 21:33, October 1, 2018 (UTC)

That does not make any sense. If it hasn't been established by Rowling... then it's not an established canonical fact! The fact that that piece of information is not referenceable anywhere in canon makes it unconfirmed. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 21:40, October 1, 2018 (UTC)
I am positively intrigued, because saying something outright is how something gets established. How can Rowling possibly establish something in canon without establishing it? It's like saying something hasn't been confirmed, but not really. Mind-boggling reasoning to say the least. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 21:52, October 1, 2018 (UTC)
... Yes. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 22:03, October 1, 2018 (UTC)
To be fair, "under the stewardship" is incredibly vague wording. In some colleges, the steward is an officer who provides food for the students and superintends the kitchens; in a less strict sense, a steward is a person who manages the property or affairs for another entity (like a caretaker or a gamekeeper). At best it would've been very much awkwardly worded, at worst it wouldn't have meant the hypothetical professor was not running the school at all. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 22:21, October 1, 2018 (UTC)

Then why wasn't it awkwardly worded when Rowling wrote it? Maester Martin (talk) 22:38, October 1, 2018 (UTC)

I see you're referring to Rowling's Pottermore entry on Durmstrang. I stand corrected, stewardship of something can also mean the way in which that person controls or organizes it (I also must embarrassedly confess I read what you wrote wrong: I originally thought you said Grindelwald was "under the stewardship" of someone, not the school). Either way, the meaning of the Pottermore entry is plain: the following paragraph about Harfang Munter and Igor Karkaroff clarifies it beyond reasonable doubt. Something that does not happen with the Slughorn bio, I must add. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 22:53, October 1, 2018 (UTC)

RE:Full revert and other thing

Your edits on Department of Magical Education were reverted because they were comprised mostly of speculation.

I don't think that conclusively proves Harry Potter: Hogwarts Mystery and Fantastic Beasts: Cases from the Wizarding World are set around the same time, however; Cases from the Wizarding World doesn't specify how long WHIFF has been around by that point. Just wondering, is WHIFF ever mentioned by name in Harry Potter: Hogwarts Mystery? --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 23:20, October 12, 2018 (UTC)

Considering all we know about the Department of Magical Education is that they issued a document to evaluate teachers, saying, as a fact, that they were charged with the "promotion of student achievement" and "the preparation and overseight of standardized, subject-specific tests", and that they worked with "the twelve board members to ensure that educational policies are met" seems pretty much like speculation with no basis in hard canonical fact.
(Note I never said it was not meant to be WHIFF.) --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 00:15, October 13, 2018 (UTC)
It's not at all definitive. Fantastic Beasts: Cases from the Wizarding World doesn't say how long WHIFF has been around for. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 23:23, October 13, 2018 (UTC)
Not necessarily. For all it's worth, WHIFF might've gradually declined in membership and influence through the years until it was reduced to obscurity. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 17:22, October 14, 2018 (UTC)
Enough with the "if it was, it would've been established" reasoning, it's faulty logic. As I've said, for the n-th time. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 19:45, October 14, 2018 (UTC)
Proof of absence is not absence of proof. By which I mean, of course, that asserting that a proposition is true because it has not been proven false is not sound reasoning. As already discussed several times before. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 23:04, October 14, 2018 (UTC)
We are a repository of facts about the Harry Potter series. Facts. We are to record the information we are given, not the information we are given plus what we think makes sense. If anything isn't given outright in a canon source it is not a canonical fact. I've grown tired of explaining this to you. The two pieces of information don't necessarily have the implications you surmised: that is my point. That has been my point repeatedly in almost every interaction between us in the past, almost frustratingly so, to be perfectly honest. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 23:40, October 14, 2018 (UTC)
One thing I think you're not fully understanding (and perhaps the fault is on me for not being able to explain it any plainer) is that, in the face of no information either way, I have no position. I'm not saying Harry Potter: Hogwarts Mystery and Fantastic Beasts: Cases from the Wizarding World are set around the same time, but I'm also not saying they aren't. That's the "default" state of affairs: we have no info, we don't know. If JKR (or any canon source for that matter) did present any information, what they say goes, naturally, as itr always has been. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 23:52, October 14, 2018 (UTC)
The implications you derive from the scant evidence are far from crystal clear.
The method you attribute to me is called the methodic or Cartesian doubt: could there be more than a single possible scenario that fits the scant shreds of information? If so, then there is no reason to choose one over the other, and we should withhold from considering any of them true or false. If not, very well, we appear to have deduced something. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 00:31, October 15, 2018 (UTC)
I find it amusing that any scenario I devise is dismissed as a "fan theory" while your scenario is to be considered highly plausible, while, strictly speaking, both have identical canonical support (which is to say, little to none). But I digress. And yes, the fact that more than one possible scenario fits the "gaps" on the information means exactly that: that there is more than one possible explanation. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 01:34, October 15, 2018 (UTC)
Adding two and two and hoping to reach what might very well be five is bad logic regardless of one is talking about fiction or non-fiction. As I've already explained. Repeatedly. You are being accused of using faulty logic, well, because you are.
"The direction that canonical evidence acually point towards" is...? I happen to disagree all available information actually points towards anything in particular -- that's my point.
I'm not exactly sure of what you're trying to accomplish with that comparison. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 23:08, October 15, 2018 (UTC)
The aura discussion is actually a very good example. Indeed, what you said was far from demonstrated to be true (i.e. Dumbledore was a master aurologist) and it has been expurged from the article, and it remains so.
Logical analysis is applied to an argument. An argument is either valid or invalid, in that its reasoning is well or poorly constructed. The fact that we are arguing about fiction is irrelevant: bad reasoning is bad regardless of what it is about. I'm not "ascribing variables" to anything, I'm analysing your arguments. It is poor reasoning to assume something to be true just because that something hasn't been disproven, regardless of what one is talking about.
I'm saying this for the last time, as it's become rather tedious by now to repeat this over and over again: our purpose here is to record cold, hard, canonical fact. Anything that isn't established in canon in some way or another, is not to be added to the Wiki. If it's not on the paper, if it's not referenceable it's not established. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 21:18, October 16, 2018 (UTC)
The very important difference is I am not arguing for putting my "for all we know" scenarios in articles. They are thought experiments, only useful for the sake of argument, as counterexamples to show that your conjectural musings are far from demonstrated.
"There isn't anything we "don't know", because everything there is to know is "on page"" -- that's the crux of your flawed reasoning. There is very much indeed we don't know, namely, everything that hasn't been mentioned in canon. Something that hasn't been mentioned is neither true nor false -- it's unknown. We are very much not "omniscient" when it comes to the Harry Potter universe: we are basically spoon-fed the little information we get. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 00:22, October 18, 2018 (UTC)
PS: Oh, and I'm not in any way committing the fallacist's fallacy. I never said any of your conclusions was false per se (for all we know, it could be, though it hasn't been confirmed) -- only that you failed to properly demonstrate that they were true.
(Also, the argument from ignorance is a particular type of false dilemma; and the modal fallacy is way off -- that's about mistaking contingent and logically necessary truths, which I can't begin to think why would apply in this situation). --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 00:32, October 18, 2018 (UTC)
There is a lot we don't know about the Harry Potter universe, regardless or not it's been published/said by Rowling/etc. This is demonstrably true and it's why we keep getting new information from Rowling. Consider the following example: just because we don't know who's the Head of the Department for the Regulation and Control of Magical Creatures (someone who has never been mentioned in canon), should we conclude that no one heads that department? That would be faulty reasoning — we simply don't know who did, and say nothing about it on the respective article. Even if that never once crossed Rowling's mind.
Again, the fallacist's fallacy is to say that because the reasoning is wrong (fallacious) the conclusion must be false. I never said that: I said that because your reasoning was wrong, the conclusion is not adequately proven (might be true, might be false, we don't know).
The modal fallacy is not mistaking possibility for necessity, it's mistaking a contingent truth (i.e. "Seth Cooper is an administrator of the Harry Potter Wiki" -- though it's truth, it needn't necessarily be truth; one can conceive a world in which I am not) and a necessary truth (i.e., "All squares have four sides" -- which has to be true by definition). --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 14:44, October 18, 2018 (UTC)
Personally, I think it's wrong to think there's such thing as "winning" or "losing" an argument, but if you'd like to put it in those terms, that's up to you. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 16:23, October 18, 2018 (UTC)

RE Hello

Sorry you feel that way, but there is no grudge, nor any tolerance for yet more speculation and arguments over its plausibility. If you don't have a reference, then expect the edits to be removed. If you try and force your edits, then a block and/or ban will result. You've already been warned by Seth that your participation here is extremely tenuous given your history and violation of policies, so please find a productive way to contribute. Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 22:01, October 17, 2018 (UTC)

Adding speculation to Abernathy and undoing its removal, multiple undos on Hestia Jones, arguing incessantly over Horace's blood-status, adding pure speculation on Flamel's wand - all this points to you continuing your usual mode of unproductive editing. Again, if you do not have a direct reference for the information you are adding, then it is speculation regardless of how plausible you believe it to be.
Seth has been willing to have this discussion for the nth-time - I am not. If you feel this unfair, feel free to raise it will any of the bureaucrats. Given all the new information coming from Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald, I remain hopeful that you will focus your efforts into more productive contributions, but am not willing to engage any more in discussing yet again the relative likelihood of any of your edits unless you have a reference that says exactly what is in your edit. --Ironyak1 (talk) 00:34, October 18, 2018 (UTC)

RE:Hello again...

If I can help. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 15:33, October 21, 2018 (UTC)

The word is "specious", not "spacious".
If it's not directly referenceable, it's conjectural. Though this discussion ought to be kept in Talk:Cecil Lee, not my user talk page. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 21:28, October 22, 2018 (UTC)

re: Mr. Lee's unifrom

Hi there, Maester Martin! I'm like super honored that you feel like I was perhaps up to the task, or that my English is better than yours (which, I don't think it is? lol You are very eloquent imo) I think the proposal is great, but unfortunately it is not my area of expertise. Trust me, I feel most HM character articles are lacking physical appearance descriptions, but when I tried to tackle it myself, I just feel utterly silly if describing exactly what I see (hair colour etc.) and what's more bizarre is that I don't feel that way when it's written by someone else. (no idea why.) So I just focus on working on something else. I think, you can create a section on Werewolf Capture Unit as "Uniform", and just place {{expand}} underneath as the indicator to be worked on, that ways, anyone who can describe, can jump in and help out. Happy editing! --Sammm✦✧(talk) 19:15, October 22, 2018 (UTC)


Once again you wish to force your edits even when multiple people have pointed out they are speculation. As such you are blocked for a week - if you continue to edit in this manner, any future blocks will quickly escalate to (another) ban. --Ironyak1 (talk) 21:25, October 23, 2018 (UTC)

First off, you have asserted it was speculation, and it'is a claim that is have failed to meet its burden of proof. 
Secondly, you are aware, I hope, that the number of people who sincerely believe something to be the case is irrelevant in regard to whether it is actually true or not, which is why schools today don't have Bible study as part of history class at school desptie the considerably higher number of Christians when compared to atheists in the world.
Thirdly, my block was for a completely invalid reason: Your argument for the allegedly complete incompetence of Cecil Lee, which is not backed up by canon, is not rooted in a lack of professional expertise or magical ability displayed in the game, but the fact that he is behaving in a bumbling manner, which are two entirely separate issues. Furthermore, when I the last time added "Magizoology" to the article, you inaccurately claim that I tried to "force" my edit, when what I was actually doing was adding something that was factually accurate by raising a new issue with your own assessment of his skillset that you had neglected to consider, separate from the two prior times I added it:
Fourthly, even if I were to concur that Cecil Lee is utterly incompetent, you are, quite intellectually dishonestly, I may add, balantly ignoring the distinction between theory and practice. There is a distict and considerable difference between Cecil Lee "not knowing what he is doing" and not knowing what he is doing. Incompetence and ignorance aren't mutually exclusive, they aren't a package deal. Cecil Lee can in fact be, satisfy the recquirements for a theoretical know-how about this things without excelling in their practical application, and in this case, DADA and Magizoology isn't something he concievably can be knowledgable about, which would've have made it speculation, it is subjects he necessarily has to be/have been at some point knowledgable about, to qualify for his canonixal employment in the Department for the Regulation and Control of Magical Creatures and position in the Werewolf Capture Unit.
What you are doing here is, in a nutshell, is asserting with no justification that it is speculation for me to say that someone we know for a fact to be a car mechanic knows how a car works, let alone knows how to fix a car, just because he displays poor people skills.
I know you're an admin, and that's all well and good, but currently, there are imprecise and/or inaccurate content in an article on this wiki without a good reason for it, and I'm sorry, but I have spent too much time and put too much work into it not to find that problematic. Maester Martin (talk) 22:13, October 23, 2018 (UTC)
Instead of arguing without end about how you are still right, you may want to consider listening: if you continue to add information without a canonical reference you will be blocked or banned. --Ironyak1 (talk) 20:38, October 30, 2018 (UTC)


Is it okay if I ask why this week long block has presisted past its expiration date? Maester Martin (talk) 19:47, October 30, 2018 (UTC)

It is not 21:23:33 GMT yet, which is the time it expires. --Ironyak1 (talk) 20:38, October 30, 2018 (UTC)

  Oh - my bad, I didn't factor in the difference due to time zones. My bad. Maester Martin (talk) 20:48, October 30, 2018 (UTC)

Checking the timing... Maester Martin (talk) 21:28, October 30, 2018 (UTC)

RE For future references

You've been told dozens of times that many of your edits are speculation without a reference to support them. As such, you know that references are expected. I will not be issuing any reminders. --Ironyak1 (talk) 23:29, October 30, 2018 (UTC)

As has been told to you many times, it is up to the person adding the information to provide support, not anyone else. Given your established history of adding speculation, all your edits are expected to be clearly supported by a canon reference provided by you. Consider it the very narrow course that your participation will continued to be allowed. It should be very clear to you that you are on the edge of a ban for repeated and continuous violations of this wiki's policies. --Ironyak1 (talk) 23:54, October 30, 2018 (UTC)

RE:My block

You are at liberty to do so. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 23:39, October 30, 2018 (UTC)

Reading the section above ("RE For future references"), it seems that Ironyak1 clarified exactly why you are being put under such strict scrutiny. I have to say I quite agree. I can assure you fewer people than Ironyak1 and myself want to see you contributing effectively and constructively to the wiki. If we're giving you all these opportunities is because we think you have the potential to be a good editor, so don't screw up — my best advice to you is, prove you can! --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 01:39, November 2, 2018 (UTC)
I don't think I ever was ambiguous. Contribute the best way you can, and, if anyone disagrees with stuff you're doing, listen to them instead of being tiresome and over-argumentative. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 03:05, November 2, 2018 (UTC)
You are always at liberty to voice your opinion. The wiki is best improved through collaboration and consensus: try to understand the other users' concerns. If the preferred edit is not your own, don't take it personally and let it go. I've always strived to explain why any reverted edit of yours was incorrect. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 03:46, November 2, 2018 (UTC)

RE:Fantastic Beast 3 location?

Yes, when you contacted me, that particular hint of Rowling's had already been put in the J. K. Rowling's Twitter account article. I'd suspected Brazil or another Portuguese-speaking country would make an appearance in the Fantastic Beasts francise since quite a while back, when Rowling twitted two years ago that there would be "5. Five. Cinq. Fünf. Cinco. Cinque." movies in all. Knowing Rowling, those languages wouldn't be arbitrary: we've got the USA ("Five"), France ("Cinq"), and Brazil ("Cinco") yet: the countries that are missing seem to be Germany/Austria/something like that ("Fünf") and Italy ("Cinque"). --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 18:57, November 4, 2018 (UTC)

PS: and it makes perfect sense with the theme Rowling is going for; in the 1930s, Brazil was under the dictatorship of Getúlio Vargas, Mussolini ruled over Italy, and, of course... Germany.
Portugal was also, at the time, a dictatorship under Salazar, but the cat seems to be out of the bag with Brazil already. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 19:01, November 4, 2018 (UTC)

Nicolas Flamel

There's a reason I changed "had a knowledgeable about": because it is grammatically incorrect. What you are trying to say is "was knowledgeable in", or "had knowledge of". Cheers, CosmicChronos Talk to me Contribs 20:03, November 17, 2018 (UTC)

And please don't change the part about his Crystal ball. There is no such thing as "chrystal", it simply doesn't exist. I'd also like to add that it wasn't used to look at distant events, but used to look in the future since he used it to see the upcoming battle for the Lestrange mausoleum, an event that would happen in the future. Cheers, CosmicChronos Talk to me Contribs 20:06, November 17, 2018 (UTC)
No worries! Cheers, CosmicChronos Talk to me Contribs 20:15, November 17, 2018 (UTC)

RE:Oh, by the way:

Will keep an eye out, thanks for the heads-up! Cheers, --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 13:06, November 24, 2018 (UTC)

Nevermind all that, even if and when I sound curt in discussions, I hope you never take it personally. I'm terribly sad to hear about your aunt, here's hoping it'll all go for the best; these days not all cancer diagnoses are death sentences so, as ever, hope springs eternal. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 14:17, November 24, 2018 (UTC)

RE:Datamining of HM (Spoilers)

I'd keep it in BTS until it's officially released. Is the term "vibe" actually used? --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 18:45, December 15, 2018 (UTC)

We don't know if "vibes" are the only way of telepathic-like wizard-wizard communication. In any case, it is loosely defined in canon, at best, so let's not make any assumptions about it unless it is actually called that -- as per standard procedure. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 00:15, December 17, 2018 (UTC)
We don't assume anything; the screenplay specifies it is the Killing Curse, in scene 23. Regardless of that, even if it didn't, it's not an apt comparison in that we know plenty about the Killing Curse, whereas all we know about vibes comes from two throwaway lines in props: literally all we know is that it is a magical form of communication that apparently requires (or, at least, benefits from having) a clear mind. To say anything more of it is speculation. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 18:32, December 17, 2018 (UTC)
I would contest that. And we've already discussed the error in basing an argument in lack of substantial information. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 01:44, December 18, 2018 (UTC)

RE:Revisiting idea:

That's not actually what I'd told you before, see above "RE: On the subject of free will". --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 18:49, December 15, 2018 (UTC)

There is no reason not to include something like, say, "Penny (or, alternatively, Rowan) helped Jacob's sibling with such-and-such" in Penny's article. The fact that each player-determined option is equally canon doesn't make it an "absolute truth" for the very same reason that every option is equally canon; articles shouldn't contradict other articles or include mutually incompatible accounts of the same events -- that's why the disambiguation is necessary on each article.
Not to mention having the other potential participants outright stated on each page is more user-friendly; a user wouldn't know, intuitively, that only the Jacob's sibling article would contain all the different possibilities. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 00:20, December 17, 2018 (UTC)

Using Dumbledore's scenes in Crimes of Grindelwald as basis for contradictions.

So I went to discuss this with you as you requested. Imo, you haven't really given a good reason for why Dumbledore teaching Defense Against the Dark Arts should in any way mean that he can't be Head of the Transfiguration Department at the same time, or at least Head of it when he hired McGonagall prior to that. The scenes with Dumbledore in the film are very brief, with few if any discussing what his exact position in the school is. If you can point out to me any other line of dialogue or detail in the film that does this, then feel free to point that out as evidence of a contradiction. Otherwise, you can't just use Dumbledore's teaching one certain class in two different time periods as evidence that he's not in any way also that Head of the Transfiguration Department described in Pottermore. Dumbledore was Supreme Mugwump and Headmaster of Hogwarts at one point. Don't you think he can have managed to juggle having two jobs at this early point in his career?  Kingsman28 (talk) 16:21, December 16, 2018 (UTC)

Okay, now you've given a good answer. You should have started out by immediately citing that EW article interview with Jude Law, instead of just the Pottermore biography, because the biography plus the movie formed no immediate contradiction past the 39 years teaching line. Be sure to cite that next time to avoid confusion.

Arguably if Jude Law hadn't said anything, we would have just presumed that Dumbledore wasn't teaching Defense Against the Dark Arts full time. It's just what we see him teach.that class whenever the movie pans to him. Storytelling focuses on the coincidental and pattern-forming moments rather than the mundane and non-relative ones and all that, especially in films. 

Why would we think that Dumbledore, one of the most amazing wizards of all time can somehow balance two full-time jobs? Question kinda answers itself. If there's anyone who could balance two full time jobs, it would be him. Also, time turners can easily come into play, since their precise date of origin(if I'm not mistaken) has never been specified. 

The Jude Law interview seemingly makes this all moot, so we'll just have to wait and see what happens, besides the possible inevitable announcement by Rowling that this is one of those changes that starts cleaving the book and movie universes apart in certain ways.  Kingsman28 (talk) 03:22, December 17, 2018 (UTC)

RE:HarryPotterRules1 sends his greetings:

Christmastide goes on until Epiphany, so the Christmas greetings are well-received. Give him my thanks and send him my best; and I don't think I've done it yet, so I'm taking this opportunity to wish you a happy Christmas and a prosperous New Year.

A couple of scenes before, just as we enter the amphitheatre (Scene 111), Nagini also refers to the crowd as pure-bloods ("They're purebloods. They kill the likes of us for sport!") — of course, she'd have no way to know this was 100% true (and, strictly speaking, it wasn't, as Queenie, who she didn't know, was also in the crowd) though she seems to be assuming that most of Grindelwald's followers are pure-blood wizards. Which is in line with what is said elsewhere in the film by Arnold Guzman. It seems unlikely that Grindelwald could not draw a single half-blood wizard supporter to the rally, so it perhaps the script uses "pure-blood" for short as we have already been told many pure-bloods are naturally seduced by Grindelwald's message?

Regardless, yes, I share your views in that it is not sufficient evidence to claim that, say, Abernathy is a pure-blood. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 22:10, December 27, 2018 (UTC)

Probably. The Rosier and Carrow families are certainly pure-blood but that doesn't preclude the possibility of half-blood family members (cf. the Malfoys). --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 02:05, December 28, 2018 (UTC)
Probably not, given Garrick Ollivander. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 18:05, December 28, 2018 (UTC)
So were Voldemort and Dolores Umbridge, and they were both half-blood. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 19:45, December 28, 2018 (UTC)
But the Pure-Blood Directory was not a list of pure-bood supremacist families, case in point, the Weasleys, so it seems moot to bring it up in the first place, unless I'm missing something. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 20:40, December 28, 2018 (UTC)
Oh, sure, it's likely both Vinda Rosier and Carrow are supposed to be pure-blood, but it's just as possible they're half-bloods. That's what I was saying, that it's not conclusive evidence. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 00:13, December 29, 2018 (UTC)


Why is it necessary to have a category of people of a specific gender? Or a specific nationality? Or a specific birth year? Or a specific disability? --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 10:33, January 3, 2019 (UTC)

You tell me why a category for people with a specific eye colour is necessary, then. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 11:30, January 3, 2019 (UTC)
Of course I meant "isn't necessary". Honest mistake. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 13:41, January 3, 2019 (UTC)
"It doesn't serve any practical purpose beyond - sorting characters by eye color" is sort of a non-argument since the same could be said of literally every category that we use. Of course it doesn't serve any purpose beyond sorting characters by eye color -- sorting characters/objects/etc. by a common characteristic is exactly the purpose of any category. What additional purpose does Category:Individuals by year of birth serve besides sorting characters by the time they were born? What other purpose does Category:Individuals by job have besides sorting characters by their occupation? Category:Individuals by injury? Category:Individuals by deed? Should we get rid of all those too?
How is sorting characters by specific physical attributes not a reference frame to help giving users of the wiki an easy way to locate specific information relating to the Potterverse? Aren't characters' specific physical attributes specific information? And how is it any imprecise when it is quite literally an objective, verifiable feature? ("short necks" and "big ears" are subjective and thus arguable characteristics, and a bit of a straw man since no one is arguing for anything of the sort; on the other hand, "individuals who wear pyjamas" is not a physical characteristic at all so I fail to see the relevance).
Besides, I would contest it serves no purpose, as only characters whose specific eye colour is duly referenced are being added to the respective categories -- this is meant to serve as tool to help spot articles with unsourced info about characters' physical characteristics (of which there are many, I can tell you). --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 15:49, January 3, 2019 (UTC)
No, I see your argument about it being a non-defining characteristic (though we are not at all as strict with this as, say Wikipedia -- and it's easy to think why -- so I wouldn't think it does more harm than good), but I can't agree when you say categorically it's useless. Say somone was writing fanfiction and needed a quick reference to which characters had a given eye colour because that'd be an important plot point somehow: I can think of few places to look this up online; on the wiki, in particular, one would have to check individual articles one by one.
Of course, ultimately, there is no right or wrong in this matter, it's all a matter of community preference -- if you feel so strongly against it, please do mark the category for deletion and let others weigh in on it. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 02:04, January 4, 2019 (UTC)

Hi. I was wondering why you made so many changes to Dumbledore and Grindelwald’s relationship. It is canon. JKR confirmed it. Why did you take it out?

President of the Magical Congress of the United States of America

I removed the category because the category page is already under Magical Congress of the United States of America, and there's a repeat of the page and the category page, so there's no reason to have a repeat. IlvermornyWizard (talk) 08:08, February 21, 2019 (UTC) IlvermornyWizard

RE The ultimatum...

For clarity, I did not undo your edits to Abernathy, but removed the excessive wordy interpretation of his motivations and the complete speculation that he assisted Grindelwald's initial infiltration of MACUSA. As compared with the Harry Potter books, where we are given the narrator's statements of what people think and feel, with the Fantastic Beasts movies, we mostly have only their words and actions so statements as to their internal state, such as "being carried away by self-purpose", are just one user's interpretation and not fact.

We also have no idea of how Abernathy joined MACUSA - maybe he was hired as a supervisor and did nothing to advance to that position. How he came to be involved with the security of Grindelwald is also unknown so it cannot be used as evidence of his personality or abilities. Just because you have a belief in how MACUSA functions internally does not make it so (which is the basic point brought up to you over and over again, to which you argue that your interpretation must be right regardless if multiple other people don't agree).

I'm sorry that your personal life has been so difficult, but that does not mean that your contributions cannot be edited by others, or should be given special treatment where notes are provided to you for possible improvements. You are of course welcome to make edits, that can be amended, changed, or removed if needed, just like everyone else. That is the basic agreement for all users editing any wiki. Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 18:58, March 31, 2019 (UTC)

RE:HM task force?

I think a Harry Potter: Hogwarts Mystery task force would be a great idea, since I do agree with you that those articles seems to be poorly maintained. I still (I know!) haven't gotten round to play through the game, and what little knowledge I have about it comes from the occasional Youtube walkthrough viewing -- recently my spare time has been a bit more constrained. Do you know of other users who would be up for it (i.e., fairly active, are playing HM at the moment)? --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 16:32, April 23, 2019 (UTC)

I would recommend setting up a HPW Project. There was a time we used to set those up with specific purposes, but right now all of them are dormant. What do you think? --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 17:44, April 23, 2019 (UTC)
You can go ahead and start one (mind you, coming up with a witty name is a must) or I'll do it later when I'm a bit free-er. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 22:57, April 23, 2019 (UTC)
Yes, have you seen some of the names of past HPW Projects? Though I wasn't a part of it "Project Greasy Git" has to be my absolute favourite. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 23:25, April 23, 2019 (UTC)

RE:Look at what I found;

Yes, I know, I've uploaded lots of stuff from there to the wiki already. Thanks anyway! --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 22:38, April 29, 2019 (UTC)

Dark Magic

Hello, considering your edit on the Calamity article, for you categorised the event under "Dark Magic", I have removed it for the time being, due to a lack of evidence and confirmation from the game itself. Wizards Unite has not been released yet, and very little is still known about it (and its plot), so therefore deciding that the Calamity is the work of dark magic is too speculative. That category (which I myself have perfected and increased in size), is for confirmed forms of dark magic, for example, dark charms, dark objects, dark creatures, dark wizards etc, and related topics, such as DADA and protective spells and objects. We do not know what caused the Calamity, yet alone whether or not it was caused by dark magic. Speculation, should ultimately be rigorously discussed before it is added as fact, and perhaps should be left to talk pages. I would wait until more information is found out about the Calamity, before speculating about its cause. RedWizard98 (talk) 23:09, May 9, 2019 (UTC)

No sorry I have not missed any points. In terms of Dark Detectors, they can also be used to detect concealed things and dishonesty, as well as the presence of Dark Wizards and evil. We still do not know much about the Calamity, so we do not know what is the cause of it is. It may have been caused intentionally or unintentionally, and we do not even know who possibly by. The category dark magic should be left for confirmed forms of dark magic, not speculated forms of dark magic. You should probably discuss this with other editors and/or administrators as well, as I myself prefer to stay clear of speculation, and purely stick to facts. Good night from where I am. RedWizard98 (talk) 23:30, May 9, 2019 (UTC)

I've similarly left you a reply there. Cheers! --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 01:19, May 11, 2019 (UTC)

Good work

Hello Maester Martin, great work with cleaning up those pointless acts of vandalism on a number of pages. That brain dead moron who published such crap and filth has had all his accounts blocked across the network, so hopefully it is over with for now. If you see anything suspicious, do not hesitate to revert, report and message any admin or contact community support, and you can always message me about any issues. Happy editing and good day, fellow wizard. RedWizard98 (talk) 19:45, May 17, 2019 (UTC)

The idiot is so stupid as to actually do his vandalism under the eyes of the VSTF (in the form of RainA, whose username I recognised instantly), and thus get blocked and reverted in record time. — evilquoll (talk) 20:00, May 17, 2019 (UTC)

Order of Merlin

Merlin Bronze.jpg Order of Merlin (Third Class)
The Order of Merlin is awarded to you by {{{1}}} for having over one-thousand edits on the Harry Potter Wiki.

You are long overdue this reward. Keep up the good work! RedWizard98 (talk) 00:18, May 20, 2019 (UTC)

RE:Forum Qourum

The word is "quorum". And the reason for the move is the same it would be awkward to create articles called "The Slightest Movement", "Occamy in a Tea Pot", or "Nowhere to Hide" which, even though they are the names of the skills in the game, are evidently not the proper names of the respective courses mentioned in the skills' descriptions. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 23:10, May 23, 2019 (UTC)

Well done!

Merlin Silver.jpg Order of Merlin (Second Class)
The Order of Merlin is awarded to you by {{{1}}} for having over two-thousand edits on the Harry Potter Wiki.

Seen as though you have now done over two thousand edits, I think you deserve this.RedWizard98 (talk) 02:33, May 26, 2019 (UTC)

RE Hello

Hello Maester Martin, sorry I myself have not experienced any errors whilst editing or signing in. If you are experiencing any, I can't myself explain them, but I would recommend to simply never sign out like myself, as I find this most helpful, particularly if I might for some reason forget my password, or wish to easily edit other wikis. Perhaps you should contact Fanon central for support if you keep on experiencing errors. Kind regards. RedWizard98 (talk) 15:15, June 18, 2019 (UTC)

Glad to hear you are experiencing no further issues. RedWizard98 (talk) 15:23, June 18, 2019 (UTC)

Gilderoy Lockhart

Please do not mass revert edits without a good reason. (admin edit see Talk:Gilderoy Lockhart for full discussion.)

Oerk (talk) 22:36, August 13, 2019 (UTC)


As this account is a confirmed sock-puppet of Ninclow it has been banned. Given a return to your history of speculative editing and multiple users complaining about your behavior, it doesn't appear that you've learned from the second chance afforded to you. Take care --Ironyak1 (talk) 17:21, August 19, 2019 (UTC)

The fudge are you on about?! First off, this is NOT a sock puppet, it's a new account, it stopped being a sock puppet the instant Seth Cooper learned who I was and still let me stick around. Which is MONTHS ago. I have not, and I did not, "continue a history" of ANY sort of imprudent behavior, I made a single edit that to my knowledge only Xanderen really took much an issue with, and YOU Ironyak1, YOU have the BIAS to block like this? On an arbitrary handout from the single, petty, childish whim of a fellow member of mine, without even TALKING to me?! How dear you? How dear you sit there on that high horse of yours and treat people with such disrespect?
If I am to be banned, I demand its for something I actually did. NOT because a combination of Xanderen out of the blue deciding to become all whiny and your apparently itchy trigger finger. This time around, the reason for my block is 50% fabrication, and 50% strawman. Kindly undo the block for the time being, and you have my word I won't edit a single article. I will only do two things: First, I'll make a single post on Grindelwald's talk page to address what people specifically wrote to me there, and my reason for making the edit you've so predictably saw fit to label speculation without even elaborating, and explain why I have good reasons for believing you and Xanderen in particular is jumping to conclusions about this unsubstantiated allegations of yours, and then just run with whatever they think afterwards, and then I'll discuss the issue of my continued membership with an administrator who's not giving every impression of having looked for an excuse to block me, but with whom I can have an actual adult conversation, because you are quite clearly not interest in that. Maester Martin (talk) 18:11, August 19, 2019 (UTC)

As noted, this is a sock-puppet of a known banned user and whatever leniency was given appears to have been misplaced. If Seth disagrees with this, he can undo the ban as the site's Bureaucrat. As there are multiple users complaining about your edits and the resulting arguments, it's clear that the same behavior that resulted in the original ban still persists. I will make sure Seth is aware of the situation so he can make adjustments as needed. I consider the matter closed and will not be unblocking this account or this talk page. --Ironyak1 (talk) 18:18, August 19, 2019 (UTC)

*Disclosure: Some of the links above are affiliate links, meaning, at no additional cost to you, Fandom will earn a commission if you click through and make a purchase. Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.