Hello, RedWizard98, and welcome to the Harry Potter Wiki (HPW). Thank you for your edit to the Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald page. I hope you enjoy it here and decide to stay.

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

Cubs Fan2007 (talk) 07:06, November 13, 2018 (UTC)


Hi there! Category:Inquisitorial Squad is under Category:Bullies - that is, all members of the Inquisitorial Squad are Bullies by definition. The Category system is a hierarchy like a series of folders within one another, not a word tagging system, so only the most specific category needs to be applied, a rule that the bot will enforce automatically. Hope this helps --Ironyak1 (talk) 22:33, December 23, 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Ironyak1 for replying, but your bot has made a few errors with categorisation rules that do not exist. Happy editing. RedWizard98 (talk) 02:01, December 24, 2018 (UTC)

If you want to make sure I see your reply, you should post in on my talk page. What are the categorisation errors you believe the bot is making? Again, articles should not have higher-level redundant categories applied which seems to cover most of the changes you seem to take issue with. Other "problems" you note, like the UK spelling of biassed can be confirmed via a dictionary e.g.
Let me know of any other questions that may need explanation. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 06:56, December 31, 2018 (UTC)


Please make sure to add a description for any image uploaded that provides the source for the image as only JKR related sources should be used. Without such information, the image, such as File:Hellebore.png, will likely be deleted. Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 07:03, December 31, 2018 (UTC)

Again, only images from a JK Rowling related source are allowed on articles. Any images uploaded without a Description that provides the Rowling-related source will be deleted. Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 06:00, January 2, 2019 (UTC)

Okay thanks I will take note. Such images were just extracted from the Harry Potter lexicon to try to give them pictures. RedWizard98 (talk) 22:29, January 2, 2019 (UTC)

In reviewing your recent uploaded images of Lego figures and POP Vinyls you have failed to provide the required Summary information on many of them including details such as the Description and source. Please edit all these image to include the required information or they will be deleted. Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 07:32, June 9, 2019 (UTC)

RE bot errors

To reiterate: biassed is from the Cambridge Dictionary as the UK form of biased. Pottermore does not follow UK spelling so the spelling here and there are often not going to agree.

In looking through the Categories, Category:Azkaban convicts is a child of Category:Death Eaters along this path: Azkaban convicts -> Dementor_victims -> Dementor_attacks -> Dementors -> Death_Eater_allies -> Death_Eaters

While this logic clearly does not work, the fault is in the categorization system, not the bot's changes. These odd categorization loops are often caused by people adding new categories to one another without understanding the overall hierarchy. I've broken this category chain at Dementors so that this inheritance logic no long applies and will not be enforced by the bot in the future.

Similarly, Category:Blood is in Category:Body fluids which is in Category:Creature products. As such When you add an an article to Category:Blood it is by definition a Body Fluid and a Creature product. This logic does make sense so there is no need to add the Creature products category to any article with the Blood category as it is redundant (and will be removed by the bot).

I would suggest you spend more time exploring and working through the Categorization system if you are going to apply and extend it - this probably would lead to less frustration and a better understanding of its structure and rules. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 04:16, January 1, 2019 (UTC)

Well thank you at least for breaking the neccessary chain for your bot to operate well. Although I did just check both the Cambridge and Oxford dictionaries and biased is not spelt "biassed", in either American or British English. I don't know where "biassed" could of came from, as it is not a word. RedWizard98 (talk) 08:11, January 1, 2019 (UTC)

The link again is here for the third time:

Cambridge shows all the examples uses of biassed in the in English language:

In these days few are so biassed by party or sectarian bitterness as to grudge an epitaph to virtue and calamity in times gone by. - From Cambridge English Corpus

The paper was notorious for biassed reporting. - From Cambridge English Corpus

With the measurement of 'knowledge', for instance, the mixture of recall type knowledge questions with recognition type questions seems very likely to have biassed their results systematically. - From Cambridge English Corpus The argument ad hominem is always dangerous, is generally fallacious, and is very often biassed. - From the Hansard archive

etc, etc, etc, etc...

From your own link - biased - adjective also biassed UK

While usage may have shifted towards "biased" in World English, to claim that biassed is not a valid UK English is to repeatedly ignore the evidence in front of you, which may result in said annoyance. Probably better ways to spend your time than arguing against the dictionary? Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 03:50, January 2, 2019 (UTC)

Well no offense towards said dictionaries, but "biassed" is still not a usual way of spelling said word. By the way, I don't need my literacy skills being commented on, thank you; they are better than many others. I have no interest in yours. RedWizard98 (talk) 04:05, January 2, 2019 (UTC)

RE:Cool new category creations

That would be super, thank you for the help! --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 03:30, January 3, 2019 (UTC)

I will do. RedWizard98 (talk) 03:31, January 3, 2019 (UTC)

RE:Picture deletions

You can't; you need special Administrator or Content Moderator rights to delete images or articles. Point me to the picture in question and I'll get rid of it. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 03:51, January 3, 2019 (UTC)

Okay thanks, delete this. This is just sickening, especially since children and young people also read this wikia. Filth. RedWizard98 (talk) 03:54, January 3, 2019 (UTC)

Oh, that's unfortunate. That's the user's Wikia-wide avatar picture, which means I can't remove it myself (as it's not been uploaded to the Harry Potter Wiki per se, it's part of the user's Wikia account). I've messaged the Wikia Support Staff to see if they can take care of it. Thanks for reporting it!
(I suggest that, in future, you reply to my on my user talk page -- that way, whenever you reply, I get notified that you did!) --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 04:07, January 3, 2019 (UTC)
You'll find that the issue has been dealt with. Cheers. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 16:13, January 3, 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Seth. Our wikia deserves to free of such filth and kept clean. Great work. RedWizard98 (talk) 05:06, January 4, 2019 (UTC)

Order of Merlin

Merlin Bronze Order of Merlin (Third Class)
The Order of Merlin is awarded to you by Seth Cooper for having over one-thousand edits on the Harry Potter Wiki.
Cheers. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 04:10, January 3, 2019 (UTC)
Merlin Silver Order of Merlin (Second Class)
The Order of Merlin is awarded to you by Oerk (talk) for having over two-thousand edits on the Harry Potter Wiki.

Oerk (talk) 04:25, February 3, 2019 (UTC) Thank you, Oerk!RedWizard98 (talk) 04:28, February 3, 2019 (UTC)

Merlin Gold Order of Merlin (First Class)
The Order of Merlin is awarded to you by Oerk (talk) for having over three-thousand edits on the Harry Potter Wiki.

Here you go. Oerk (talk) 19:53, March 6, 2019 (UTC) Thank you very much Oerk, have a wonderful day!RedWizard98 (talk) 00:30, March 7, 2019 (UTC)


Categories are not word tags - they are a hierarchical system of collections. As such, any article must belong under the entire tree of categories you add it to. Spells involving snakes do not belong under the "... Individuals - Individuals_by_species - Non-Humans - Creatures - Creatures_by_taxonomical_group - Vertebrates - Reptiles - Snakes" category, which is what you are saying when you add the "Snakes" category. Please take the time to understand the category system instead of arguing if want to continue to work with it extensively. Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 07:00, January 3, 2019 (UTC)

I do understand how categories work, without being patronised. That specific category stated in writing before I edited it, it allowed snake related articles in it. It currently contains a few snake related articles still, like Parseltongue and the Snake Summons spell. If you don't like things maybe you should bother to change things yourself. If you want I can create an category on articles related to snakes; there are enough articles thematically to create it, like with articles related to dragons. You can't moan at someone for wanting to have a good go at being an editor and being interested.  RedWizard98 (talk) 07:08, January 3, 2019 (UTC)

Linking to wikipedia pages

Hi there, just fyi, the quickest way to link pages to Wikipedia, is with {{w}}, that ways, within the article it won't be generated as external links.

As for "a person from Iceland", WP favicon Icelander on Wikipedia:

"Icelander can refer to:

  • A person from the country of Iceland, see Icelanders."

WP favicon Icelandic on Wikipedia:

See also

  • Icelanders, the Icelandic people.

It's quite confusing with the fact that there's the "Icelandic people" part lol. There's List of Icelanders but there's also List of Icelandic films... So I'm assuming when saying an actress from Iceland, Icelandic actress is probably the way to go, so I kept your adjustment; the nationality parameter though, I mean, unless that ref was unfortunately a wrong usage lol. --Sammm✦✧(talk) 06:52, January 9, 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Sammm, I will use this method in future editing. Happy new year. RedWizard98 (talk) 07:27, January 9, 2019 (UTC)

Re: Duplicate

I'm assuming you meant duplicate "article"? lol Thanks for bringing this to my attention, unfortunately I'm really not all that familiar with the film adaptations to have the instinct to immediately confirm the situation. (I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm saying it's always good to be absolutely certain, which I myself am not lol) Just to make sure I get this right, was there only a total of 5 individuals featured in Skirmish at the Quad battlements? As in, the killed dude¹, the killer² of the dude (the one who seemed to have duplicated pages), who also battled against Arthur Weasley³, Kingsley Shacklebolt, and another dude that Apparated but was blasted back out by Shacklebolt? No other people? Just checking to be sure Arthur didn't engaged anyone else (even though the description does feel like they are about the same person. I simply don't remember much of this scene to be sure.)

In any case, I'll place the merge template as how duplicated pages are officially processed. I don't think I'll wait for over a week to process it, unless there are people actually objecting the notion. I suppose it's just giving it one last chance for people to defend it. lol If you're lucky, maybe a surer Admin would take notice and beat me to it within the timeframe.

Again, thanks for letting me know about the matter! Well-spotted! =D --Sammm✦✧(talk) 01:56, February 2, 2019 (UTC)

That is good to know Sammm, I have a very keen eye when it comes to detail, so I will let you know of any other issues or errors I spot on this wikia. The duplicate category, is described as being the same Death Eater to the original article, who killed another wizard and duelled Arthur Weasley, and only one wizard is shown doing this. Cheers and happy wizarding and witching. RedWizard98 (talk) 02:48, February 2, 2019 (UTC)


The Policy is that all in-universe articles should be written in the past-tense:

"Articles should be written in the past tense, as if the editor is writing from a point in the future after the events in the series have taken place. This is to maintain a consistent and uniform feel to the articles, and to eliminate ambiguity by switching tenses in the middle of an article."

Please do not continue to change articles to present tense, especially after they had just been corrected. Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 00:05, February 15, 2019 (UTC)

Again, per the Style Policy, all in-universe articles are to be written in the past tense. Any edits to change this are against previously established community consensus and are considered vandalism. If this happens again, your account will be blocked or banned. --Ironyak1 (talk) 01:05, June 9, 2019 (UTC)
The policies have been long established through past community votes regardless of some people choosing not to follow them. There would be less articles which don't meet the policy requirements if editors would not go out of their way to change the tense even after being made aware of it. As for other requests, I have asked you multiple times to please use Harry_Potter_Wiki:Requests_for_administrator_attention for any pending issues so that the requests are clear to all admins and others can help take care of the tasks. No one person is able to meet everyone's demands on the wiki so all requests should not be posted direct to one user. Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 01:20, June 9, 2019 (UTC)
Any such community discussions should be held in The Forum - feel free to start a thread. For now however, the current policy stands and as I had already notified you of the policy before yet you choose to ignore it and even undo fixes made, I want it to be clear there are consequences attached. No amount of editing makes a user immune to the community policies, whether they have 20 edits or 20,000. Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 01:35, June 9, 2019 (UTC)
I think you mean we all have a lot of editing to do as these are community policies, regardless of how any of us may feel about them. But anyhow, and for the last time, if you need help from an administrator, use the request system. This notion you have that you can simply demand something directly from someone without even bothering to follow the systems in place, while actively creating more work by knowingly circumventing policies, is not going to get a positive response. Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 01:52, June 9, 2019 (UTC)


Thanks for noting the fanon page - it has been deleted. In the future, it's best to add {{delete}} on an article to suggest it is deleted, as more people tend to check this than my talk page.

Also, your image uploads such as Giant_Rat.jpg needs information about its source, copyright information, and categorization. Images without this information may end up deleted (see Harry Potter Wiki:Image policy). Please Edit each file and paste this in and add the relevant info.

|other versions=

Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 17:03, February 15, 2019 (UTC)

That is very good to hear then, and should I come across any more unwanted fandom articles, I will definitely use the delete template on them. Thanks RedWizard98 (talk) 17:18, February 15, 2019 (UTC).

Re: Potential fandom/Junk writing AND other stuff

In addition to what Ironyak1 mentioned above, you could probably benefit from browsing Category:Maintenance templates to see what other templates there are for different situations, such as {{merge}} in a previous issue you brought to me. =D

Also, I'm assuming you aren't intentionally ignoring the second part of Ironyak1's message, so I'd like to emphasize that part to be read and digested and hope you'd performed the action that was asked of you.

Lastly, since you were able to identify dupe articles of a minor character last time, can you take a look at Talk: Unidentified Hufflepuff girl (II)#Confirmation and see if you can help determine the situation? (If you have input, please reply it there, thanks!)

Happy editing! =D --Sammm✦✧(talk) 23:31, February 15, 2019 (UTC)

Hi Sammm, personally I thought it would be a good idea to message you both, just in case one of you took a long time to read it. Personally I have had a good look at those images you sent me, and I definitely think that the girl on the right is Gwendoline Hedgeflower. The reason behind this, is that her eyebrows look almost identical, and eyebrows are unique features that usually stand out from others. I would say in my opinion, it would be a good idea to merge them both together. You could maybe ask a few others though, just to be completely sure. Good luck RedWizard98 (talk) 05:05, February 16, 2019 (UTC).
Again, you seem to be very conveniently skipping over the second part I blatantly emphasized for attention, so I'm addressing it first this time around in the hopes you will actually read it and take action: While you haven't been mass-uploading and causing mass amount of damage as some currently-blocked and some recently-was-blocked Users had, your licensing selection is questionable as most of them aren't likely to be in Public domain; that, and your non-existing image categorization will accumulate harm that will get you temporarily blocked. It is undeniable that you do participate in categorizing stuff, so please, do the same for the images you yourself uploaded.
Now, onto your most recent message on my talk page (if you choose to reply to this and not take any action described in the above, something you are now warned for the 3rd time, please don't take offense if you are blocked without any more warnings should you choose to upload more images without taking care of them), you've literally provided no links, so I have no idea what you are referring to. Also based on previous conversation, where you've used "category" to describe an "article", I'm just really not sure what I should be checking in order to check for an apparent duplicate you found. I want to help, I just really don't know what you are talking about unless you are more specific. Thanks. --Sammm✦✧(talk) 20:54, March 2, 2019 (UTC)

Well, that sure is riveting. RedWizard98 (talk) 20:58, March 2, 2019 (UTC)


I'm  new here, and I would like to thank you very much for your contributions as well as other Potter's fans to this world.

I've misposted elsewhere my question, so I'm putting it back here :

I've juste read the latest contribution on the phoenix's tears, thank you very much! I then thought : if theses tears can heal just about anything: " It is also capable of reviving a person from any injury, even if the person is at the brink of death ", I wonder why is it that they were not used to heal Dumbledore's cursed hand, no mention of phoenix tears in Snape's potion.

I'm new here, and I would like to express my awe: Potter's fandom is just fantastic, you have put so much work in this, and thanks to you all, I've just realized the depth of J.K. Rowling's universe!

Libelluleargentee (talk) 13:07, March 15, 2019 (UTC)

Fire-based magic

What was wrong with my edits to have them reverted? Those are fire-based magic and every spell, charm and etc. that conjured fire didn't really need to be on the Fire category. Fire-based magic has fire in it which is why I added it to the Fire category and left the enchanted fire already on there. IlvermornyWizard (talk) 21:00, March 17, 2019 (UTC) IlvermornyWizard

Merlin's eye color

How can you possibly what his eye color based on his Frog Card. It's too pixelated to make out any color on it? Also first it was stated to be green. Now it's blue?StargateFanBB (talk) 14:34, April 17, 2019 (UTC)

I got your reply. I've already tried to see a color in his eyes myself. I couldn't see any. It's too hard to make out any if there even is any. Same with Morgana. I think we should just leave his and Morgana's eye color as unknown until we actually get images of them with clear eye colors in them.StargateFanBB (talk) 00:00, April 18, 2019 (UTC)


Consider this your only warning regarding edit-warning and tossing insults and snark toward other editors. This is not the first time someone has had to call out your poor attitude. If you cannot remain civil toward others then your account will be blocked or banned. Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 04:58, April 25, 2019 (UTC) 

Have a nice day. RedWizard98 (talk) 04:59, April 25, 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate your reply. You have done a lot a quality work that is appreciated; just don't let that be undermined by a dismissive or demeaning attitude or a willingness to war with other editors. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 17:24, April 25, 2019 (UTC)

RE Wizards Unite

The extra Weakening hex article has been removed. As linked to in many of the refs, the info is coming from various playthroughs by Youtubers in New Zealand where they are getting to beta test it. Looks promising! Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 06:00, April 26, 2019 (UTC)

Disappearing categories

FYI, it was your own edit that removed all those categories, as clearly seen here: (Line 194: where yours removed all;) so next time, please consider looking through editing history and compare revisions to locate odd occurrences, instead of reverting edits (that for some reason was mine) that literally has nothing to do with the problem. Thanks. --Sammm✦✧(talk) 13:51, May 1, 2019 (UTC)

It's great that you've noticed the problem, however, I was pointing out that your attempt of resolving the issue, itself, has room of improvement. If anything disappeared, the bytesize of the page would decrease, not increase, yet, you picked to revert edits that were increasing bytesize, when yours was the obvious one that had a decrease to it. I am not saying you did it (made the category disappear) on purpose, because I fully believe it can be Wikia/Fandom's issue, as I have encountered odd things, such as disappearing <ref></ref>s when publishing, something I would never intend to remove. When things like this happened, there's not much anyone can do short of going back editing, but if you choose to help fix the problem, like I said, the bytesize decrease/increase and revision comparison are accurate pointers to locate which revision to recover. --Sammm✦✧(talk) 14:12, May 1, 2019 (UTC)
I can't tell if you were being sarcastic so I'm going to assume you are not. Good day (it's nighttime where I am.) =] --Sammm✦✧(talk) 14:20, May 1, 2019 (UTC)

RE Administrative issues

The trouble of having parts of the article go missing is often caused by using the VisualEditor on very large pages. It's best to use the Source Editor.

Looking at the history for Ernest Macmillan, the categories were lost on this edit which you performed, so not sure if you might have any insights as to how you went about editing it then.

I'll take a look at the duplicate categories you mentioned. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 16:47, May 1, 2019 (UTC)

RE:The Warlock's Hairy Heart

Being the main moral theme of the story doesn't mean it belongs on the Dark Magic category. The Dark Magic category is for actual magic, Dark artifacts and books specifically on Dark Magic not moral messages. The other categories that aren't Dark Magic are probably there because they fight off Dark Magic. Thanks I really appreciate that. IlvermornyWizard (talk) 04:02, May 6, 2019 (UTC) IlvermornyWizard

RE Reporting spam

Thanks for the heads up - both accounts blocked for now. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 22:39, May 6, 2019 (UTC)

Re:Dark Magic

It would appear you missed the memo: The player use Dark Detectors to track the activity of the Calamity/the appearances of Confundables. And since these are created specifically to detect Dark Magic, what does that tell us? Maester Martin (talk) 23:13, May 9, 2019 (UTC)

I think Maester Martin makes a convincing argument, however, I can also see your point about Dark Detectors being also used to track concealed magic (like we see Secrecy Sensors do to Concealment Charms in Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince). All in all, I am of the opinion that it would seem to make sense to label it as Dark Magic if Dark Detectors are used to track it in-game. Perhaps leave it on the article as a BTS note for the time being? --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 01:24, May 10, 2019 (UTC)

Specific types of Dark Detectors can also be used for these things: A Secrecy Sensor can be used to detect Concealment Charms, a Sneakoscope can be used to detect suspicious behaviour, such as lying, and of course that's the case, it'd be incredibly dumb not to have some like that. Within a few years in the field, or maybe even months, an Auror isn't without enemies, after all. But that's not what Dark Detectors are primarily for, and of course, the Calamity is neither concealed magically, nor is it a concious being that can even be dishonest. It is an out of control, chaotic piece of magic that leaves traces that Dark Detectors, specifically, can detect. All magic leaves traces, but especially Dark Magic, and that's the primary purposes of these objects. It's in the name. Hence - I disagree it's speculation. Maester Martin (talk) 05:40, May 10, 2019 (UTC)

Sure, but I thought Dark Detectors were used in the game to uncover hidden Traces? (correct if wrong, I'm not sure). If so, the point could be made that what they're detecting might just the magic that conceals them. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 01:18, May 11, 2019 (UTC)

You can set up a Dark Detector, which will be active for 30 minutes and  will cause encounters to pop up with more frequency around the location you attach it to. That doesn't mean that the the Dark Detectors in question discover hidden traces of magic, from what I've gathered, you you encounter more of them, without it being described as hidden ones. From what I've gathered from youtube playthroughs of the beta, Dark Detectors in WU are just like Pokéstop Lures, if you're familiar with Pokémon GO? Lures attract pokemon to a location, and allow you to find them more frequently and encounter ones you might not have otherwise. Similarily, dark detectors detect   Foundables in a location, which will enable to to find Foundables you may not have otherwise encountered. It don't mean that they're hidden, only that the registry of the Statute of Secrecy Task Force is incomplete. Which, of course, would make perfect sense from an in-universe point of view. A chaotic piece of volatile, unstable magic rips people and objects that's magically significant from somewhere else, and they pop up all over the place, especially near Muggles, and though it is our job to help contain the situation and do what we can to prevent the exposure of wizardkind, it would be impossible to keep tabs with every Confundable everywhere at every given time, even if they might be able to maintain a registry listing large number of them. Which what makes dark detectors so practical.

Also - the Calamity is described on the official Harry Potter: WIzards webpage: 

"Please resist the urge to panic. Traces of magic are appearing across the Muggle world without warning and in a rather chaotic manner. We worry it is only a matter of time before even the most incurious Muggles catch wind of it. We call on all witches and wizards to help contain the Calamity or risk the worst of times since You Know Who. Brush up on your spells, get your wand ready, and enlist immediately."

"The Ministry is looking for witches and wizards willing to roll up their sleeves and volunteer to save the wizarding world from the Calamity. As a member of the Statute of Secrecy Task Force (a new task force formed in partnership between the Ministry of Magic and the International Confederation of Wizards) you will hone lightning fast wand reflexes, an ability to sniff out the faintest whiff of magical disorder from afar, and proficiency in advanced casting of multiple spells."

"A trace of magic can appear in the most unexpected of places. They are unpredictable, highly erratic, and are coming into close contact with Muggles. Please stay vigilant and prepared for any unexplained magical activity that needs to be shielded from Muggle eyes.". 

If Confundables were already magically concealed and you needed dark detectors to see them, then wouldn't that a) go against the three paragraphs above and b) go against the whole idea of the game? What need is it to rush out to cover up magic from Muggles if the Calamity has some sort of "let's play peek-a-boo" mechanism built into the spell that makes them invisible until uncovered with a dark detector? Maester Martin (talk) 07:47, May 11, 2019 (UTC)



That is correct, I think Category:Sidekicks is best done away with. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 01:24, May 10, 2019 (UTC)

Re:Hedwig (medieval individual)

Hi, RedWizard98!

You're right. Hedwig is a female name and was meant female by J. K. Rowling. But the owls which portrayed Hedwig were male because a female would not be so bright white as the males are and as Hedwig is described by Rowling.

My question belonged to this here on the page:

"Saint Hedwig (b. prior to 1900) was a medieval witch or wizard." I would say the word wizard can be deleted then. I will my post also post there, too.

 Harry granger   Talk   contribs 12:55, May 11, 2019 (UTC)

The title? What would you use for a title? Medieval witch?  Harry granger   Talk   contribs 13:48, May 11, 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, both is possible.  Harry granger   Talk   contribs 14:09, May 11, 2019 (UTC)

RE:Merton Graves article confusion

Fixed. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 01:15, May 13, 2019 (UTC)


Don't worry. Editors such as him get blocked anyway. Tazenda 19:33, May 16, 2019 (UTC)


I beat you on the punch, I'm afraid. I reported him a few minutes before you did.

This kind of edits is intentional, of course, just for the thrill of it. Pathetic, rather than disgustiong. Tazenda 19:39, May 16, 2019 (UTC)

Should I deem it necessary, I certainly will. Tazenda 19:47, May 16, 2019 (UTC)

Well done!

Well done for keeping up and undoing such vile vandalism, and getting them reported ASAP. Not the kind of thing I wanted to see when I logged in. Unfortunately, it's still showing up in the "Popular Pages" feature on every page, but hopefully that should go soon, I think? - Kates39 (talk) 20:25, May 16, 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! The pictures have completely gone now and Popular Pages is up to standard again, so the problem is finally over. - Kates39 (talk) 09:48, May 17, 2019 (UTC)
Don't worry, I recognised immediately that it was not you. Their behaviour is nothing like your own and I have reported them to community central. Hopefully they have stopped now (then again, I thought they had yesterday) but I will my eye out for any other attempt to impersonate you. I don't where at least one admin was through this because their intervention could have prevented two large-scale vandalism attempts a lot sooner, but hopefully one will block the account before it can do anything else. 130 vandalism attempts has to be a new record. - Kates39 (talk) 12:26, May 17, 2019 (UTC)
Just to let you know, the same user came back again and impersonated your account for the second time, this time putting the number "91" at the end. I reported them and it appears Fandom are keeping an eye on them because they blocked the account in minutes of the vandalism. when will it end, lol. - Kates39 (talk) 15:15, May 18, 2019 (UTC)

Re: Vandalism urgency

Hi there, I am aware of the situation, however, you are contacting the wrong person since Content Moderators have no blocking rights. If I have those rights, Users who carelessly spam this wiki with duplicated images would have been dealt with longer block-lengths for the damage they created; just saying =P. You'd have to contact B-crats or Admins about this! Good luck! =] --Sammm✦✧(talk) 16:28, May 17, 2019 (UTC)

Re: Good work

Thanks! It was my pleasure and - I will. :-D Maester Martin (talk) 19:57, May 17, 2019 (UTC)

RE Urgent Vandalism issue

User blocked, image deleted, all changes rolled back (hopefully - was done with automation, let me know if you find anything that was missed.) Thanks for the quick report and help fixing! --Ironyak1 (talk) 02:04, May 19, 2019 (UTC)

Quick note

Hey there! I just want to let you know, if the vandals come back, you can report them to the VSTF, they'll block the accounts and ip's. Thanks! LightHouse38 (talk) 03:41, May 19, 2019 (UTC)

LEGO Harry Potter Video Game DS Characters

Could you please post pics of characters playable and non-playable characters in LEGO Harry Potter: Years 1-4 and 5-7? (Hobbiton777 (talk) 21:07, May 20, 2019 (UTC))

Merlin's beard

Merlin1 Merlin's Beard!
Ten-thousand edits on the Harry Potter Wiki makes this user a

Congrats! Harrypotterexpert101 Council-icon-FANDOM.svg (talk) 00:25, May 21, 2019 (UTC)

Your attitude

You consistently behave as though you have any authority over others on this wiki. This is simply false. You are not entitled to act like an administrator, a moderator, or anything of the like. You have no more power than I, and as such, have no authority over me, or anybody else. You have insulted not only me, but other countless users of this very same wiki, callously tossing around belittling terms such as “dummy,” "childish," “wailing,” “the less-educated,” and "stupid," yet you and you alone are the one dishing out terms of beratement with blatant disregard, and still you have the gall to end your unsigned comment with “good day.” I have carefully explained my reasonings to you multiple times, and rather than choosing to discuss it in a dignified manner, you effectively throw an online temper tantrum whenever you don't get your way. You yourself said "You can't win everything," yet you seem to fail to realize this mantra also applies to you. Viewing your talk page and archived histories of others, I see now this is not the first time this has happened. At this point, I can only conclude you will simply refuse to listen to reason if it means you don't get your way. As such, don't expect any further explanations or discussions on my part, as you have sufficiently destroyed all of my expectations of having a pleasant or at least dignified conversation with you regarding the wiki.

Oerk (talk) 03:38, May 26, 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the lovely feedback! RedWizard98 (talk) 15:03, May 26, 2019 (UTC)

Jacob's appearance

Do you play Hogwarts Mystery and if so, did you play it recently? If you have, do you know anything about Jacob finally appearing? A user added it to his page and I'm making sure it's canon and not fanon. Since you're probably one of the most active users I know, I thought I would ask you. IlvermornyWizard (talk) 02:06, May 27, 2019 (UTC) IlvermornyWizard

RE Report Fanon

This page has been deleted. In the future please use the Requests for Administrator Attention in stead of spamming the same message to several users. Also, I see that others had to call you out for using put-downs in your editing summaries. Consider this your last warning for this issue - any other snide or derogatory remarks towards others will result in a block or ban for your account. No amount of editing work justifies belittling other editors or their contributions. Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 23:17, May 30, 2019 (UTC)

RE Killing Curse

As I've pointed out before, the bot enforces the requirement of only including the most specific category, so for the Killing Curse Category: Death-related magic contains Category:Horcruxes which contains Category:Horcrux destruction methods. As such the article should not have both the child and grandparent categories present any more than Harry Potter's wand should have Holly wands, Wands by wood, Wands by material, Wands, Magical objects, and Objects categories as the article inherits all parent categories from adding just the single most specific child category. Hope that helps --Ironyak1 (talk) 08:57, June 1, 2019 (UTC)


SWLover2 has awarded you a Prefect Badge!
For numerous edits of high quality, consistent revisions performed in a respectful and reasonable manner, and overall giving so much of yourself to the community we are all building together!

Re: Muffliato Charm

Yes, it is taught in fifth year Charms class. Chapter 25 to be exact.

Heads up; at the moment I'm intentionally falling behind this game's material, because currently my phone does not have a data plan, so I'd be screwed if I encountered some time-limited event should I be in places for long periods without wi-fi. =/ With RL issues, I also couldn't spend time to actually soak in the information I received from the game; I do record my own gameplay, but I don't have time to thoroughly read the dialogues.

Hopefully this won't be long termed, but yeah, just letting you know, while I'd love to help out and I do play the game, for latest updates and details, I will not be of much help. (The question you asked this time, I happened to have played through the part already, but it is one of the more recent confirmations.)

--Sammm✦✧(talk) 23:44, June 4, 2019 (UTC)

Hi, there! Hmmm, adding spells confirmed learned in Harry Potter: Hogwarts Mystery into class templates can be slightly tricky, though the one you asked does qualify to be added. You probably are already aware of this, but HM has privately-learned spells listed with the ones learned in actual classes; I know Year 4 has quite a few like those and are clearly labeled so in the article, however, Year 5 is taking way too long for them to release, then there's the early years (mainly Years 1&2) where people hadn't realized documentations are needed since there's no replay available to see past actions. Chances are, the newer ones are all learned conventionally, but since I don't know how well you know the game, figured I should at least make sure the occasional oddness is known. =]
Thank you so much for your comments in regards to past issues! For images, GIFs from certain films do have separate CATs, so this is something to lookout for. For Funko pop vinyls, do you have an estimation of how many of those you've uploaded? Like, more than 10? (I feel like there's at least 10 around this wiki, but not sure) Because if so, it feels beneficial to have an image CAT specifically for it. Would also like your opinion on Talk:POP! Vinyl#POP! vs POP! Vinyl?; I honestly have no clue and no one is replying, so if you can shed some light on the matter, please feel free to post it there. It kind of helps determining how to name the hypothetical image CAT. =D But yeah, thank you so so much for going through the images! --Sammm✦✧(talk) 01:04, June 5, 2019 (UTC)

Hogwarts Mystery characters

I know you don't play Hogwarts Mystery, but I'm supposed to add information to the characters' BTS section. Given player's choices, they can date certain players (Datamining) or say they fancy someone of the same or opposite gender; Barnaby also seems to "fancy" our character regardless of gender; Jacob could also look a certain way because of the way our player looks and I have no idea how to add everything to their pages. IlvermornyWizard (talk) 20:10, June 8, 2019 (UTC) IlvermornyWizard


Have you experienced any issues editing? I keep getting these "Error" messages, even after signing in and out. Maester Martin (talk) 15:10, June 18, 2019 (UTC)

I waited ten minutes, and the error notice was no more. Thanks anyway. :-) Maester Martin (talk) 15:21, June 18, 2019 (UTC)


Why do you insist on changing back the category list I edited that is organized and not a complete mess, and change it back? The categories have a proper order so they aren't a mess and unorganized. IlvermornyWizard (talk) 07:47, June 22, 2019 (UTC) IlvermornyWizard

To you maybe, but to me it makes more sense and it looks more organized in chronological order instead of their nationality, gender or wizard categories all the way down the list when they are British/English or whatever nationally they are, it's obvious what gender they are, the fact that they are wizards and etc. In alphabetical order, you have to look a little carefully in the category list when the categories are longer, but for chronological order, it's pretty easy to find the category you're looking for (long category lists not short ones). On top of that, you have been removing new categories I added like Married individuals for married witches and wizards. IlvermornyWizard (talk) 08:01, June 22, 2019 (UTC) IlvermornyWizard

Your messages

You have been warned several times from multiple users, including myself, about your negative and insulting attitude. As you have not learned to avoid posting insulting messages, your account is blocked for the next few days so you can take some time to understand that such behavior is not welcomed. If it continues the consequences will be increasingly severe. --Ironyak1 (talk) 17:53, June 22, 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry but I do not agree with this in the slightest. I have not personally attacked or threatened anybody nor have never used offensive, discrimiantory or explicit language in any post I have done. All of the purpose of my posts have been ensuring to uphold the highest standards of wiki, and not tolerating stupid, counter-productive or ill-informed edits from any editor is not attacking people, it is being truthful. There are people across fandom with far worse and insolent attitudes than myself, you will find easily. I will be back in a few days to continue editing, and I would wish to be informed when this block ends, but I fail to see anything I have done that is so appallingly wrong, so I politely disagree with this decision. RedWizard98 (talk) 18:35, June 22, 2019 (UTC)

You can see here the block length and reason. Agree or not, but telling people their work is "utterly stupid" or "silly and childish" is insulting and completely unnecessary. How other FANDOM sites conduct themselves has no bearing on the community standards here and given the multiple complaints posted on your talk page it should be clear that several other users have taken issue with your comments and attitude. If this behavior continues, future blocks will be longer in term and will ultimately lead to a permanent ban. --Ironyak1 (talk) 18:51, June 22, 2019 (UTC)

Well I suppose I apologise for the bluntness of some of my language, but sometimes I say what I think, it does mean I actually have any desire to damage others, in any way whatsoever. I would never go to using offensive or extreme language towards anybody online, and I do not think adjectives such as "childish", "silly" or "stupid" are incendiary in the slightest, compared to some of the repulsive bile you can find all across the web. In reality, only one user, Oerk (a user who in my view does not have a shining attitude) has actually complained on my talk page; most of the feedback is actually highly positive, many of it related to image requests. But we are all allowed to agree to disagree, so you cannot please nor agree with everyone at every time, so I accept your opinion and the opinions of others. I shall return duly in three days time or longer, once this block has run its course. RedWizard98 (talk) 19:05, June 22, 2019 (UTC)

Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald Credited Minor Character Pics

Could you maybe please add pics of the minor characters who were credited in the end credits of The Crimes of Grindelwald, such as the child in bubble, the Gryffindor bullies, or the French Ministry of Magic receptionist? (Hobbiton777 (talk) 18:21, June 22, 2019 (UTC))

Hello Hobbiton777, I shall attempt to, which should be fairly straightforward to do, but unfortunately I cannot currently, as apparently I have attacked other editors and have been blocked for three days. If you have a digital copy of COG or dvd, you should be able to do some screenshots, crop them and then upload them. Also make sure all the images have the correct licenses, descriptions, categories etc. Kind regards. RedWizard98 (talk) 19:08, June 22, 2019 (UTC)

FB Cases spoiler

FYI, Fantastic Beasts: Cases from the Wizarding World is no longer under spoiler coverage so any related warning headers will be automatically removed. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 22:25, June 26, 2019 (UTC)

RE Image notice

Hi RedWizard98, thanks for letting me know about your strict image policy. I can definitely add sources and licensing but I haven't been able to find a clear guide on whether I actually can add these after uploading them. Tried copy/pasting from other images to get the format for the code but I keep coming up with formatting errors. Cheers GalacticHippo (talk) 14:06, July 22, 2019 (UTC)


Hello, Red Wizard, in our Wiki there are two articles about the so-called "rebirth elixir". First de:Elixier zur Schaffung eines provisorischen Körpers and the de:Wiedergeburts-Elixir in en Regeneration potion. Are there also 2 articles in en HP-Wiki? Then I ask for a message, thank you very much. Sorry I did that wrong. From the German HP-Wiki ;-)--LG..♥..Hauselfe Ayla (talk) 19:13, July 29, 2019 (UTC)
Shit ;-) I found the bug. Sorry I just forgot "de". My English is unfortunately not so good. If there are any uncertainties, you can ask Rodolphus to translate it he also edits in German HP-Wiki. Thanks --LG..♥..Hauselfe Ayla (talk) 19:26, July 29, 2019 (UTC)

Vielen Dank für den Orden (thank you very much) :-) --LG..♥..Hauselfe Ayla (talk) 18:23, July 30, 2019 (UTC)

Image summary

Just for the record, I always planned on doing it tonight until I saw you already did it for me. Andrewh7 (talk) 06:23, August 9, 2019 (UTC) Andrew

Re: Magical abilities and skills

If that's how they're supposed to formatted then obviously I'll make sure to leave them that way. However, they should still remain free from baseless deductions. Ie: Lobosca's skill at casting shield charms means precisely that - she was skilled at casting shield charms. No doubt she was good at other stuff as well, but theorising on what else these skills may be ("she was presumably skilled at x, y, z) is speculation.

Regarding Lockhart - Pottermore specifies that he perfected the Memory charm to the expensive of all else, so that by the time of the books it was then only spell he could perform effectively. The idea that he could cast a Patronus contradicts Rowling's word on the subject and is therefore non-canon.

I didn't really know what to do for the best regarding Harry's main image, as several others have tried to change it over the past few weeks...--Pjayswitch (talk) 14:00, August 9, 2019 (UTC)

The issue is not with the status of the game as a whole. I respect the fact that the wiki considers it canon (although I disagree), but in this instance it directly contradicts Rowling's writings on Pottermore.--Pjayswitch (talk) 14:24, August 9, 2019 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Redwizard,

I would like to inform you that for my page, "Some Spells", I got the info from Pottermore. But also I got it from Google. Just wanna let you know. Thank you.EpicGMN (talk) 23:01, August 11, 2019 (UTC)EpicGMN

"Your views on the subject do not actually matter."

They are not "my views". They are facts stated by Rowling on Pottermore. On a related subject, there was absolutely no need for such a snide edit summary. I'm rapidly getting bored of your pompous attitude. You are not an administrator so please stop acting like it.--Pjayswitch (talk) 13:34, August 15, 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry for being short with you, but you must appreciate that comments like that aren't at all helpful or instructive in any way. At any rate, my view is that Pottermore contradicts the game on this occasion. By saying that the Memory Charm is the only spell that Lockhart possessed any skill with it seems clear that the highly advanced Patronus would have been beyond him. No matter, I don't plan on debating this any further.--Pjayswitch (talk) 19:54, August 19, 2019 (UTC)

Overview vs description, uses, etc.

You may have seen my editing of re-consdolidating the main body overviews of some articles. If you're wondering why, it's not because I want to revert every single thing that changes an article's structure and want to dismantle the system, but rather that while they follow a basic structure, articles should be written with the content in mind first, rather than rigidly following templates when they make the article awkward to read. Take featured articles for example. They don't just say "Albus Dumbledore was an English wizard..." and then start a new heading after that first sentence. They describe what that subject is most known for, and gives a good overview and impression of the subject overall. If there's more specific information available, then that's when headings can be used, as those are for specific events that, rather than give vital information on the subject, elaborate on it's niche aspects.

Some articles are fine with a single sentence main body, if it encompasses all of the main points. For example, the Fire Dwelling Salamander article. "Fire Dwelling Salamanders, also called Fire Salamanders, or just simply Salamanders, are small, magical fire dwelling lizards that feed on flames." Okay, that works. That tells the reader every important aspect about the Salamander. That single sentence tells the most important things in a single consice verse. The rest of the article can then be used under headings for specific information about the Salmander, like it's life cycle, magical affiliations, weaknesses, history, etc. If these aspects are some of the only known important information about a subject in an article and greatly defines what it's known for, then it should probably accompany the first few sentences in the overview. That's all.

Oerk (talk) 23:12, August 16, 2019 (UTC)

Eye colour

Respectfully, I would like to prove you wrong.

  • If both parents have blue eyes, the children will have blue eyes.
  • The brown eye form of the eye color gene (or allele) is dominant, whereas the blue eye allele is recessive.
  • If both parents have brown eyes yet carry the allele for blue eyes, a quarter of the children will have blue eyes, and three quarters will have brown eyes. (; blue eyes are recessive (which rules out the kids having blue eyes since Ginny has brown) and since Albus, per canon, is the only one to have green eyes, they must have brown eyes.--ProfessorMcDumbles (talk) 16:40, August 19, 2019 (UTC)
You have actual biological science behind it and still deny it; Oh boy, you're going to be fun to work with, aren't you?(!) Very well, for now I shall leave the article alone.  ProfessorMcDumbles (talk) 16:52, August 19, 2019 (UTC)
Tell that to Xanderen who believes I am the blocked Ninclow. As much as I talk to him (or her? I never asked, ironically!) on Discord, I am not Ninclow. English isn't their first language - nor is sarcasm; they just use a hammer instead of sarcasm - and it is mine. I have agreed to leave the article alone. ProfessorMcDumbles (talk) 16:58, August 19, 2019 (UTC)

RE harry91's Image uploads

In looking at some of these, it looks typos and such caused problems for his uploads which he can go back and fix. However, I noticed when you tagged one for deletion you removed all the current content. The delete tag should always be added to the top of the content so everyone can review it, and info should never be blanked when adding a delete tag. Also, again, please use Requests for administrator attention when asking for assistance - I responded today only because of the situations early demanded my immediate attention, but will not be as responsive in the future to non-emergency requests on my talk page. Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 03:06, August 20, 2019 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the Order of Merlin! I appreciate the recognition. - Kates39 (talk) 11:49, August 20, 2019 (UTC)

Re: The Alliance

I was aware of the original category but to my knowledge there is no way to merge or rename them, and it seemed more appropriate that the category be named for the organisation rather than the individual - ie "Death Eaters" not "Followers of Lord Voldemort". I can remove the original category and tag it for deletion if you like?--Pjayswitch (talk) 12:32, August 24, 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.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Stream the best stories.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Get Disney+