• I live in Anti-Matter Universe, Kroptor Black Hole

Hello, Tepheris, and welcome to the Harry Potter Wiki (HPW). Thank you for your edit to the Sectumsempra 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!

Seth Cooper (talk) 21:45, June 22, 2015 (UTC)

==Notes of edits to make ASAP. This is not written in Chinese because of malice. I just don't want anyone else getting the edit done first== 小魔鬼張一點兒也不對。 還有 看不到的動物不危險,解說為甚麼四個字。 還有 學校懲罰的頁面有不在乾坤的看法。 還有 一九八零年代的頁面也不用在乾坤的看法寫的。 好像很多長魔棒子不在"魔棒子"。可是,他大概不喜歡。 跑走從死蛇人的媽媽頁面有張照片有問題。Drat, someone fixed it first.

Temporary Sandbox Because The Backdrop of Harry Potter Fannon is White and Therefore Unsuitable for Testing an Infobox for the Magi of Ephesus

— Actually, "magi" is only plural. The singular is "magus". ("Mage" and "mages" in the English versions.) — RobertATfm (talk) 01:54, December 25, 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, so it would seem. I've only encountered magi, and the context of what the Magi of Ephesus represent is not present in the word 'mage'. And then there's that eponymous manga/anime where magi is used as singular.
--  Tepheris |Lenom animated avatar by tepheris|  Send Patronus  04:06, December 25, 2015 (UTC)

Game Only

Hi, you did a lot of work! Only error I've seen is that Laura Madley was in the book. Don't knmow how to undo a category. There is the odd thing that might be missing (though it could be differences in what constitutes game and could be an error on my part) but checking my list of names against another list today so will wait until after I do that before giving you a few names to check. (Vaudree (talk) 23:24, December 10, 2015 (UTC))

With Seth's decision, will delete the browns in my notes. Trying to list the names by first name in my notes. Have marked them as game or film or blank in my notes - though tend to work on them when feeling too dizzy for the political pages so not totally free of error. If you catch me on line, I can copy and paste the list of first names on to this page - just give me a few days - going through the list of female names now for names that I might have missed. That way, you have the names for your fan fics. More of a theorist than a fanficker - though some consider theories concerning ghost plots fanfic. Theorists tend to be older in age than fanfickers because it is hard to write fanfics about characters the ages of one's kids.

Feel bad for you but also for Seth undoing it all. Know how both positions feel. (Vaudree (talk) 00:29, December 12, 2015 (UTC))

RE:Video game only

Because we do not make any distinction between book, film or video game-only characters, per the canon policy. Also, categories are meant to be in-universe as most as possible (general policy, "In-universe" point of view). Thanks. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 23:57, December 11, 2015 (UTC)

RE:Removing Video Game Only category.

It's the first I'm hearing about that category, but I'd also advise against it. We already list Hogwarts students by year of Sorting (cf. Category:Individuals by year of Sorting), and such a category would be arbitary and redundant IMO. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 00:23, December 12, 2015 (UTC)

Erm, no it isn't. Eloise Midgen, for example, was attending Hogwarts in 1993-1994, and she didn't make an appearance in any of the video games. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 00:35, December 12, 2015 (UTC)
A category titled "Attended Hogwarts during 1993-1994 school year" wouldn't be used to categorise only characters from video games -- by definition, it would group articles on all characters known to have attended Hogwarts on that year, and then would lose its point of distinguishing between characters from video games and characters from the books/films; your argument defeats itself, there.
As for your "List of Known Gryffindors/Hufflepuffs/Ravenclaws/Slytherins" -- how would I be supposed to know anything about that? An article just to hold a list of the sort would be pointless anyway (and undoubtedly deleted on the spot), since we already have categories for that effect (cf. Category:Gryffindors, Category:Ravenclaws, Category:Hufflepuffs, Category:Slytherins).
By the way, you don't really have to copy-paste my messages back on my talk page. Thanks. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 01:14, December 12, 2015 (UTC)

Never highlighted Eloise Midgen in brown on my so that one was done after I looked at the changes for the day. Look at the changes section for new names because I figure if there were updates it would be there. Sorry for all the problems - even if this one was not me. Collecting the names by first names that you can offer to anyone wanting to try this in the future - to nip it in the bud.

The names on the albums in the movies are not on my list - but they seem consistent with an article that a politician/musician/writer posted on his page about a musical movement in the UK at about the time JKR was young where the kids in the UK got together in underground dance halls where they played independent music from the United States - mainly white kids dancing to music by mainly black artists. Assume that everyone has parents. Trying to only include real people if they partake in the fiction - so it won't be all the names on here - but enough different ones.

Promise if I ever get together a list of family surnames (where there is more than one person who has them) that there isn't a page for yet, that I will give to someone else to put up. (Vaudree (talk) 01:46, December 12, 2015 (UTC))


These are the letter A names - tell me if you want the rest. Put (game) in "find" to get to those names. Feel free to delete this.

A - A Osborn (film),

AAMIR - Aamir Loonat (game), ABERFORTH - Aberforth Dumbledore, ABIGAIL - Abigail Nicola (game), Abigail Pugh (game), ABLE - Able Spudmore, ABRAHAM - Abraham Peasegood, Abraham (film), ABRAXAS - Abraxas Malfoy, ADAM - Adam Pickering (game), ADELAIDE - Adelaide Murton (game), ADRIAN - Adrian Pucey, Adrian (film), Adrian Speke (game), AGATHA - Agatha Chubb, Agatha Timms, Agatha Thrussington (game), AGNES - Agnes, Agnes Monkleigh (game), AIDAN - Aidan Kiely, Aidan Lynch, Aiden O'Connor (game), AKI - Aki Sugiyama (game), ALAIN - Alain Lacroix (game), ALANNIS - Alannis (game), Alannis Sheppley (game), ALASTOR - Alastor Gumboil, Alastor Moody, ALBERIC - Alberic Grunnion, ALBERT - Albert Boot, Albert Flack, Albert Jorkins, Albert Runcorn, Albert Gibbering Stump (film), Albert Tillyman, Albert (game), Alberta Toothill, Adalbert Waffling, ALBUS - Albus Percival Wulfric Brian Dumbledore, Albus Severus Potter, ALECTO - Alecto Carrow, ALEC - ALEC - Alec Webb (film), ALEX - Alexia Walkin Black, Alexei Levski, Alex Sykes I, Alex Sykes II (game), Alex Wednesbury (game), Alexis Marie (game), ALEXANDER - Alejandra Alonso, Alasdair Maddock, Alexander William (game), ALEXANDRA - Alexandra Walker (film), Alexandra Rokonski (film), ALFRED - Alfred Cattermole, ALGERNON - Algernon Rookwood, Algie, uncle Algie, ALGUFF - Alguff the Awful, ALI - Ali Bashir, ALICE - Alice Pettigrew Longbottom, Alicia Spinnet, Alice Tolipan (witch), Alice Tolipan (muggle-film), Alice (film), ALIKO - Aliko Okoye, ALISON - Alison Denbright, Alison Denshaw (game), Allison Barnes (game), ALISTAIR - Alistair Ballcocke (film), Alistaire Ballcocke (film), Alistair Thaxted (game), ALMERICK - Almerick Sawbridge, ALPHARD - Alphard Black, ALTHEDA - Altheda, ALYS - Alys (film), AMANDA - Amanda (film), Amanda Pettet (film), mandy AMATA - Amata, AMBROSIUS - Ambrosius Flume, Amrose Swatt (film), AMELIA - Amelia Susan Bones, Amelia Fittleworth (game), AMINA - Amina Qureshi (game), AMOS - Amos Diggory, AMRISH - Amrish Gupta (game), AMROSE - Amrose Swott (film), AMY - Amy Benson, Amy Frome (game), Aimee (film), AMYCUS - Amycus Carrow, ANA - Ana de Lebron (game), Ana ANANYO - Ananyo Dhillon (game), ANDREW - Andrew Kirke, Andrew Cleveley (game), Andrew Owly, Andrew Saxby (game), Andrew Snowyowl, Andrew (game), Andy Smudgley (film), Andrea Kegsworth (game), ANDROS - Andros the Invincible, ANDROMEDA - Andromeda Black Tonks, ANGELINA - Angelina Johnson Weasley, Angelina B---, ANGELUS - Angelus Peel, Angelus Moriattis (film), ANGUS - Angus Campbell, Angus Fleet, Angus Buchanan, Angus Matlock (game), Angus (film), Angus McMangus (game), ANITA - Anita MacDuff (game), ANJALI - Anjali Kapoor (game), ANJI - Anji Oliver (film), ANNA - Anna Mirfield (game), Anna Hill-Hall (film), ANNABEL - Annabel Entwhistle (game), ANNE - Sally-Anne Perks, Anne Boleyn, ANNIS - Annis Black, ANTHONY - Anthony Goldstein, Anthony Otterburn (game), Anthony Rickett (game), ANTIOCH - Antioch Peverell, ANTONIN - Antonin Dolohov, Dame Antonia Creaseworthy (film), APOLLINE - Apolline Delacour, APOLLYON - Apollyon Pringle, ARABELLA - Arabella Doreen Figg, ARAMINTA - Araminta Meliflua Black, ARBELO - Chavelle Arbelo Cartaya (game), ARIANA - Ariana Dumbledore, ARIEL - Ariel Singleton (game), AMARILLO - Amarillo Lestoat, AMBER - Amber Noel (game), AMROSE - Amrose Swott (film), ARCHER - Archer Evermonde, ARCHIBALD - Archibald Alderton, Archibald Bienbon, Archibald Bennett (film), Arkie Alderton, Arkie Philpott, Archie Aymslowe, ARCTURUS - Arcturus Black (1835-1893), Arcturus Black (1884-1959), Arcturus Black (1901-1991), Arturo Cephalopos, ARTHUR - Arthur Weasley, Arthur (game), Arthur B G (film), William Arthur "Bill" Weasley, ARCUS- Arcus, ARGUS - Argus Filch, Argus Pyrites, Argo Pyrites, ARIANA - Ariana Dumbledore, ARMAN - Arman Shettigar (game), ARMAND - Armando Dippet, Armand Malfoy (first), ARNOLD - Arnold Peasegood, Arnold Streeton (game), Arnold Vogler (game), Arnold Weasley (Arthur), ARON - Aron Woodbridge (game), ARNULF - Arnulf Moe, ARSENIUS - Arsenia Gonzales, Arsenius Jigger, ARTEMIUS - Artemius Lawson, Artemisia Lufkin, Newton "Newt" Artemis Fido Scamander, ASGARD - Asgard Pettersson (game), ASGEIR - Asgeir Knutsen (game), ASHA - Asha, ASHISH - Ashish Patel (game), ASHLEY - Ashley Sanders, ASHOK - Ashok Khanna (game), ARJUNA - Arjuna Balaji (game), ASMA - Asma Rahman (game), ASTORIA - Astoria Greengrass Malfoy, ASTRIX - Astrix Alix---, ATSUSHI - Atsushi Takagi (game), AUDREY - Audrey Weasley, AUGUSTUS - Augusta Longbottom, Augustus Pye, Augustus Rookwood, Augustus Worme, AVERY - Avery Hawksworth (game), AURORA - Aurora Sinistra, AUSTIN -Austin Guthrie (game), (Vaudree (talk) 01:53, December 13, 2015 (UTC))

New Categories

Best to check with Seth first. I know you are just trying to make it better, but it is not up to you or me to decide what is better - we can suggest one way or the other repeatedly if we want, but it is up to the mods. If the mods don't approve of a new category, they swear and feel frustrated that they have to undo it all to get things back to the way they figure it should be - they see it as extra work that they have to do instead of what they really wanted to be doing that day.

You will also end up feeling frustrated because you did all this work and it is gone.

One person's making things better is another person's making a mess that they have to clean up. Remember that. (Vaudree (talk) 02:09, December 13, 2015 (UTC))


I did check the Gryffindor, Hufflepuff, Ravenclaw, or Slytherin articles (I don't like to pull rank, but I daresay I've been editing those pages for years before you even knew they existed). What I meant was that articles created with the sole purpose of listing known Gryffindors, Hufflepuffs, etc., would be deleted since the categories already serve that purpose (the lists on those articles are for easy reference, they aren't exhaustive, and are not meant to be).

Your category of "Hogwarts students only known to have attended Hogwarts in the 1993-1994 school year" was deleted for a number of reasons. First, it was not grouping articles together on what their subjects themselves have in common, but on our knowledge (or in this case, limited knowledge) of them. Secondly, it's redundant, for the reasons I have already pointed out to you (we already list Hogwarts students by year of Sorting). Thirdly, it still doesn't manage to reach your goal of grouping together articles on students from the video games (there are numerous other individuals that would qualify as "students only known to have attended Hogwarts in 1993-1994" that weren't in the video games: you named one yourself, Kellah; Derek, Michael McManus, Pike also come to mind). Fourth, it was arbitrary and unnecessary, and it doesn't fit the category tree.

I honestly don't know what kind of an argument is "the Bible has concordances", so I wouldn't know how counter-argue. Thanks, --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 21:53, December 13, 2015 (UTC)

What the category said is neither here nor there. The fact remains that each and every one of the video game characters that you listed would have, in-universely, to have attended Hogwarts in preceeding or succeeding years, unless it were for the unlikely event they all died during the summer holidays or otherwise dropped out of school. The very same argument you make about Derek (he was a first-year in 1993-1994, ergo, he must've attended the following 6 school years) can be made about any of the video game characters -- their only nuance is our lack of knowledge, for the most part, of what year the video game characters are. The four characters I cited make an appearance in only a single canon source. If you take it literally, they are actually only confirmed to be at Hogwarts in 1993-1994, the timeframe of the books/movies in which they made an appearance (Kellah, Michael McManus and Pike in the PoA film; Derek in PoA novel); all other info is based on inference -- the very same inference that allows us to logically conclude that every video game character we see at Hogwarts in 1993-1994 necessarily has to have attended previous school years (in the event they are not first years), or that they will have to attend following school years (in the event they are first years).
As for policy not specifying categories, that's not much of an argument. Excluding categories on obviously out-of-universe subjects (which characters clearly are not), most of the categories in our category tree are written in-universe; certainly all categories under the Category:Harry Potter universe (our hub category on in-universe articles) are in-universe. But that's not even the argument -- I have nothing to say of the wording of the category, merely that it does not accomplish what you propose: to separate characters between different canonical media. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 23:42, December 14, 2015 (UTC)
Our whole argument up to this point has been about policy and semantics; I don't know why you are so surprised. If you think my explanation is simple and logical, then it is I who is surprised that you still didn't get where I was coming from with the Derek et al. counterexample.
If you question my capacity to have administrator editing privileges so, you are at perfect liberty to propose my removal at the forum. See? -- helpful, not trollish.
As for the Prefect Badge, I choose to thank you for the compliment. And to admonish your use of the word "ironic" (quite overused these days to refer to situations which are remarkable for reasons other than irony). And to ignore the rest (since politely assuming good faith has its limits). Thanks,
--  Seth Cooper  owl post! 23:53, December 15, 2015 (UTC)
Apology taken, think nothing of it. (Before I reply, please, whenever linking to a category on a talk page, please type a colon (:) before "Category:" -- type Category:Hogwarts students of unknown House instead of Category:Hogwarts students of unknown House -- so that my talk page doesn't get inadvertently put in that category! Thanks!)
Prefect badges are awarded at any user's discretion to reward any significant edits, projects, or the like. The Non-Canonical Spells page was an article listing all spells from the films and games (they didn't have their own articles back then) that was deleted in 2008, when the canon policy came into effect. The Prefect Badge was awarded to me for giving a hand in separating that huge out-of-universe article into several smaller in-universe articles, as they are today. Here ends the Lesson.
As for Hogwarts students of unknown House, I say you're right, it is incoherent. I say it seems unnecessary to have a category that groups together articles based on our lack of knowledge of one of its aspects. Not only because it seems a contravention of the concept of "category" (i.e. we are not grouping something on their similarities with other thing -- absence of a category seems evidence enough that we know nothing about something; that is, if an article isn't categorised under "Gryffindor", "Hufflepuff", "Ravenclaw" or "Slytherin", but is under "Hogwarts students", it seems logical that we don't know what House that student was in), but also because it creates a dreadful precedent of similarily useless (and potentially endless) categories (I can see categories like "Individuals of unknown job", "Individuals of unknown wand", "Individuals of unknown birth year", "Individuals of unknown favourite drink", "Individuals of unknown underwear preference",... you get the picture). I've opposed such categories before, and I remember that at least two such categories have been deleted in the past (if I remember correctly, they were Category:Individuals of unknown nationality, and Category:Individuals with unknown blood status). I wouldn't oppose that page (and Unknown deaths, which also comes to mind) being deleted -- I imagine the reason they haven't been yet is inertia. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 02:46, December 16, 2015 (UTC)

Caractacus Phelps

Only one source gives that definition of Caractacus you prefer and they tend to give definitions not found elsewhere. Most sourses note Caractacus as the Latin form of Caradoc meaning "beloved" or "dearly loved". Caradoc is a more modern spelling of Caradog. At Edgar's, they give a list of names associated with Caradog:

Alternates: Caradoc, Caradock, Cradog. British: Caratacos, Karatákos. Irish Gaelic: Carthac, Carthach. Irish (Anglicized): Carthage. Latin: Caratacus, Caractacus.

Surnames: Craddock.

If you go to Cedric on Edgar's you get "Cedric was coined by Sir Walter Scott for his 1819 novel Ivanhoe (in which Cedric the Saxon was a prominent character). It is theorized that he developed (perhaps inadvertently) the name from Cerdic, the name of an early Saxon leader (the founder of the kingdom of Wessex). It is possibly connected with Caractacus, the name of an early Briton who led a rebellion against Rome in the 1st century." [1]

Behind the Name refers to Caratacus rather than Caractacus - say that it comes from the Celtic Caratacos and gives Caradoc, Caradog and Cedric (through Cerdic) as variants. [2]

These sources say that Caractus=Caratacus and link it to Caradoc. [3] [4]

I have no interest in taking down your definition - it is possible in some cases and I believe in multiple definitions and yours qualifies as a potential secondary definition. However, I ask you to put back up the definition used in most cases - the primary definition - which is the one that links Caractacus to Caradoc (and potentially to Cedric, through Cerdic, though there are other equally valid theories behind the name Cedric). If you don't promise to put it back up my self as a New Years resolution, but in better form. Which means that it will be up before 2017. Links between names is one tool that can be used in Theories. (Vaudree (talk) 08:28, December 16, 2015 (UTC))

Cool-off ban

Since I cannot find a way to interpret your userpage cheek in any other light than bad faith, and I don't have to take this from you (or anyone, for that matter), I am hereby giving you your first two-week-long cool-off ban. Should you wish to continue collaborating in the Harry Potter Wiki once the block expires, I'd expect less impertinent behaviour from then on (removing the offensive comments directed at yours truly from your page would be, I should think, a wise place to begin -- rest assured, I am not touching those, so you don't miss your opportunity). I'm leaving your talk page editable during the length of your block. Cheers, and Happy Christmas to you and yours. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 23:38, December 16, 2015 (UTC)

Takes a deep breath to try to calm down considers writing something and placing strikethrough on it but (would have wrote something you would have taken issue with here but (would have wrote something you would have taken issue with here but restrained myself) restrained myself) decided against it. You - agh, can I even try and defend myself without saying something you'll take issue with?! Look, I'm sorry if you were offended. I thought you had a better sense of humor than this, or at least patience to ask me to take it down or face a ban. Please do not take offense to these questions! Did you read the part where I described you as usually friendly but nevertheless devastating? Did you take into account what I'd told you about getting passionate about things? Are you not able to empathize with how after a bad day at work you are only hours away of reaping the fruits of your labors when literally before your eyes someone starts deleting hours of your work? Do you just hate Weasleys (And the Weasley Twins at that, many in fanfiction who don't like the Weasleys make an exception for good ol' Gred and Forge ) that Pinhead and Bighead Boy made you upset instead of making your lips twitch upwards? Because, keeping in the "in-universe" spirit, in my defense, George and Fred started it! This is the kind of spirit I made the changes to my User page. When I listed your species as Troll in the infobox (or administratorius troglodytarum cuparius to be precise (See, I even gave you your own cool taxonomic name)

There's more but you should know the first thing I tried to do was take down the offending content. But you blocked TWO IPs?! Without warning? Restrains myself from writing something in anger

Because of the dynamic nature of IPs, and the related risk of collateral damage, most blocks should be in the range of 24 hours to 1 month, with exceptions noted below. Only in very rare cases should non-proxy IPs be blocked for more than three months.

Harry Potter Wiki:Blocking policy

Personal attacks – Users attacking other editors personally (in regards to anything) should be given one warning prior to a cool-off ban. The length of the ban is dependent on the severity of personal attacks.

Harry Potter Wiki:Blocking policy

No warning, and a ban 14 times the minimum length. Yeah, so I'll expect that ban lifted by tomorrow, but if not, then by the day after that. Any longer (would have wrote something you would have taken issue with here but restrained myself) --  Tepheris |Lenom animated avatar by tepheris|  Send Patronus  03:27, December 17, 2015 (UTC)

Regarding policy: First, no IPs were blocked, just your account. Second, if you're so keen to cite policy, you should read the Blocking policy all the way through to the end (specifically, that part about final discretion about the length of a block being left to the blocking admin).
Regarding my lack of sense of humour, I never took offense to your questions. The contents you put on your userpage, especially when considering that we were in the middle of a (perfectly legitimate) disagreement, shows a counter-productive lack of civility. It could be read by anyone as an unreasonable attempt at ridicule and at undermining my idoneity as an administrator and editor — and I gave you no reason to do so. Also, did it ever cross your mind that you're not the only person in the world who gets to have bad days?
Either way, repeatedly saying that I am easily offended and that you, if you had your way, "would write something [I] would have taken issue with" does not make much for your case. I should tell you that I have no serious intention to shorten your ban. Cheers. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 04:23, December 17, 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me, but if the IP isn't blocked, then why do I get messages that say my IP has been blocked when I tried to take down the offending content while logged out? And again when I tried to set up a different account? --  Tepheris |Lenom animated avatar by tepheris|  Send Patronus  04:36, December 17, 2015 (UTC)

Because logged-off users can't edit, and creating new accounts is disabled for you, to stop you from circumvent your ban. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 05:04, December 17, 2015 (UTC)

Fair point. (_ _).。o○ Are you serious? Pointing me towards the civility as a justification for your actions? Yes, I admit I was not civil (though I was trying for parody and satire rather than outright being uncivil) but did you read the same thing I did?

Users should be clearly warned, in most circumstances, before being blocked for incivility, and should be allowed sufficient time to retract, refactor or explain uncivil comments. Even experienced contributors should not be blocked without warning. Exceptions to this may include users who make egregious violations or threats, or who have received multiple warnings.

—Wikipedia Civility Policy

And again!

Personal attacks – Users attacking other editors personally (in regards to anything) should be given one warning prior to a cool-off ban. The length of the ban is dependent on the severity of personal attacks.

Harry Potter Wiki:Blocking policy

You Gave Me No Warning.

Aside from the infobox, where the offensive alterations were either inspired by the Weasley Twins, your Boggart of New Categories representing your aversion to new categories that aren't "in-universe" WHICH IS STILL NOT SUPPORTED ON THE POLICY PAGE, or were based on how the large icon on your user page employs a TROLLFACE, the only other matters that could be interpreted as an ad hominem attack is referring to administratorius troglodytarum cuparius, which also is an attempt at humor based on how your avatar DEPICTS A TROLLFACE. Then all that is left is either a parody of a "save the whales!" type of environmentalists, warning them there may be no reasoning with you, or a word of caution to other users that efforts to make the site a better reference for finding facts about the Potterverse may not be appreciated. If I'm still banned by Friday, I'll know my current of you at the moment is at least partly justified.

--  Tepheris |Lenom animated avatar by tepheris|  Send Patronus  05:53, December 17, 2015 (UTC)

I did give you a prior warning. Following your equally uncalled-for "Prefect Badge" message, I pointed out to you that comments like those were starting to stretch my lenient assumption of good-faith on your behalf. Since you proceeded to apologise, I thought I'd gotten the point across. I gave you the opportunity to retract your uncivil comments, which you did, and I accepted the apology -- you were actually blocked for managing to do the exact same thing immediately afterwards.
There's a fine line between "it was all in good fun" and harrassment. Parody or satire is ultimately interpreted on context: given that you put up your parody on your userpage while we were having an altercation, all it comes across is that you were rudely belittling and challenging me, and not contributing to a pleasant collaborative environment. Sorry, but that's the way it is. Your final acknowledgement that what drove you to do it was to "warn" users that "there may be no reasoning with [me]" and that I am actively trying to damage the wiki, helps putting your harmless parody into perspective. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 19:58, December 17, 2015 (UTC)

It's cliche but in this case it seems so appropriate: when you assume, it makes an a$$ out of you and me. You assumed that I would have interpreted and ignore the rest (since politely assuming good faith has its limits)

In any way equated in my mind to:

This is an official warning.

Further such activity

will result in Banning.

Because when I think of a warning, I at least expect the word "warning" to be used!

Was that too much

for me to expect?

Indeed, it was actually your comment about the Prefect Badge that made me assume you would have at least given me a chance to take it down before banning me for nearly half the max penalty! Did you assume that I only apologized because I thought I was receiving a warning? The more we go back and forth, the more I feel like I was justified in putting up those warnings.

Don't get me wrong.

I'm still sorry for what I did, but this ban isn't working as a cool-off, it's causing me to steadily simmer. I'm glad I rediscovered CSS, because I've felt like I would have been justified in filling that space with words I would have regretted. Saying that you're ability to take my posts in good faith is running out is one thing. To me, that gives me the impression that if I continue on, you will assume active malice. Well, that would be when I would have expected you to issue a warning. Logically, the point where you could no longer assume good faith would be the first offense in official policy.

--  Tepheris |Lenom animated avatar by tepheris|  Send Patronus  23:11, December 17, 2015 (UTC)

You were uncivil. I pointed it out for you that you were being innapropriate. You apologised and then went back and did the exact same thing. The blocking policy, which you are so keen to cite, ultimately leaves final discretion on block lenghts to me, as an admin, on a "case-by-case basis". (You also seem to ​wrongly ​believe that there is a set "max penalty" for disruption or personal attacks -- there really isn't. The "max penalty" can't be halved any more than you can half infinity -- of course, an infinite block for something as minor as this, and as a first block would, everyone would agree with this, grossly disproportionate.)
A block is, by definition, a preventive measure (i.e. to prevent this kind of situations take place again). You are free to simmer or even boil all you want, as long as you keep in mind that you are not to display that kind of behaviour in future (however justified you feel), once your block expires. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 23:42, December 17, 2015 (UTC)

Had you given me

a clear warning

this wouldn't

have happened.

What you claim

was a warning

instead gave the


you were very

patient with me.

You shouldn't have

expected that by

saying that I was

stretching the

assumption of

good faith—

This is


too long

Alright, where was I? Right. Hope you found the abrupt transition amusing. You should not have expected that by saying:

As for the Prefect Badge, I choose to thank you for the compliment. And to admonish your use of the word "ironic" (quite overused these days to refer to situations which are remarkable for reasons other than irony). And to ignore the rest (since politely assuming good faith has its limits). Thanks.

—Seth Cooper's Alleged Official Warning to Tepheris

Now, did you say that your assumption of good faith was at an end? No, though it could admitted be inferred this was the case, I can only see that because you claim that this was my official warning. Alright, I am going to use a bunch of "I feel" statements. You're level-headed enough not to hold the things someone feels against them, right? (On the way you are justifying banning me though, I FEEL this is not the case)

I feel that your claim that you gave me a warning doesn't hold water. I feel that if you want to be able to claim that you had given me a warning, you should have actually used the word "warning", as other forums are unambiguously worded. I feel for you to have the least bit of credibility in claiming that your alleged warning constituted an acceptable warning, you should have explicitly said the assumption of good faith was at an end. Even when you claimed the quote above was your allegedly official warning, you used the phrase "stretching" the assumption of good faith. When I hear *subject* has its limits, I immediately assume that while the subject is definitely near the end, it is not yet completely exhausted. I feel that it is not realistic of you to think your alleged warning was sufficient notice that one more misdemeanor could result in a ban. I was under the impression that for the first offense, I would receive a warning

Now, try as I might, I feel you will take offense to this next part. Maybe I'm dense, but I can only lessen the sting.

The way I see it, not only does your alleged warning fail to qualify as sufficient notice of impending ban, but you also reneged on your choice to "ignore the rest".

Ask yourself this question, if I you had not given me what you considered a warning, would you have gone straight to banning me? Also, funny thing about discretion. There's the definition used in policy guidelines: the power or right to decide or act according to one's own judgment; freedom of judgment or choice But there's also: the quality of behaving or speaking in such a way as to avoid social embarrassment or distress For some reason, I think whoever wrote the Policy page would agree that both definitions apply to how admins hand out bans. And (I feel) you

didn't even try

to fulfill the later definition.

Users should be clearly warned, in most circumstances, before being blocked for incivility, and should be allowed sufficient time to retract, refactor or explain uncivil comments. Even experienced contributors should not be blocked without warning. Exceptions to this may include users who make egregious violations or threats, or who have received multiple warnings.

—Wikipedia Civility Policy

You claim to have given me a warning, but I feel that if you were honest you would agree this was not a clear warning. I certainly did not make any threats, and I don't think a somewhat mean-spirited parody/caricature/satire with my own user page qualifies as "egregious violations". I certainly haven't received multiple warnings!

I thought I ought clear one thing up that I should have done sooner:

Your final acknowledgement that what drove you to do it was to "warn" users that "there may be no reasoning with [me]" and that I am actively trying to damage the wiki, helps putting your harmless parody into perspective.

—Seth Cooper

I did not think the page gave the impression that you are actively trying to damage the wiki. You do a good job as an editor, in fact my issues with you started because I think you do your job as an editor TOO WELL. What I attempted to convey was that you're like Harry Potter Wikia's immune system: you attack anything that isn't "in-universe". If a category doesn't fit to a set of standards so high the only thing I can think of off the top of my head with higher standards would be determining the canonical status of books of the Bible, you'll remove it.

And as for what you said about the purpose of a block, yeah that's counterproductive too. First thing I tried to do upon seeing I was blocked was take down the offending articles. I moved so fast to try I didn't even notice this section was still enabled until I exhausted all approaches.

Just out of curiosity, would it have been better for me if I had done what I had originally thought of and changed your titles on you Userpage to Pinhead and Bighead Boy, along with adding the Boggart of New Categories without having all the things referencing admi- well, you know? --  Tepheris |Lenom animated avatar by tepheris|  Send Patronus  04:39, December 18, 2015 (UTC)

This is a time out - a temporary ban - a cooling off period. Whether you figure it fair or unfair - it is only temporary. By putting gasoline on the fire, you are only shooting yourself in the foot. Good time for you to work on a fan fic. A time out doesn't stop you from seeing if a name or it's variant exists in the HP universe. Pick 10 names you like and see if either they or a spelling variant or nickname of it exists. (Vaudree (talk) 19:18, December 18, 2015 (UTC))

There's no such thing as an 'official warning', we are not required to have a bugler calling in and a town crier reading a proclamation. You were warned not to go there, and then you went there, simple as that. (I should also note that you are clinging way too much to Wikipedia policy -- they serve as reference comparative guidelines, nothing more; they certainly aren't Harry Potter Wiki policy and do not in any way trump it).
I'm not even attempting to discuss your semantic analysis of my admonition: if someone tells you you are starting to get on their nerves, do you honestly interpret it as "Well, it's ok if I just continue doing the same -- I'm just starting to get on their nerves; it's not as if they're quite bothered yet"?
About "discretion" -- that is central to our discussion: it was precisely because you acted without a sense of discretion (the second definition you provided) that this all situation came to be. Had you had the quality of behaving or speaking in such a way as to avoid social embarrassment or distress, and you would've realised straightaway that your "somewhat mean-spirited" (your words) parody was inappropriate.
As for you not being able to edit your userpage; I don't have any power over that, blocked users can only edit their talk pages (if enabled) as a last means of communication. Not to worry, it's not going anywhere and you can undo the damage once the block expires.
Also, I've refrained from saying anything about it yet, but tone says a lot. I feel you're using a needlessly disagreeable tone ‎(specially, but not limited to, using 400%-size smallcaps chunks of text in strong colours -- which, even for emphasis, seems too much), and think future conversations would run more smoothly if you did without it.
Lastly, and I'm agreeing with Vaudree, here, I don't think it's sensible to continue this convo. It's leading nowhere and it just seems to be undermining the intention of your block. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 02:30, December 19, 2015 (UTC)
P.S.: You are strongly disadvised from unjustifiably editing other user's talk page comments, and that includes message headers/subjects. Especially if said edit is aimed at making light of what the other user is saying. As you did to my header above (since reverted). For all that's worth, consider this an official warning. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 02:36, December 19, 2015 (UTC)


Explain to me why exactly I am blocked from viewing statistics. --  Tepheris |Lenom animated avatar by tepheris|  Send Patronus  03:28, December 19, 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing that oversight.

--  Tepheris |Lenom animated avatar by tepheris|  Send Patronus  18:26, December 19, 2015 (UTC)

Would it matter if I did cite Harry Potter Wiki policy? I feel that my actions, while completely inappropriate, weren't as severe as vandalism, which can effect the entire site. All the offending content was on my user page, something other people on the wiki aren't likely to come to.

Any users committing acts of vandalism will be blocked and sent to Azkaban for a period of 24-72 hours.

Harry Potter Wiki:Policy

So when you place a block on me four and two thirds longer than what the Site Policy lists as the upper range for vandals who don't do so much damage as to merit being an exception to the guidelines, when coupled with other things, leaves me with suspicions that you just didn't want to deal with me over Christmas and maybe hoped that I'd be upset enough that I would leave the wiki.

Personal attacks – Users attacking other editors personally (in regards to anything) should be given one warning prior to a cool-off ban. The length of the ban is dependent on the severity of personal attacks.

Harry Potter Wiki:Blocking policy

I've already said how I feel that I should have received a clear warning before being blocked. Your response was

There's no such thing as an 'official warning', we are not required to have a bugler calling in and a town crier reading a proclamation.

Harry Potter Wiki:Blocking policy

No, I suppose you're not REQUIRED to issue an official warning. I just was under the false assumption that, given the incredibly high standards in other categories (which include Categories) that administrators here would at least match those seen in other forums I have been on, where they did give official warnings. Is there a way to send private messages? I'll admit I assumed this is the case since PMs are a common feature on web communities. Are Admins able to send Notifications? But even if someone had to use the Talk Pages, I confess I fail to see it would be too much trouble to leave on a Talk Page something like:
This is an official warning. (Description of offense) Further such activity will result in Banning.

Block duration may vary, depending on the severity and longevity of vandalism, but in most instances a block can be lifted if the editor agrees to stop the damaging behaviour.

Harry Potter Wiki:Blocking policy

I don't know why I am bothering citing this, it's not like anything I say could ever change your mind, but a guy can hope.

When considering blocking, it is important to remember the axiom "Never attribute to malice what can be attributed to stupidity"

Harry Potter Wiki:Blocking policy

Okay, I'll admit it, I was holding the Idiot Ball. I deserved the Troll on that exam. Looking back I can't believe I was so inexplicably dense. What in Merlin's baggy pants was I thinking, assuming that you'd take the infobox edits and the various section headers in a way that the worst that would have happened would be the issuing of a warning? For many minor offenses, the common procedure is the issuing of a warning for the first offense. If you had been sincere when you said

As for the Prefect Badge, I choose to... ignore the rest

—Seth Cooper

Then I would have a clean slate. Forgot to sign this.

So yeah, the block would've been lifted by now if you were the bigger man in this conflict, or even if you just followed the Policy guidelines. --  Tepheris |Lenom animated avatar by tepheris|  Send Patronus  02:32, December 20, 2015 (UTC)

Seth, what in Merlin's sweaty socks did you do. I can't see Statistics AGAIN. I thought you fixed that. What's the big idea? If this was your doing, you're making a liar out of the Wiki when it says:

Note: You are not blocked from reading pages, only from editing them.

Well, a message with your name on it says otherwise. --  Tepheris |Lenom animated avatar by tepheris|  Send Patronus  20:57, December 30, 2015 (UTC)


RE: " a universe where Harry was adopted by Snape ..." - I don't know if that counts as an example of an alternate universe since, according to Snape's memories, Snape took on the responsibility of protecting Harry after Lily's death. It was not an adoption in the sense that Harry did not go to live with Snape nor did Snape raise Harry, but it was an adoption in the sense that DD convinced Snape that his only way of honouring Lily was to keep her boy safe and help defeat the wizard who murdered her.

Should there be a section on ghost plots - instances where JKR was originally going to go one way but changed her mind? There are some known instances - such as Arthur living, rather than dying or Dean finding out about what happened to his father and why. Likely, there are unknown instances a well. (Vaudree (talk) 01:40, December 31, 2015 (UTC))


You do realise, of course, that I can read and easily translate insults obviously directed at me, even if they are written in Chinese and hidden by code? --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 01:50, December 31, 2015 (UTC)

More sarcastic infoboxes. Are you trying to prove a point? I would appreciate it if you could kindly reply my question above. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 02:19, December 31, 2015 (UTC)

Okay, adjective 該死的 was completely and totally unacceptable, m(_ _)m sorry. And I should further have prefaced the whole statement with 從我的看法. But other than that, well, what am I supposed to think when, after having already had thoughts that you don't hold yourself to same standards as you do for me, I see you reverse an edit I made using the same logic you cited in our discussions?

Agh! Always seem to forget the signature! --  Tepheris |Lenom animated avatar by tepheris|  Send Patronus  02:48, December 31, 2015 (UTC)

You do, of course, understand that a "completely and totally unacceptable" comment literally about an hour after your block expired is -- well, completely and totally unacceptable behaviour, and that you are now perilously close to an indefinite ban?
As for the revert in 1980s, you have, quite literally, no case. The way that entry is worded right now does not breach the in-universe point-of-view the slightest (ever heard of a modus tollendo ponens?). Even if it did, there wouldn't be any excuse to start flat out calling me an hypocrite. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 03:10, December 31, 2015 (UTC)

If your going to play games like that with my words and take them so literally, can you justify - oh why do I bother. Everything I say gets ignored other than to form a retort. But when you tell me to 'think nothing of it', with 'it' being what you claimed was my warning, is it truly that much of a stretch of the imagination that I could get the impression you operate on double standards?

First, it was not grouping articles together on what their subjects themselves have in common, but on our knowledge (or in this case, limited knowledge) of them.

—21:53 December 13, 2015 (UTC)

So a category gets deleted because it was based on our lack of knowledge, but inside an actual article, it's not just fine to base something on our lack of knowledge (only knowing that Gryffindor did NOT win), making the page match statement of what is known both in-universe and from our perspective for is NOT allowed for Merlin knows why. No case you say? If things being in-universe is so important, than how is stating that Gryffindor did not win the cup (which is true from all perspectives) something that is overturned in favor saying that Either Hufflepuff, Ravenclaw, or Slytherin won the Quidditch cup? Sure, TECHNICALLY you could say that the statement 'Either Hufflepuff, Ravenclaw, or Slytherin won the Quidditch cup' remains true from an in-universe perspective where scores of in-universe characters, probably such as Bill Weasley, Charlie Weasley, or Nymphadora Tonks, would know which House (Other Than Gryffindor) won the House Cup in the school years from the 86-87 through 88-89. Would it be in-universe for Charlie Weasley to answer "Yeah, we didn't win the Quidditch cup during the 1987-1988 year. It was either Hufflepuff, Ravenclaw, or Slytherin who did."? Maybe you just didn't think that hard about, but if you can't understand why I could see your actions as hypocritical after walking you through my thought process, and still say I have no case, let me know. Wait, let me reverse that. If you CAN see where I was coming from I will know there is hope that my efforts to make meaningful contributions. Oh, and another reason why I get the impression you have double standards? That edit you say I have no case making? Yeah, when I came across that page, I looked at it and thought, no joke, What would Seth Cooper do?, and the edits I made were overturned by you. So what I said about letting me know if you CAN understand why I would think you a hypocrite after that last little tidbit? Doubly so now. I hope I didn't waste my time as I fear.

LONG POST LIKE THIS MAKE TEPHERIS FORGET LEAVE SIGNATURE! --  Tepheris |Lenom animated avatar by tepheris|  Send Patronus  04:42, December 31, 2015 (UTC)

Oh, boy. First, saying that "Gryffindor didn't win" or "Either Ravenclaw, Slytherin, or Hufflepuff won" is a logical equivalence. It means exactly the same thing; they are logical disjuncts. Second, I fear I must direct you, once again, to the in-universe PoV policy again: it isn't out-of-universe to say something is unknown, any more that it isn't absurd to say on Wikipedia that it is unknown what year Attila the Hun was born. We are supposed to be writing about this as if we are historians at some point the future, being given limited access to the facts, with no Bills or Charlies or Tonkses to ask who won the Cup that year (hence why we are supposed to write articles in the past tense).
Lastly, I couldn't really care less about your thought process -- if you thought I was in the wrong, all you had to do was to bring it up to me, politely, ask me why I'd reverted your edit, or tell me why you thought I was in the wrong. That way, a possible outcome would be me saying "Well, you know, I think you might be right" -- that's how a collaborative effort works. There is no excuse for your repeated showings of uncivil behaviour, sarcasm and, now, name-calling, so don't even try to justify it. Honestly, I've had it. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 05:16, December 31, 2015 (UTC)

Official zero-tolerance warning

In light of your recent derisive comments in talk page discussions in which I wasn't even a part of, namely, Talk:Sasquatch and Talk:Violetta Beauvais, I am hereby giving you your final warning, an official warning, if you will. Your behaviour is verging on harassment. Any further disparaging remarks and you will be blocked from editing without further notice. Thanks. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 22:35, March 19, 2016 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.