Hello, Tfoc, and welcome to the Harry Potter Wiki (HPW). Thank you for your edit to the Gilderoy Lockhart 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!

Ironyak1 (talk) 01:37, February 17, 2020 (UTC)


Jacob's sibling page

Hey there! I couldn't help but notice how highly knowledgeable you are in the game, Hogwarts Mystery, as proven by your edits to Dumbledore's page. I've also noticed the high quality in which you have edited the wizard's page, and I would be grateful if you could similarly lend your talents to Jacob's sibling page as well, as it is somewhat vacant and lacking in information. Thank you for reading this. Mite-Man16 (talk) 16:43, March 23, 2020 (UTC)

Hey there! I provided my reply to your query on my own talk page, so as to render it as a follow-up from your message, so please head over to my talk page should you wish to read it. Thank you. Mite-Man16 (talk) 21:16, March 23, 2020 (UTC)

Collating info on 'R'

I would be more than happy to! 😊 'R' has indeed become an intrinsic component of the whole story, with their threat as a malevolent terrorist cabal being solidified by their ruthless murder of Rowan Khanna. They, to me, appear as a reflection of the Death Eaters, and thus represent as much a menace to the protagonists as the latter.

Per your suggestion, we can comb through our respective Years (me: 1, 3, 5 and you: 2, 4, 6) for info related to 'R'. I personally think it prudent to periodically report and compare our findings after doing each year's review separately, rather than relay our findings after reviewing the years all at once. We can then note our findings on one user talk page, to make corresponding easier. We can categorise our individual findings with separate headers/sections for each year on that talk page. We can do this on my talk page or yours, I have no qualms. How does this all sound? Mite-Man16 (talk) 18:14, March 27, 2020 (UTC)

Sounds great! Let the "games" begin. 😁 Mite-Man16 (talk) 20:45, March 27, 2020 (UTC)

While you¨re at it, if a chapter takes place in the artefact room, check the dialouge for objects they're stumbling over not already listed on the wiki page, and I'll do the same. ^^' Tfoc (talk) 13:11, March 28, 2020 (UTC)

Will do. Oh, and by the way, does my partial entry below satisfy what you were requesting for? I'm only asking for this validation so that I'll know how to write the upcoming chapter details properly. Many thanks. Mite-Man16 (talk) 13:46, March 28, 2020 (UTC)

Not to worry, my comrade, I'm aware that there is another message in Year 2 and I'll be sure to record it on your wall. I agree with your suggestion regarding the unidentified Common Room; when creating the page for that first message, we can just write that, after deciphering the note, they attempted to trespass the Common Room other than their own, like how you worded it in your most recent message to me. Until then, good hunting! Mite-Man16 (talk) 14:40, March 28, 2020 (UTC)

Well, the letters already documented in this wiki are all distinctive and different. With regards to R's messages, I think we can compile them all in one page, and maybe title it 'R's messages', because they are all from R, just with different content in each of them, rendering the prospect of creating individual pages for each message rather unnecessary. What do you think? Mite-Man16 (talk) 16:26, March 28, 2020 (UTC)

No apology necessary, my friend. I quite understand your situation from yesterday, having encountered meddlesome sock puppets myself in the past. On another note, have you seen my message just above this one, which is a response to the message you sent before last? Mite-Man16 (talk) 14:23, March 29, 2020 (UTC)

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but wasn't that particular messenger a disguised Ben Copper? (in which case, we can just simply merge the R's messenger page with his page) And wasn't he the only Imperiused student to deliver R's message? (save for Rowan, but they weren't donning a crimson cloak) Mite-Man16 (talk) 15:58, March 29, 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sorry, you're absolutely right. There was indeed another cloaked figure who attacked Ben and the MC. But there was also another incident where Rowan, under the Imperius Curse and without a red cloak, nearly attacked MC and their friends, before Ben dispatched Rowan. Forgive me again, but how do we know Rowan was that cloaked figure that immobilised Ben and the MC? Was it mentioned or revealed somewhere I might've missed? Mite-Man16 (talk) 16:28, March 29, 2020 (UTC)

Nicely reasoned judgement, I must say! I'm sorry, though, I didn't mean to make you explain yourself but thank you for doing so, anyway. Your 1st suggestion which sparked this discussion, regarding altering the contents of the R's messenger page, yes, I quite agree with it. I suggest that we rename the page to R's messengers plural as it's multiple individuals and then alter its contents to accomodate the title. How does that sound? Mite-Man16 (talk) 17:16, March 29, 2020 (UTC)


Hey, Tfoc. I just discovered a means of facilitating the progression of our project, though I don't know if you already know about it or not: a 'Sandbox'. If you already do know, then you don't have to read on but I hope you get where I'm going with it. If you don't, then please read on.

On the Wiki Activity, I noticed that a user by the name of Yechezkelb had edited something called UserYechezkelb/Sandbox6. Out of sheer curiosity, I pressed on it and saw a wiki page related to Hogwarts Mystery on it. I searched up the page's name on the database but nothing came up because it hasn't been created yet. I then did more research on the Internet as to what exactly a 'Sandbox' is in regards to wiki editing. Please head over to this and have a quick look to familiarise yourself with it. I then put two and two together and realised this is just what we need. I think I've encountered this before (someone else's) but never really bothered to dig deeper. What a stroke of good luck this came our way now! Thoughts? Mite-Man16 (talk) 22:38, March 29, 2020 (UTC)

No, I don't as well. Maybe I can ask that user I mentioned for a few pointers and also do some of my own research into it. Mite-Man16 (talk) 23:23, March 29, 2020 (UTC)

Okay, user told me how to do it; turned out to be surprisingly easy. Would you rather the Sandbox was yours or mine? Mite-Man16 (talk)

This also means that the work we did here can be discarded but not before we copy it to modify and paste it on the Sandbox. We can still communicate via talk page though. Mite-Man16 (talk) 00:07, March 30, 2020 (UTC)

In that case, please head over to and let our project truly flourish. :) Mite-Man16 (talk) 00:45, March 30, 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I made a simple mistake there as I was just simply copying and pasting from the talk page to the sandbox, but it's now rectified so thanks for pointing that out. Regarding the letter from noone, yes, it does appear to be a warning about 'R'. Are you intending to create a separate page for that letter? If so, then I quite agree as it shouldn't be in the compilation page for R's letters as it doesn't seem to have been delivered from them. Mite-Man16 (talk) 14:27, March 30, 2020 (UTC)

The letter from no one

Apologies for the late reply; I was scouring some HM YouTube videos to try to discover the identity of the mysterious sender, but to no avail. I then proceeded to reach out to the YouTubers themselves, namely kc lovesgaming and iggames, both of whom had already played through that specific chapter, but haven't replied back yet. You mentioned you had a theory as to who the sender could possibly be. Is it by any chance Alastor Moody or Patricia Rakepick that you're thinking of? Mite-Man16 (talk) 19:31, March 30, 2020 (UTC)

Also, I seem to remember that you mentioned having Discord. How does corresponding through the app sound to you? Mite-Man16 (talk) 20:01, March 30, 2020 (UTC)

Finally, can you please watch this video but skip ahead to 7:28, and tell me whether you agree or not that Snape nonverbally performed the Vanishing Spell on the borrowed broom? Mite-Man16 (talk) 21:55, March 30, 2020 (UTC)

Fantastic. My name's my wiki username and code number is 4112. See you there! Mite-Man16 (talk) 23:17, March 30, 2020 (UTC)

Image attention

With regards to uploading images onto this wiki, please take good care to give them adequate file names, and provide them with all the necessary summary information that all images require. You didn't do this with your recent uploads, so you need to make sure you do follow image policy in the future. Thanks.--RedWizard98 (talk) 04:06, April 3, 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, the first image has an entirely usable title yes, but the second one does not really. Maybe a good idea to upload it again with a better title, so others can search for it easily in the image library. Kind regards, and feel free to ask me any questions, anytime.--RedWizard98 (talk) 04:24, April 3, 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, with regards to the character of Jacob's sibling, because the character is a customizable character in all aspects (name, gender, ethnicity, physical characteristics, hogwarts house), their article must be written with gender neutral language. Using gender neutral pronouns can be a little tricky when using them to address people, but you get used to using them eventually. However, you can feel free to discuss whatever you want on any article's talk page with other editors. Kind regards --RedWizard98 (talk) 04:49, April 3, 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I totally agree with the desire to have things as in-universe as possible. I myself don't play Hogwarts Mystery (I play Wizards Unite), so it is possible that Jacob's sibling was originally imagined as a female, but I don't know exactly, so I would discuss this with others on the article's talk page, as I'm sure many will respond. Kind regards.--RedWizard98 (talk) 05:09, April 3, 2020 (UTC)

Yep, you are perfectly fine. --RedWizard98 (talk) 17:43, April 3, 2020 (UTC)

Dumbledore tabber

Hello there. I wanted to discuss your addition to the Dumbledore page with the tabber for the Harry Potter: Hogwarts Mystery info as it raises a couple issues. 1 - All articles need to be written "In-universe" as if the events are true and we are simply recording past history. As such, there can't be any mention of the Harry Potter books, or movies, or players of the games in the main body of the article, only in the "Behind the scenes" section 2 - Generally, there can't be multiple versions of the same event or person (Harry Potter and the Cursed Child being the exception with its multiple timelines issue). Just because the HM player can be of any gender and appearance, we don't list them as these as being true of the character. As such the section would most likely need to be written to record the common elements of the event, with the variations listed out in the "Behind the scenes" section.

Please let me know your thoughts on this as I haven't played the game that far so am not aware of many of the details involved. I don't want to "fix" the article until it's clear how best to improve it. Thanks! --Ironyak1 (talk) 16:52, April 11, 2020 (UTC)

Recent post

Hello there, thank you for sending me those interesting links, I will have a good look into them. Well done for finding them. --RedWizard98 (talk) 17:33, April 15, 2020 (UTC)

Image summaries

Hi there, you seem to have forgotten to provide summaries for some of your recent uploads. It is policy to provide them, so always make sure you do so. Kind regards --RedWizard98 (talk) 18:34, April 22, 2020 (UTC)

Don't worry, I did them for you. Kind regards --RedWizard98 (talk) 21:26, April 22, 2020 (UTC)

Gilderoy Lockhart

Hello there, with regards to Lockhart's article, there has been much debate over this in the past, but we have to only assume his abilities are based on what is actually depicted. Because this character is a fraud, a lot of his claims were utterly fabricated for personal advancement. There isn't any hard proof he did any travelling in the wild, because he simply took credit for other's achievements. His abilities section really needs to be as concise as possible for it to be the most truthful, otherwise it would be speculative. I hope this helps, and feel free to use this talk page to discuss any new changes. --RedWizard98 (talk) 23:21, April 29, 2020 (UTC)

RE: Your edit

Hi there. I think you've mistaken me for someone else.--Approved Trash Sabine Starbird.svg(Comlink) 12:52, April 30, 2020 (UTC)

Image summaries

Hello there, you have not provided any summary information or licenses for your recent image uploads. Please ensure all your image uploads contain this needed information. Thank you --RedWizard98 (talk) 18:33, May 7, 2020 (UTC)

That is no problem, and I hope your computer is working now. Keep up the great work. --RedWizard98 (talk) 21:31, May 7, 2020 (UTC)

Tank of Brains

Hi there, the image for the Tank of Brains foundable found in Harry Potter: Wizards Unite has already been uploaded by Seth Cooper. Kind regards. --RedWizard98 (talk) 01:40, May 8, 2020 (UTC)

RE: Hello!

Hey there Tfoc, I hope you are doing well,
Regarding your question, yes, I took the generic photo of Jacob's sibling, changed the lighting a bit, and put it into another picture. I used Adobe Photoshop 2020, but I'm sure there are alternatives to Photoshop out there that are free. Regarding other images, I might message a few people and ask them for their opinion whether itis necessary to put the generic pic on other images. I hope this answers your questions.
I hope you are staying safe and healthy,
Yechezkelb sig.pngOwl.png(owl post)

Seryna Rosier

The Rosier family page had a redlink to Seryna Rosier that you added last month. Is there information available to stub in this character or it is correct to remove this redlink? Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 18:42, May 11, 2020 (UTC)

The page was copied from here and the image is of a Spanish model Ester Expósito. MechQueste 21:34, May 11, 2020 (UTC)


Hello, with regards to your new article, you need to make sure you always give an appearances and notes and references section to an article, and you also need to properly create a category rather than just adding it to articles. Kind regards --RedWizard98 (talk) 11:54, May 21, 2020 (UTC)

British spelling

Hi there, a very minor thing, but in British English, "Duellist" or "Duelling" is always spelt with a double L, not one (that is the American spelling). Thanks --RedWizard98 (talk) 02:06, June 12, 2020 (UTC)


I don't want to decide that alone. That's why I asked a colleague.  Harry granger   Talk   contribs 16:58, June 14, 2020 (UTC)

Bewitched sleep/ Sleep-related spells

I really hate to have removed a lot of your information from the Bewitched Sleep article, but this is a specific spell (as confirmed in HM), not a general article which discusses every single sleep-related spell in existence. Such articles, like the Sleeping Charm and Gormlaith Gaunt's curse, all have separate pages. Spell articles should only really be about the spell the article is about, not for any spell that is similar (these can be mentioned in "See also" sections however). I really hope this isn't taken badly, but articles need to be concise, not confusing. If you want to discuss this article further, it would be best to use the article's talk page. Kind regards --RedWizard98 (talk) 01:58, June 19, 2020 (UTC)

The bewitched sleep is a separate charm which has its own provided wand movement, which is similar to but not the same as the "Sleeping Charm". This current article is overlong and generalist, lacks citations in places and is now a confusion for all sleep related spells. Even if Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire doesn't precisely call it by an own spell, Harry Potter: Hogwarts Mystery does, even if the game has somewhat questionable writing. Is there an exact piece of information which confirms that the icon and wand movement provided in HM for the "Bewitched Sleep" is for a spell that has been deleted from the game or been merged with another spell, or renamed? Otherwise, I'm really unconvinced. --RedWizard98 (talk) 01:29, June 20, 2020 (UTC)

It is not really my opinion that matters, I am interested in accuracy. I'm still very unconvinced, so I will be messaging some content moderators/admins to review this article.--RedWizard98 (talk) 02:30, June 20, 2020 (UTC)

Indeed I have. --RedWizard98 (talk) 02:49, June 20, 2020 (UTC)

Please do not remove infoboxes from articles to your own liking, as that is actually vandalism.--RedWizard98 (talk) 04:30, June 20, 2020 (UTC)


In Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows or in any other media, no other Undesirables are given, although we know they existed. Also, please do not revert my edits which effectively remove all the references I have provided, as I go to great efforts to provide these.--RedWizard98 (talk) 03:00, June 20, 2020 (UTC)

RE Documents

I have thanks! The dialog screenshots are really useful and hopefully should end up here as Category:Reference images for facts in the articles based on them. Luna Scamander confirmed at last! :) Any other highlights that need to be captured in the wiki? Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 06:03, July 7, 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, was just interested in highlights from the story. I've found that Fantastic Beasts: Cases from the Wizarding World , Harry Potter: Hogwarts Mystery, and Harry Potter: Wizards Unite all tend to have some interesting writing, just buried behind repetitive mobile gameplay mechanics. Hopefully these screenshots will keeps coming out so we can follow along and keep articles up to date (but without having to wait for "energy" to recover ;) Thanks for sharing! --Ironyak1 (talk) 23:28, July 8, 2020 (UTC)

File information

Hi there, please make sure you add all the necessary file information to your image uploads, as your recent Harry Potter: Hogwarts Mystery was empty of any of this needed information. Thanks --RedWizard98 (talk) 14:08, July 8, 2020 (UTC)

Non-existent categories

Hello, please do not add non-existent categories to articles. Thank you --RedWizard98 (talk) 00:58, July 11, 2020 (UTC)

Well the said category you add does not exist, as it has never been created. It is policy that should only add a category to an article if it actually exists as a category page, and if it does not, you must create it yourself. --RedWizard98 (talk) 01:08, July 11, 2020 (UTC)

If you want to create that category, that is fine. Perhaps stop with the snotty attitude too, as I am only trying to help. --RedWizard98 (talk) 01:21, July 11, 2020 (UTC)

American English

Hi, can you please try to avoid using American English whilst writing articles, as this is a British English only wiki. Duelling is always spelt with a double L in British English, so try and stick to this preferred spelling. Thank you --RedWizard98 (talk) 03:02, July 13, 2020 (UTC)

Dedalus Diggle/Lucius Malfoy

Dedalus Diggle is never seen in actual combat, nor is this discussed, but only something we can assume considering his role. Also, Lucius did very much misuse and neglect Riddle's diary, using it for personal gain rather than protect it for Voldemort, with him being held responsible by Voldemort for its destruction, who was furious to say the least at him. I really want to cut down on speculation on articles, particularly regarding information which isn't fully confirmed so it would be good if we could keep this stuff to a minimum, rather than start potentially unhelpful edit wars which I don't want to do. You also made quite a few spelling errors in both articles, and speculated too much about Lucius' abilities - he isn't proven to have used the other two Unforgivables, although it is possible. Kind regards --RedWizard98 (talk) 15:48, July 13, 2020 (UTC)

Voldemort in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire accused Lucius of having neglected and misused his diary for selfish gain, as this ultimately led to it being destroyed as opposed to it being kept safe and secure in Malfoy Manor, something Voldemort was particularly furious about. You only made a few spelling mistakes, like "ehen" instead of "when" and "Duelliing". That's all --RedWizard98 (talk) 18:36, July 13, 2020 (UTC)

Duelling is mentioned in his abilities section, but only speculatively, since we don't know of his combative abilities really as we haven't ever seen him in battle. --RedWizard98 (talk) 18:49, July 13, 2020 (UTC)

Re: Closure of Hogwarts HM

Hi there! (BTW, is there a way you preferred to be referred as? I tried pronouncing your User name but it unfortunately came out kind of like a swear word. D; If that's preferred though, I'll use it, no worries!) Thanks for potentially narrowing down the search! It's been a while since I played the SQ you mentioned (or HM in general TBH =/,) I'll keep it in mind when opportunities come. There's Rita Skeeter#Book researcher that looks to be the summary of that SQ; from the wording, I'm not sure firing Albus can equate to Closure of Hogwarts, but like I said, my memory is hazy so perhaps such talk also was mentioned, and will look into it when time allows, though feel free to beat me to it, should you want! xD Thanks again for sharing the info! --Sammm✦✧(talk) 02:00, July 15, 2020 (UTC)

RE Another WU resource

Hi there - thanks for the link, although gamepress was one I had seen before. I'm not sure if your method for organizing story content would work to record on Harry Potter: Wizards Unite, but by adding links there for new articles that are needed this can help establish a list of items, characters, events, and such for others to work on. Unfortunately I don't have time to fully document the game (always trying to finish up Fantastic Beasts: Cases from the Wizarding World and my character in Harry Potter: Hogwarts Mystery is still being strangled by devil's snare, no joke) but can probably help get screenshots and create initial articles for topics listed on WU. Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 08:21, July 15, 2020 (UTC)

RE Policy request

Hello! Let me take a closer look to see if there is a pattern, but I believe I ran into something similar where the reply was posted above mine although it was replying to the same person but came at a later date. It would help everyone with readability though if everyone used some indents with : when making replies.

As you probably know, we're doing a large Forum:Policy Review and Harry Potter Wiki:Talk Page Policy is pretty bare so this might be a good opportunity to review how to make sure Talk pages are being used in a productive manner. Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 15:40, July 17, 2020 (UTC)

Record Officer

If it's capitalised in-game, I'd say that we should create a page. We have many articles on Ministry positions. Alternatively, we could add it to the Officer article.--Rodolphus (talk) 14:43, July 18, 2020 (UTC)

I´d also say that Record Officers are specialised.--Rodolphus (talk) 15:46, July 18, 2020 (UTC)

RE Idea for new category

Makes sense - Category:Kits created. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 08:06, July 20, 2020 (UTC)

RE Could you help me out?

While you can always add a new category to an article, you have to click on it and the choose Create to make the page for the category: Anyhow, Category:Statute of Secrecy Task Force has been made and is ready to add to articles. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 08:06, July 20, 2020 (UTC)

When I go to other pages and click "category" and write "Statute of Secrecy Task Force", it don't come up, though? Tfoc (talk) 08:56, July 20, 2020 (UTC)

As you noticed, it can take some time for the category to be added to the list of available categories. You can still add it to articles and such in the meantime, although sometimes it helps to cut and paste it as needed to keep it consistent.

In the future, feel free to add new categories as needed - there is not the need for administration approval, although if you have questions or need help, feel free to ask.

Just as an FYI, per the Harry Potter Wiki:Talk Page Policy and Harry Potter Wiki:User Policy#Editing, messages on Talk pages should generally not be removed. It would better just to add a follow-up message that the category has appeared in the list and there is no need for a reply. Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 17:23, July 20, 2020 (UTC)

I expected that you had misplaced the Talk page message, but then you never placed it somewhere else, so it looked like it just got removed. Not a big deal, just wanted to bring it to your attention so you are aware.
I'll keep an eye out for issues with editors removing categories. The best workflow is often to add a category to a page and then after saving, click on it, and Create the Category making sure to give it a parent category so it is part of the Category hierarchy. If you run into issues, let us know. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 17:45, July 20, 2020 (UTC)
When you Create the category page, you'll need to add a category to it which acts as it's parent category. For instance, when I made Category:Kits, I gave simply it the category of Category:Objects as Kits are a collection of Objects. Similarly when I made the Category:Statute of Secrecy Task Force I gave it two parent categories Category:International Confederation of Wizards and Category:British Ministry of Magic as it is part of both this Organisation and this Magical Government. It might help just to click on one of these examples and explore around the Category system to see how it is arranged from general parent categories down to very specific ones. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 18:02, July 20, 2020 (UTC)

Adding categories

When you add new categories, it is required to be in alphabetical order according to the wiki’s policy not just put at the end of the list. You actually have to put in alphabetical order if it isn’t already even if you have to readd the categories after it first. Andrewh7 (talk) 20:13, July 20, 2020 (UTC) Andrewh7

Empty image files

All users are expected to provide full summary information into all image files they upload; these two file ( & did not contain even a copyright license which you uploaded. Everyone has to follow these rules when they upload images, including you. Other users like myself also shouldn't have to fill in the summary information for these files for you.--RedWizard98 (talk) 20:42, July 20, 2020 (UTC)

Please see Harry Potter Wiki:Image policy and Special:Upload for the Summary information and block that should be added to images,including copyright info needed (generally {{Screenshot}} or {{Fairuse}} for games depending on how the image was obtained). Images without this Summary info may end up being deleted. Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 20:52, July 20, 2020 (UTC)

RE More WU content

Hello - I did see the message, thanks! Harry Potter: Wizards Unite is looking like a treasure trove of content that could be added to articles. Unfortunately for me, most of my time currently is tied up with Policy discussions and other clean-up tasks, but I'm guessing other editors will be help tackle the material (or it'll still be available in the weeks and months to come :) Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 21:39, July 22, 2020 (UTC)

RE Undocumented Dark Detector

Having not kept up with Harry Potter: Wizards Unite, I'm not sure how their Dark Detectors differ, but a conjectural title needs to be more of a plain description such as "Dark detector with eyes" or something. See Unidentified giant in the Blind Pig as an example. Unless there is a canon mention, terms like "The Evil Eye" should be avoided as they sound like an official title. Hope this helps! Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 05:29, July 23, 2020 (UTC)

Re: WU question

In this case, I'd use the general wizard one I guess.--Rodolphus (talk) 15:00, July 24, 2020 (UTC)

RE Officer talk page

Hello! No that comment is my edit summary - I expanded the Fantastic Beasts: Cases from the Wizarding World ref to include a an image that shows the term Officer being used in canon (the same image as the first link you gave actually). If you want to include that second link as an additional ref for "Officer" that wouldn't hurt either. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 18:42, July 24, 2020 (UTC)

WU document

Hello, yes I should be able to read the document and discern all the information I can get from it. Kind regards --RedWizard98 (talk) 01:11, July 28, 2020 (UTC)

Wizarding Orphanage

Hi, I not entirely sure what would go down at a wizarding orphanage, although I could guess that the orphanage could contain magical toys for the children, help tutor them in magical and non-magical learning, with the staff using magic and spells to help run the orphanage, I suppose. Kind regards--RedWizard98 (talk) 05:11, July 30, 2020 (UTC)

RE WU posters

Hello - if you want to upload one image I can add the Summary block to it to show what it should look like and then you can use that as an example to add to the others. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 23:04, August 1, 2020 (UTC)

Sure - feel free to post them. I'll be around for a bit and can keep an eye out for them. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 23:13, August 1, 2020 (UTC)
I added the Summary block to one of the letters and the poster. Pretty much the same, just a slightly different Descriptions and one has Category:Images of letters and the other Category:Images of posters. Should be able to use that info for other similar images. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 23:39, August 1, 2020 (UTC)


Hello, I don't want to sound rude, but I do not appreciate being accused of "mini-modding". Unless you are of the opinion that damaging book quotes and writing speculative or biased commentary in articles is acceptable, then fine, but working hard to uphold wiki standards and helping admins and content moderators run the wiki is in fact very admirable, something which I'm proud to do. It is also isn't against any rules to do this. I also find it very impertinent to ask me for help on an article when at the same time you have left a negative message about me on an admin's talk page, so I'm afraid you will have to research any information yourself. --RedWizard98 (talk) 14:02, September 30, 2020 (UTC)

The Grindelwald article was not only altered incorrectly, it was also vandalised, either intentionally or unintentionally. It is well-established that Voldemort surpassed Grindelwald, meaning it is something which really isn't up for much debate. I shall not hesitate to remove incorrect content from this wiki and I intend to keep doing so.--RedWizard98 (talk) 17:35, September 30, 2020 (UTC)

There may be no actual compiled list which ranks the power of dark wizards, but generally it is established that Voldemort succeeded Grindelwald in both magical power and evil. And people not should generally not express their own opinions about topics in articles, as this is biased.--RedWizard98 (talk) 21:19, September 30, 2020 (UTC)

Fianto Duri

Fianto Duri is shown in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 to harden or enhance magical shields surrounding an area; there is no mention that this spell can apply to human's individually, nor that it is the "Protection Charm" in Harry Potter: Wizards Unite, which has a distinctly different effect. Speculation really belongs on talk pages as opposed to articles.--RedWizard98 (talk) 21:19, September 30, 2020 (UTC)


Unfortunately, I don't. --Rodolphus (talk) 08:24, October 5, 2020 (UTC)


Can you pls leave your opinion on this page? Thnx.

 Newt Strike   Talk   Contribs 14:53, October 8, 2020 (UTC)

Nothing in particular. But do you like others really feel that way? Do you really think my intentions were bad there when I asked for mod rights on wikis? Just here and there...

 Newt Strike   Talk   Contribs 16:53, October 8, 2020 (UTC)

I completely agree with you that those who don't sought power are more fit for the job. But sometimes when you work hard and don't get what you deserve then it makes you sought the position. I hope someone will see the good in me and the changes I can bring to Discussion.

 Newt Strike   Talk   Contribs 18:39, October 8, 2020 (UTC)

I guess I have already done that on my nomination page. I seek admin rights to help out the Discussion and the main site as well. See my work here and you will know why I deserve it. The three year in depth contributions is enough to convince anyone as why I'm fit for the job. But anyway if you don't trust me and believe what others has said then there is no need to share your opinion with us though it's appreciated. Thnx.

 Newt Strike   Talk   Contribs 18:55, October 8, 2020 (UTC)

The links display my query to admins of wikis to promote me as local mod. This shows how passionate I'm for Discussion and to work on them. But because users have personal grudges with me they are presenting them in a wrong light. But even though I apologise for that but it donot tell anything about my work on here. You did notice that all the concerns are from other wikis but not a single of them on this one.

 Newt Strike   Talk   Contribs 19:47, October 8, 2020 (UTC)

I can just tell you that the allegations on me are wrong. I have never disrespected or personally attacked any user on fandom. Thnx.

 Newt Strike   Talk   Contribs 11:35, October 9, 2020 (UTC)


Thank you for the links! I'll take a look at it.--Rodolphus (talk) 13:43, October 9, 2020 (UTC)

As far as I know, any named book from a canon source deserves it's own article. I think this applies here as well.--Rodolphus (talk) 13:48, October 9, 2020 (UTC)

Yes, especially since I rarely play the game myself. Writing long texts can be a bit difficult for me at times, so I'll probably only add short tidbits myself. Thanks again.--Rodolphus (talk) 18:18, October 10, 2020 (UTC)


Hi, per your comment on the Requests for permissions page, I wanted to let you know that when you added it, you added <nowiki> to it. It is because you are using visual editor. To resolve this, I suggest you go into special:preferences and change it to source editor by default. Thanks. MechQueste 21:39, October 10, 2020 (UTC)

WU memos


  • memo regarding Ministry appointments,
  • Gareth Greengrass's memo regarding Grim Fawley's promotion
  • Grim Fawley's evaluation report (I)
  • Grim Fawley's evaluation report (II)
  • Department of Magical Law Enforcement inciedent report invoöving Penelope Padgett
  • The Unspeakables Expand in Secret (Quibbler articles Category)--Rodolphus (talk) 10:17, October 11, 2020 (UTC)

Maybe this way:

"This memo was written by an unuidentified individual in the early 21st century. It was addressed to an unidentified individual or department It regarded...". In the infobox, just leave the field blank. This would be only way I can think of.--Rodolphus (talk) 10:40, October 11, 2020 (UTC)


So a couple notes - one, your links to the script don't seem to be working, which would need to be fixed to start, so everyone can check the reference. Secondly, if I am understanding this right, just because there is a Minister of Transportation doesn't mean every department would also have a Minister as some departments may be under others, etc, and have lower level functionaries as their Head of Department. I don't believe we have an org chart for the British Ministry to detail who reports to whom although we might have enough information for some individuals that could be handled on a case-by-case basis. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 04:02, October 12, 2020 (UTC)

Harry Potter: Hogwarts Mystery

Thank you. I'm a big fan of Penny so I'm mostly adding a ton to her page, feels like a bit of a shame that I don't have the time or energy to do that to all the pages related to the game. I hope they all find their big fans to contribute. --Atheist723 (talk) 15:56, October 12, 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I'm watching a playthrough on YouTube. It'd be weird to copy from another site's writeup. --Atheist723 (talk) 18:45, October 12, 2020 (UTC)

Order of Merlin

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

Congratulations!--latest?cb=20200717054417  Reverb frost   01:34, October 13, 2020 (UTC)

WU training

We could make in-universe articles on each training, but they was I understand stood, every WU player portrays a diferent member of the task force, so creating articles on the individuals wouldn't make sense to me---Rodolphus (talk) 08:39, October 13, 2020 (UTC)

Your vote on RFP

Hey there! I just wanted to point out that you haven't added # just prior to your vote. It helps the OA of the vote take a note of how many users have signed the vote. If you would like, take a look at how I have signed just below your vote. Good day! --latest?cb=20200717054417  Reverb frost   11:13, October 13, 2020 (UTC)

Basically this --latest?cb=20200717054417  Reverb frost   13:11, October 13, 2020 (UTC)
You will have to do it via sourve mode. I would do it myself but since it's a vote, only 2 people are technically allowed to make such kinds of organizing changes, the user who casts the vote and the Organizing admin. Since it's Rudo's very first vote and he is usually busy actively looking after the wiki and I have already reached him quite a few times today, so I thought I should reach you and request you to make the necessary changes. --latest?cb=20200717054417  Reverb frost   13:25, October 13, 2020 (UTC)

RE Newt Strike vote

Hey - sorry for the delay in reply. The Harry_Potter_Wiki:Voting_policy has the requirements for eligible voters which allows for either a minimum of wiki edits or Discussion posts to qualify for site-wide issues or admin nominations so the Discussions community is also able to participate in matters that affect them. Feel free to ask if there are specific questions. Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 03:49, October 14, 2020 (UTC)

Checking into the matter, the affected individuals appear to qualify under the Discussions clause since this is a vote for an administrator. --Cavalier OneGryffindorcrest.jpg(Wizarding Wireless Network) 13:03, October 14, 2020 (UTC)
Depends on your definition of outsiderI suppose; Discussions is still part of the HPW, even if they are self-contained. Admins and mod elections would affect them as well.--Cavalier OneGryffindorcrest.jpg(Wizarding Wireless Network) 18:49, October 15, 2020 (UTC)


I'm not an exact expert on this subject, but I have reviewed the title of Officer, and it is onlt given officially to two characters in Fantastic Beasts: Cases from the Wizarding World ; I can't find any use of it elsewhere. This means that the Aurors who have claimed were given this title I don't think is canon, because thes exact people are never given such a title in canon. You can discuss this, but I do believe this to be speculative.--RedWizard98 (talk) 16:14, October 15, 2020 (UTC)

But where are the sources that give this title to these individuals? I currently don't see them. These titles only appear to be used in those games, not anything else.--RedWizard98 (talk) 16:20, October 15, 2020 (UTC)

That is not how titles are given in this series. They only apply to exact individuals, and if they were not given exactly, they are not proven. If you take an individual like Bob Ogden, he is not given a title in the sixth book, so it is not known if he even had one. Exact sources do matter, because each character in the franchise is different. I also don't appreciate references being made to "spitting in the faces" of people, as this is very ill-mannered and poor taste in my opinion. --RedWizard98 (talk) 16:29, October 15, 2020 (UTC)

If any user disagrees with an edit, they do have the right to revert it and discuss it if wanted. --RedWizard98 (talk) 16:31, October 15, 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say this, but taking out your temper out on people online is not a good practise to follow, at all. It comes across as belligerent to others and is counterproductive to establishing good conversations and discussions.--RedWizard98 (talk) 16:53, October 15, 2020 (UTC)

Officer and games

Please leave comments on Forum:What is this "officer" role?. It would be easier to follow for both of you, and everyone else. Thank you. MechQueste 17:25, October 15, 2020 (UTC)

RE:Script vs Movie

Hi, sorry for taking a bit too long to respond. Yes, the original scripts do outrank the movies as they are tier-one and tier-two canon respectively, as detailed in the canon policy. If there's any contradiction between the two, the scripts take precedence.

(Note, also, that strictly speaking, the Entrance Hall opens up to a long, sloping lawn and drive that leads to the Entrance Gates — as described in the books — and not to a courtyard or viaduct. The drive mentioned in the COG script might be a reference to it, although I do know that the viaduct is mentioned later on in the closing scenes.) --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 00:40, October 16, 2020 (UTC)

WU training

I'd love to help, but I#m not very expereienced with codes either. Sorry.--Rodolphus (talk) 11:23, October 17, 2020 (UTC)

Re: WU

How big do you want the table? 10x10? MechQueste 15:03, October 17, 2020 (UTC)

I've created a duplicate table here. MechQueste 03:10, October 19, 2020 (UTC)
actually, you can find it here. This help page could help. MechQueste 13:15, October 19, 2020 (UTC)

MechQueste 13:27, October 19, 2020 (UTC)

Fanfiction nomination

Considering that both suggestions have a lot of views, a lot of subtitles available and there even some dubs in other languages, I'd say that they would qualify under the widespread popularity guideline.--Rodolphus (talk) 07:38, October 18, 2020 (UTC)

Broken GIF

Hello, the recent GIF you uploaded of the Ventus Jinx for Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald is broken, meaning it fails to replay itself. I think a user called Harry91 uploaded this same broken GIF a while back. I've replaced it with an old GIF from the fifth video game for the time being, but if you could produce the same GIF which actually replays itself, that would be great. Kind regards --RedWizard98 (talk) 03:45, October 20, 2020 (UTC)

No, I haven't been able to find a working GIF for this scene. I'm personally not skilled with creating GIFS, but if you find or create a better one, please upload it.--RedWizard98 (talk) 04:07, October 20, 2020 (UTC)

Yes definitely, feel free to ask other users about it.--RedWizard98 (talk) 04:19, October 20, 2020 (UTC)

Ministry library

We have Ministry Munchies, which is also specific to the British Ministry. I'd personally call it Ministry library.--Rodolphus (talk) 17:47, October 21, 2020 (UTC)

The London Zoo? Didn't know that. Very interesting addition to the London Zoo article. Good work.--Rodolphus (talk) 17:56, October 21, 2020 (UTC)

London Zoo wing

Yes, I would say that it warrants an article. We have notable details about it, and we have pages that have even less details than that. If Harry Potter: Wizards Unite adds any other details about the location, then it would be nice to have a specific page to put that on too. So, I think you should go for it if you want a page for it. - Kates39 (talk) 20:32, October 21, 2020 (UTC)

Wizards Unite

Hello, I personally do not play Harry Potter: Wizards Unite anymore, so I only know of what other people write about the game, which means I also can't upload any screenshots directly from the game. Sorry I can't be of much assistance.--RedWizard98 (talk) 04:20, October 23, 2020 (UTC)

Research detachment

I've never heard of that term. Could it be a research group that has split itself from the original group, and is now working indepedently? --Rodolphus (talk) 15:13, October 23, 2020 (UTC)

I've found a mention of a ministry team studying the Hyslop sisters. Calamity Essentials 1, Level 5: "Pario Vestigius."--Rodolphus (talk) 15:43, October 23, 2020 (UTC)

I rewatched the scene and had a similar impresion of Rowan's death, though I'm not sure if either is confirmed. We could change the wording to a more neutral one--Rodolphus (talk) 17:40, October 23, 2020 (UTC)

Agreed.--Rodolphus (talk) 20:16, October 23, 2020 (UTC)

Image deletions

Hello, just curiously, why did you remove all of the images from the Behind the Scenes section of Gilderoy Lockhart's article? --RedWizard98 (talk) 03:37, October 24, 2020 (UTC)

Just because you dislike their appearance, it is not good practise to remove images from articles. They show outside appearances of the character to readers, and others go to great efforts (like myself) to upload these kinds of images, so removing these (or similar content) without good reason (vandalism, fanon images) really is not considerate or recommended.--RedWizard98 (talk) 06:16, October 24, 2020 (UTC)

Stop being so belligerent. Deleting content on articles generally isn't recommended across the wiki without clear reasons, so that is all I can say really.--RedWizard98 (talk) 06:44, October 24, 2020 (UTC)

RE: For a second time, I'd like you to look up the word 'vandalism' in the dictionary, because you're using it incorrectly. - it's pretty clear to me that he was using 'vandalism' as an example of a good reason to remove an image from a page, so it's a pretty correct use of the word in my book. -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  12:34, October 24, 2020 (UTC)

Not at all. It just may be best to discuss it on the article's talk page first, that's all. - MrSiriusBlack  Talk  12:51, October 24, 2020 (UTC)

British English

Please remember to use British English when writing in articles - "duelling" is always spelt with a double L in British English (your spelling of it is American English), and "movie" is also American vocabulary. Thank you --RedWizard98 (talk) 17:24, October 24, 2020 (UTC)

New pages

You're adding way too much useless, irrelevant information to pages you create like Sao Paulo and Copacabana. What are you doing, copying and pasting from Wikipedia? The fact that Copacabana is famous for its beach and the fact that Sao Paulo is the most populous and wealthiest state in Brazil as well as the largest Portuguese speaking country in the world is irrelevant to the page and useless, nobody cares about all that. Stick to the simple, basic facts without doing too much. You also forgot the l outside the link which makes the link look bad/weird, and WU is set in the 2010s not today's year (2020) unless it says it. Andrewh7 (talk) 17:46, October 24, 2020 (UTC) Andrewh7

I didn't say that it was against wiki policies, just that it is irrelevant and nobody cares about all that extra stuff, so it would save time to not add it. Andrewh7 (talk) 18:31, October 24, 2020 (UTC) Andrewh7

RE:WU Timeline

From every WU page on this wiki that says 2010s not what ever it was when it was created that's where. I could ask the same of you, you know. Andrewh7 (talk) 19:08, October 24, 2020 (UTC) Andrewh7

RE:Apparition licence

The Apparition (class) page seems to cover it, though if the license itself is a separate enough thing from the class then maybe, I guess. -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  13:36, October 25, 2020 (UTC)

Stuart Cragg

That's very interesting. If it is his work, we can definitely can create articles.--Rodolphus (talk) 15:53, October 26, 2020 (UTC)

As far as I know, Dermot Power has worked on the films, so I'd agree that this seems legit. It seems to be his official homepage.Rodolphus (talk) 08:53, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

RE What happened?

As the warning notice has been saying for several weeks, the wiki has now been "upgraded" to UCP ("Unified Community Platform") which includes a new version of the Mediawiki software which handles how articles are displayed and edited. While there are some improvements in the areas of mobile editing, there are many changes that take getting used to as well as several bugs that still need to be addressed. If you run into issues, please report them here so our Wiki Manager TimeShade and FANDOM Staff can help address them. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 19:33, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

UCP has been in the works for several months and EVERY wiki is being moved over to UCP regardless of what anyone wanted - see this for more history and context. If you want to complain to Staff about it, please feel free, but understand you are one of thousands of users that objected to this change to no avail. FANDOM insists that with this upgrade they can better fix issues and make improvements that benefit all wikis in the future - we'll have to see if that turns out to be true. Sorry for your frustration with the forced change - I understand completely where you are coming from. Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 20:46, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

RE Can we restore WikiActivity with this?

These customizations give some semblance of the old WikiActivity page but have their own limitations. If you want to give them a try you can:

    type: 'script',
    articles: [
@import "/load.php?mode=articles&articles=u:dev:MediaWiki:ModernizedChanges.css&only=styles";
  • Then Refresh the Cache by hitting Ctrl-F5 (or whatever is the equivalent on your system - see instructions on the top of the JS or CSS pages you just edited)

After this Special:WikiActivity should have a list of changes (although it lacks diff sizes and some other useful info IMO) and Special:Recentchanges will have each edit in an easier "card in a list" mobile-type layout. Give it a try and if enough people like the WikiActivity script we can add it site-wide for everyone, but the Recent Changes customization can only been done individually, not as the default for the site because of FANDOM's Terms of Use. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 15:26, 27 October 2020 (UTC)


"Duelling", is not spelt with a single L in British English; your spelling of it is the American spelling, which goes against the wiki's British only spelling policy. "Skilful" is also not spelt "skillful" in British English either. Please use the correct British spellings instead, as I've noticed you use the wrong spellings very frequently whilst editing. Everyone has to follow this language policy even if it isn't their preferred language.RedWizard98 (talk) 02:37, 28 October 2020 (UTC)


I type the the ref manually now- Have to get used to that as well . Rodolphus (talk) 12:14, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't know if it can be readded. You can contact our wikimanager Timeshade.Rodolphus (talk) 16:38, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

RE: WU Special Assignments

Yes, I do. Гилли (talk) 12:305, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Re: All-Wizard Tournament

Sorry for being unclear. I've played it myself and have recordings of my own gameplay; I don't need anyone else's walkthrough. It still comes down to compiling and editing the info onto HPW. If I have time, I'd do it, I'm just highlighting the fact it needs elaboration, not the lack of knowing what happened. A User used to come to me about walkthrough resources as well, but I never needed those, but thanks anyways! --Sammm✦✧(talk) 10:05, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

British English

Tfoc, you are not using British English in your articles, and I have told you numerous times that this is the only English policy. It is well explained here (, so perhaps give it a read. "Duelling" is never spelt "dueling" in British English, so please stop using the latter spelling, as it is plain wrong and will be altered/removed if used again. Thank you RedWizard98 (talk) 14:43, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Re:"Edit war"

Hi there, Mr. T! Happy Boxing Day (or Christmas, depending on the time zone)!

No worries; I didn't find your message, um, not sure how to phrase it, "negative"? I think when you have questions, it's perfectly understandable for wanting to "confront" the instigator, and even rereading the message again, I felt you've voiced it well, just that we weren't on the same page on what the edit-war was referring to (and that's okay!).

I'm actually a little perplexed about the matter; when I tried to locate a definition for it (like, not just something I remember, but written down somewhere) so I can provide it to you, I failed to find it. I've left a message on Category talk:Help because one of the pages might have it, but am unsure. I feel like it should be in policies but if it is, I've missed it lol. If you've encountered the phrase multiple times, I think you can ask around admins or b-crats on their definition or where to find said definition (imo, when it's a reason to be blocked, people definitely need to know how to avoid doing it) to get a clearer picture.

I'm sorry that currently you aren't experiencing the welcoming side of the community. I hope you'd be able to find where you're most passionate about, and stick around regardless of other people's reactions, but ultimately it's up to you. I've had people I find uneasy to get on with and people's editing aesthetic I disagree with on HPW, and on various occasions frustrated enough that I had to rant to someone else, but when it comes down to it, I don't want to feel bullied into leaving (I'm sure no one was actually bullying me, just the fact that I felt like leaving because of what other's did, felt similar to it), so I'm currently still here, haha. (Oh, btw, I'm pretty sure there's people having the same opinion about me, too. I guess we just compromise and try to be civil lmao.) I'm a terrible choice to talk about this so I'll leave it at that.

Heading out soon, but when I'm available, I'll comment on the Lockhart page for that discussion; I'm also not the best person for it though (I don't have a strong attachment towards the issue), so it'd be brief. --Sammm✦✧(talk) 02:56, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, T! Dropping a quick note to let you know I've read your replies, just unfortunately don't have the time to properly respond ATM. I belatedly realized (remembered) I was sort of in the middle of doing a series of edits, and had like 50+ tabs opened for them, which was making my device going slower and slower. Just closed a few after sending out one edit I meant to follow up shortly but got distracted thus didn't at the time. I didn't want you to feel like I'm purposefully ignoring you, hence this message.
I'm trying to finish reading a trilogy before the year ends, so I won't be active until I'm done. In case I'm not around, a Happy New Year in advance! =D May the next year be more promising! --Sammm✦✧(talk) 03:59, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Hey there! While I finished the trilogy I was reading, still loads of other stuff keeping me relatively occupied ATM, but can do some quick replies. Yeah, I really liked the old message pop-up at the bottom and had briefly thought there's now no notifications for new messages, but turns out they've relocated it to the bell icon at the top, and it'd even say who wrote the message and whatnot. It'd take some time to get used to I guess.
As for references, I'm not sure what interface you are using (FANDOM probably has various versions), but if you are using editsource mode, there's an open-book icon next to the omega sign (Ω), apparently that's how people can insert references; I don't use it, I just type "<ref>insert the ref</ref>" since that's not actually that much to type. Hope that'd help.
I have to admit though, I'm just not fully grasping any new definition from WU. I read it, but I'm not comprehending. I hope it's understandable that we all have strengths and weaknesses, and my familiarity with WU is basically nonexistent, a shortcoming. I think other Users would be able to engage with you a much more meaningful discussion, as demonstrated by Kate.
For the accusation, I currently don't have the HP books with me so I'm sad that I can't be super witty and accurately quote this, but something like how Hermione Granger advised Harry Potter, "ignore them, just ignore them." It is of course your right to defend yourself, but as you've highlighted, both an Admin and a B-crat already stated their stance, you are in the clear unless you choose to further use fowl languages that counts as personal attacks. I'm bringing this up, not to stir things up again, but rather noting that, in case it wasn't clear, basically, in the future, if another User tries to shut down a discussion by bringing up "you are potentially someone else", just ignore the comment entirely because it's a broken record and it isn't productive to the actual discussion. I think your assessment is spot-on about "having their minds made". I've recently received similar replies that honestly looked as if they haven't read what I wrote at all and just vetoed it "because", and it just wasn't worth it to engage further. Again, I'm sorry you had to experience this. --Sammm✦✧(talk) 06:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
A belated Happy New Year to you as well! xoxo (Dunno how I missed it when my last message above could have mentioned it and make it feel at least less delayed lol.) The trilogy I read is called The Divine Cities (by Robert Jackson Bennett), there's a relatively underdeveloped wiki out there at w:c:divinecities. I liked it alright, and for unknown reasons it's one of the few that killed off characters but didn't make me go "right, authors nowadays just like to kill characters to make their books 'sophisticated' =P" lol. I really do roll my eyes and think that way a lot, so I'm glad I didn't have that reaction this time, even though I can't explain why, haha. I haven't read much classics, I think it's mostly because I've been more into visual stuff as a kid. Now I'm like double the age of the target audience of MG and YA books, but I guess I'm making up for what I've missed (and the fact that I have a young heart lmao). (That said, I do occasionally read books marketed for adults.) I'll look up the one you mentioned. =]
For stuff I don't get in WU, like... the concept of Foundable is just lost to me. I mean, the explanation is straightforward enough and the word itself even looks like "findable", but I still find referring people as such a little odd (as in, I'll just have to get over it and get used to it lmao). I didn't even realize there's Confoundable until you mentioned it in the discussion (I really don't pay attention to anything regarding to WU), and after reading what it was, I know I'm not going to remember it anytime soon. =/ I could probably force myself to do so, but that'd take a way the fun and joy I think. I'll get it if and when I get it. If I don't or was just never interested enough to be bothered to, then that's that.
I'll reply to you about the HM images soon! (I'll try!) --Sammm鯊 (talk) 01:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Language & personal attacks

Please note that personal attacks are never allowed per the Harry Potter Wiki:Blocking policy and that everyone is expected to remain civil in their discussions and refrain from using profanity. Please take the time needed to cool-off so that any additional contributions do not result in your account being blocked or banned. Cheers --21:44, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

RE: Registry: Mysteries

I looked at the page but did not find the missing piece. Everything that is currently in the game is represented in the Register.Гилли (talk) 11:58, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

RE:Head Curator

That's ok, I was just making sure it was correct, thank you for confirming it. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 18:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

RE:Past or present tense?

Articles are to be written in the past tense, per policy. The exceptions are out-of-universe articles ("Daniel Radcliffe is an actor", "Hogwarts Legacy is a game") and, for that reason, it has been generalised practice to do the same in articles that, even though in-universe, discuss real-world concepts ("Bacon sandwiches are...", "The Internet is...", "Surrey is..."). --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 14:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

If it uses the present tense, then yes, I think that's wrong. Can't see why it would be treated differently than other articles on spells or potions or the like ("The Knockback Jinx was...", "The Levitation Charm was...", "The Polyjuice Potion was...", etc.) --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 22:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
It seems kind of arbitrary to me; it doesn't seem to make much sense to refer to spells in the past tense but to branches of magic in the present tense. In fact the whole reason the past-tense clause was added to policy was to harmonise the style in (almost) all articles — within reason, of course. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 02:11, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
The same goes for all the examples I cited. "Switching Spell" is no less a concept than "Transfiguration". It's an artificial difference. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 10:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
It is a superficial distinction, yes. Especially when we're talking about the articles' lead paragraphs, which almost invariably open with remarks about the concept itself in isolation of the history of its use, such as "The Switching Spell was a transfiguration spell used to switch the positions of two objects." --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 18:55, 11 January 2021 (UTC)


Personally, I'd use the struccture: Personally, I'd start with the History section and then the people involved.Rodolphus (talk) 14:44, 11 January 2021 (UTC)


Regarding your question what was edited. Only Rakepick's date of birth was changed to 1955 - 1956 on her article, but this change was correct.Rodolphus (talk) 21:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

RE:Arthur Weasley

I find it frankly hilarious that you think I'm guilty of edit warring just for trying to do my job as a content moderator. Yeah, okay, I forgot about the Institute, that was my mistake, but whatever, regardless of that, what you were doing was entirely unnecessary since 'Muggle Studies' and 'Knowledge of the Muggle world' means the same thing. It's a little bit of an 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' kind of situation. (And before you accuse me of also trying to fix something that wasn't broken, again, I only reverted it because I forgot about the Institute, although the link you kept restoring led to the Hogwarts subject's page anyway.) -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  15:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


I believe you may find this link most informative (, after reading some of your recent comments. All users have to follow this policy. This other link is also worthwhile reading ( RedWizard98 (talk) 21:34, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

RE: Brilliant Event: Imperfect Love

It's cool, thank you) Гилли (talk) 11:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Empty space

Bars of empty space are usually just caused by expanding certain sections of a page, like adding an image to it or editing an infobox in visual mode, and then switching back to source mode. It is very normal and can be removed very easily, thankfully. RedWizard98 (talk) 05:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Hogwarts Mystery screenshots

I cut them off. Гилли (talk) 14:18, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Right... How do you cut them out? Tfoc (talk) 05:35, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Using the gallery app from your phone :) Don't tell me your phone doesn't have an app that can cut screenshots :) MalchonC (talk) 11:34, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Source edit

Hi! Though it isn't required on this wiki, I'd strongly recommend you use source edit as the default edit mode, because visual edit can lead to some issues such as extra spaces or symbols. MalchonC (talk) 15:58, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Reason for the floor info

I still don't understand why you changed your mind :) Mind explaning? MalchonC (talk) 11:33, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I think your reason for the Ministry Office is still speculation. It makes sense, but it isn't necessarily true. It's probably better to voice it in the BTS section instead of stating it outright in the article. MalchonC (talk) 05:24, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
OK, I'm convinced :) MalchonC (talk) 06:18, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
What project? If it's about Harry Potter: Hogwarts Mystery, I'm in :) But I maybe slow depending on my free time. MalchonC (talk) 08:27, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Not directly. I am currently in the process of making a page for Magical Theory. As in, the field of study, not the Hogwarts subject. And since it's been established that knowing how magic works is necessary to invent new spells and magical artefacts, I was hoping you could help me by copiling a list of of all known spell inventors in chronological order, and what spell they made? There's a page for spell creation/invention, but that list is incomplete. I don't know who's missing, but I am certain that some do. I have some RL work stuff that'll keep me busy over the next few days, so that list would be of great help. ^^' Tfoc (talk) 10:03, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Hmmm, do we really have enough contents besides spell inventions to write for a Magical Theory page? MalchonC (talk) 12:56, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Like what? You'll have to convince me, one more time :) MalchonC (talk) 03:40, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Wow, this is insane! But I kind of have another Harry Potter: Hogwarts Mystery project already (actually two, one from myself and the other suggested by User:RedWizard98). Also, please double-check your spelling, I can see quite a lot of typos through my first browse. :) MalchonC (talk) 09:10, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
If you create the article, maybe I will help with the errors. The projects are adding quotes to the Jacob's sibling page, adding biographies to all other pages about Harry Potter: Hogwarts Mystery characters, and adding Harry Potter: Hogwarts Mystery characters to the known O.W.L.s of all subjects. Quite a lot, aren't they xD MalchonC (talk) 10:30, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Sorry I don't really play that game. I'll stick with Harry Potter: Hogwarts Mystery projects, I think. MalchonC (talk) 10:56, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, I already discovered it, but I usually just watch let's play videos (when I need full quotes/dialogues and etc.) MalchonC (talk) 13:17, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Oh thanks for reminding me of the search functionality! I'll put it to good use. MalchonC (talk) 15:03, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
I don't play Harry Potter: Wizards Unite either, actually. Based on your description, I would say that this is a very interesting topic, but since the Wizarding World operates mostly on fantasy, I don't know if it would be over-interpretation or even misguided to try to superimpose a physical explanation, such as light colour and energy form, on the spells. MalchonC (talk) 15:56, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes just like Seth pointed out below, the spell energy page falls in the definition of original research as well. In other words, you can write about it in a user blog, but it just doesn't feel right to be an article in the main namespace. MalchonC (talk) 02:20, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

MA game mechanic

Hi! I really like the paragraph of duelling you added to the Unidentified 2000s Hogwarts student page, but don't you think it's more suitable to be placed on the Harry Potter: Magic Awakened page? It is a game mechanic after all and other characters can sometimes be seen using similar spells/moves as well. MalchonC (talk) 09:07, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Meanwhile, could you look at this section here :) MalchonC (talk) 15:03, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I meant this exact section here on the talk page :) About the MA game mechanic. MalchonC (talk) 10:58, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! MalchonC (talk) 13:00, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Re:Magical Theory edit

Hi! It was no trouble at all, thank you for going through all the work of finding and collating all those different bits and bobs of information. Like the Quill of Acceptance and the Book of Admittance, we all do our best work when working together.

"Original research" is used on Wikipedia to refer to essay-ish analysis that serves to reach a conclusion not stated by the sources; a small degree of original research here is almost unavoidable, but it's best kept to the bare minimum. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 01:40, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

"Magical Theory"

This article you created contains no listed canon appearances despite being an in-universe article. It needs a full appearances section as per the wiki's layout guide (, which is why I applied the "Appearances" tag to it. RedWizard98 (talk) 13:58, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Please stop aggressively removing tags applied to this article. It is still being discussed, so the views of other users need to respected, contrary to what you might think. If you want to convince us why this article should stay, do so on the talk page, without the need to make accusations of conspiracy, especially against me, as it is so unhelpful and counterproductive to discussion. Kind regards RedWizard98 (talk) 17:36, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

It is also doesn't help when users remove tags on articles, when in this case, three users agree with such tags. These tags are useful to discussing articles. It is edit warring to keep removing them and quite disrespectful when it comes to the views of others. RedWizard98 (talk) 18:09, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

It isn't only Red's view, there's also my view and probably Seth's. MalchonC (talk) 18:23, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Please show some respect for the opinions of others. Your article is not granted any special protection just because you created it. Me, MalchonC and Rodolphus would like these tags applying to this article, because we agree with them. It seems you seem content on removing them because they oppose your view of the article, but in doing so, you are utterly disregarding the views of others. But this is the HP wiki, where the views of others have to be respected. The opinion of one user do not trump the views of others. This is still being discussed, and you can continue to discuss this without totally disregarding our views simply because you want to. RedWizard98 (talk) 18:31, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Why are so being so hostile? You do understand that everyone has an equal say on this wiki? You want us to work with you, but you seem to have such enormous resentment and hostility towards me and others who criticse your edits, for perfectly reasonable, allowed reasons. You to have accept the views of others are often different from your own, or else you will just keep creating endless arguments, that don't even need to exist. RedWizard98 (talk) 18:41, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
If you want to try and genuinely convince us why you believe your article should stay, perhaps also use this page to discuss this ( RedWizard98 (talk) 18:47, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I see you are already talking with others about the subject and one of the involved, User:Rodolphus, is also an admin. So I step back. I definitely will not create an admin rights war.  Harry granger   Talk   contribs 18:51, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

So you came to a conclusion? I hope it turned out well.  Harry granger   Talk   contribs 22:53, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Oh, I understand. I'm not new, but I'm only semi-active. I did not recognize the problems. It's good that Seth got involved. Your feelings are hurt I think when I read your answer to me. I know those feelings, too. When you love this wiki then please stay. We can always need good editors.  Harry granger   Talk   contribs 00:24, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Oh, no problem. I didn't feel insulted. Thanks for the hug ;-) but I have a surprise for you. I'm a woman. :D  Harry granger   Talk   contribs 19:46, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
That's no problem at all. You are not the first to do this, and you will not be the last either. It just keeps amusing me over and over again, that's all. I know this is a little mean. ;-)  Harry granger   Talk   contribs 22:22, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Your apology

Good morning. Just wanted to quickly thank you for your apology.Rodolphus (talk) 07:26, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Article tense

Thanks for contributing to the Harry Potter Wiki! Please note that all in-universe articles on this wiki should be written completely in past tense (e.g. "Harry Potter was a wizard."). For further information please see the Harry Potter Wiki:Editing Policy, and if you have any further questions, feel free to ask. Thanks. RedWizard98 (talk) 23:28, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

You again forgot (or failed) to use the past tense when editing the The Unforgivable, along with the addition of a sentence that was incomplete and made no sense. You know very well what this policy is so therefore you needed to be informed of it, again. I don't see why other editors should have to keep informing you of your frequent mistakes that we know well to avoid ourselves. RedWizard98 (talk) 09:58, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, from what I see, I cannot find a policy that says the warning templates can only be used by admins. And there's simply no need to focus too much on the wording. The templates are a time-saving way to inform users the problems of their edits, as long as the givers of the templates know what they're talking about, I don't see why they cannot leave these on others' talk pages. This is a wiki and everyone is just trying to help build it, I'm sure Red has no intention of being impolite to you just for the sake of it, and neither do I. MalchonC (talk) 18:47, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes MalchonC, warning templates can be used by users in any position for legitimate reasons, in order to inform other users of the mistakes they made, as to help them not make them in the future. If you don't like the policies of this wiki, please debate them in the Wizengamot. And also for your information, this wiki does not have "staff", it is simply made up of volunteers, and part of a healthy Fandom community is users holding other users to account over their edits, and if that causes you so much annoyance, that is your problem, not mine or anyone else's. If you don't like the rules of this wiki, why not establish your own wiki or simply join another one? RedWizard98 (talk) 18:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Red has done way more edits than you, he knows the way around this wiki. Please focus more on the correct way of improving the wiki, not how others word their opinions unless they're downright aggressive or offensive in a personal manner. MalchonC (talk) 05:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Quite simply, many of us are tired of your frequent editorial mistakes and poor attitude expressed towards others, so please be aware that we have no intention to stop informing you of your errors. You are not untouchable and must be held accountable like all other editors on this wiki - no user can get away with constant errors despite being informed of them, simply because they want to defy orders and argue with other users for no genuine gain. If you dislike accountability so much, like I said before, please find another fandom website to edit. RedWizard98 (talk) 10:18, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
No, talk pages can be edited by everybody too, I have every right to participate in a public conversation. This is by nature not a private chat between you and Red, so I don't need you to tell me you need me to join the conversation. MalchonC (talk) 10:22, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Funny you're the one who's talking about trying somebody's patience. Have it not occurred to you a single time what you're doing may come off to others? MalchonC (talk) 12:29, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
It's not about forcing others to partake in discussions, it's about being open to criticism and different opinions. From your defences, elsewhere or here, what I see is that you do not like to take others' points of view into serious consideration, but always only say a few words seemingly in response and then continue to prove your own point over and over again. For example when I said articles had to follow certain kinds of formats, you simply replied that they didn't necessarily have to and then went on and on about why you thought you should write everything in the article exactly as you had done, something you had already announced for like tens of times. The situation is the same here. Instead of focusing on the present/past tense issue, you just have to fixate on how people worded the warning. It's almost as if you were positively trying to start arguments. MalchonC (talk) 14:28, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

This is a reminder to everyone involved with this conversation of Harry Potter Wiki:No personal attacks policy. When the commentary shifts from focusing on the content or style of an edit to the editors involved then it is probably off-track and more likely to result in personal attacks. Should this sort of conversation continue then those involved may be blocked or banned for their actions. "Discuss the facts and how to express them, not the attributes of the other party." Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 17:30, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Red was not being condenscending, he just used a warning template. More specifically, this: {{Past tense}}. I would likely do the same should a similar situation happen to somebody else. This is the last thing I'll say in this conversation. MalchonC (talk) 01:44, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Re:Re:Good ol'

No, it's spelled Maester. Come on, at least show me the courtesy of not making me out to be an heedless fool who isn't aware of the painfully obvious. That matter has been discussed already in the past. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 20:37, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I never said you were a burden and no one is ganging up on you. If people have reservations about a contribution of yours or disagree with it, then maybe it would be more constructive to entertain the thought that they might have good reason to, instead of automatically assuming everyone is out to get you? If you want to be a worthwhile member of this community, then listening to others' concerns is a good place to begin. You can't really accuse me of not trying to help you (and not repeatedly offering second — and third, and fourth — chances) but even my patience has limits. Sorry if I sound a bit too blunt. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 21:32, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Re:Student program

They mention their assignments in Harry Potter: Hogwarts Mystery, Year 7, Chapter 6 (A Window of Opportunity), when the main character chats with them by the lifts in the Atrium. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 01:23, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Re: Radford edit

It wasn't simply because your name was on them, I've reverted a lot of other editors' edits and not reverted many of yours. It's all about the content. I admit I acted a little bit too fast about the false memory spell thing, I'm sorry, but I haven't changed my mind on the other two. The Confundus Charm is a completely different kind of spell, it may or may not have effects on memory. And the retcon thing doesn't work like that. The years of birth and death are specifically stated, you can't so easily say they are implied to not be true. It's no more than a mistake. MalchonC (talk) 14:17, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I understand. It's not that I don't agree the recent Ministry info should take precedence over the witch's birth and death years, it's just a matter of choosing the word. Maybe it's because my mother tongue is not English or any language that has a Latin origin, so I'm not as sensitive to the choice of words, but I still find "retcon" being used on this occasion a bit weird. I'm sure we can sort this out. MalchonC (talk) 15:04, 31 March 2021 (UTC)


Plagiarism is not something that really exists on Fandom wikis, as the sharing, or copying of information, images, or any other kind of content is allowed and welcomed. In fact, information is often copied on this wiki, and it does fall under the definition of plagiarism, not even remotely. RedWizard98 (talk) 18:22, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

RE Your message

Hello, thank you for your complimentary message; I appreciate it, although the edit in question was actually only very minor. I understand we have not agreed on many issues, but hopefully we can amicably agree upon more things in the future. Kind regards RedWizard98 (talk) 07:53, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Bill Weasley's Gringotts office

I don't know where his office is mentioned or depicted in canon, but if you know, there is no reason why a page couldn't be created, as it is perfectly notable. RedWizard98 (talk) 18:35, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Neville as Head of Gryffindor

Have you played Harry Potter: Magic Awakened or seen any video that confirmed Neville was Head of Gryffindor? If not, consider this a serious warning to your borderline vandalism behaviour. MalchonC (talk) 12:05, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

As stated here (, the game only so very slightly implies that Neville could possibly be the Head of Gryffindor House, but this should in no way be taken as fact and you were incorrect to write that Neville was definitely made the Head of House. More than just the three Heads of Houses sit at the High Table during the Sorting Ceremony, and also, the content supposedly referenced as absolute fact is in reality a teaser trailer for an unreleased game; you often make unsubstantiated claims about the franchise and then go off on huge tangents trying to desperately explain why you are right, in your own head, but this is really disingenuous to state this and we should really wait for official announcements from this game, before we start making claims that have no grounding and are potentially completely untrue. RedWizard98 (talk) 12:13, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

No, from what you have said, just categorically no. Your view of canon almost exists in a parallel universe as to what the general community thinks. You've got zero proof from that video that Neville was appointed the Head of Gryffindor - you have merely assumed it, which isn't enough evidence, what Seth Cooper has said countless times. If it turns out in later information that you are right, then wonderful - that information can be given an exact correct source to prove its truth. But what you've presented, sorry, it doesn't cut it, not one bit. Your view of what canon is does not trump what the widely accepted consensus of what it actually is. Making these presumptions and then passing them off as absolute truths might be enjoyable to you or others, but to many of us, it is so extremely annoying and unhelpful. RedWizard98 (talk) 17:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
I consider your edit vandalism because just a few moments before, I added the section that specifically says Neville being the Head of Gryffindor is only a speculation. Then you added it to the article like it was a confirmed fact. You're deliberately misleading people and damaging this wiki. If I hadn't edited the page myself before you went on with that statement, I wouldn't have reacted like this because I would've understood why you thought Neville was the Head given the possible evidence. But you completely disregarded my paragraph and inserted this unconfirmed assumption, so I have no reason to believe what you did was not vandalism. I've always minded my tone, and this is exactly the tone I need to take with you. MalchonC (talk) 18:38, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
That's why I said "borderline vandalism" in the original message. Let's put that aside for just a moment and I'll come back to it.
So you're saying it's actually WU which confirmed Neville was Head? I think not, because you added 2008 in your edit, which means you took that information from either MA itself or my paragraph. Neither is a reliable source of Neville being the Head. I think you can ask around the admins and other cmods and see if anyone agrees with you that it is enough evidence to prove Neville was Head. I will not say this again: a good enough evidence should be you hear somebody say in a sentence that means "Neville is the Head of Gryffindor" or you see something with words which mean "Neville is the Head of Gryffindor". Seeing some close-ups is not a good enough evidence, and if you still don't agree, then there's nothing I can do for you anymore. Just ask around and see if anyone else agrees with you.
And here comes my point: you've been constantly warned about treating an assumption like a confirmed fact, but you still carry on with this behaviour and think yourself are right. If you're doing this for the first time, then it's definitely not vandalism. But now, with all the warnings given, you give others the impression of intentionally disrupting the order of this wiki and damaging it. This is vandalism. MalchonC (talk) 03:35, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
There is a very clear definition of vandalism given in Harry Potter Wiki:Blocking policy - "Vandalism is defined as any bad-faith edit made with the intent to lower the quality of the wiki or disrupt the functioning of the community." In conjunction, there is also the expectation in Harry Potter Wiki:No personal attacks to "Assume good faith" and that "it is important to assume good faith when making such a comment [that an edit is vandalism] — if the edit that is being reverted could be interpreted as a good-faith edit, then don't label it as vandalism." If there is a disagreement about whether some piece of evidence is sufficient for inclusion in the article, then that should be raised on the article Talk page for community discussion, not compared to vandalism and used as fodder for another round of User Talk page arguments. This personal, argumentative, and disruptive routine that has developed between you three - Tfoc, MalchonC, and RedWizard98 - is likely to result in consequences such as blocks or bans for you all if it continues. Be civil and focus on critiquing the content, not each other. Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 04:07, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
You're right, I need to cool down. But I still won't in any way support adding Neville as Head until canonical confirmation occurs. MalchonC (talk) 04:38, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
There's already a discussion ongoing on Neville's talk page, so it seems fit to take the discussion there. I'm not saying much here but that doesn't mean I agree with you in the Neville situation. MalchonC (talk) 06:08, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

No Personal Attacks Policy

Despite repeated warnings, you've continued to disregard the Harry Potter Wiki:No personal attacks policy and the requirement to "Discuss the facts and how to express them, not the attributes of the other party." As such please take a break for couple days to cool off and think about how to converse with other editors that doesn't include calling their contributions whining or their degree of satisfaction. --Ironyak1 (talk) 17:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't calling their contributions whining, I was told him to stop whining at me, because that's what he's doing, and it's annoying. I have already admitted that the talk page of Neville Longbottom's article wasn't the right place for it, but the absolute worst thing you can accuse me of doing is calling a spade a spade. And while I understand you felt the need to step in here, out of curiosity; if you told me to take a couple of days off without blocking me for getting defensive about being borderline harassed by someone who is being biased and passive aggressive towards me - do you think I would've just ignored you? If you said: "Tfoc, take three days off to cool off" do you think I would have disregarded you and continued the discussion on the talk page or something? Tfoc (talk) 20:20, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

As it states in Harry Potter Wiki:No personal attacks - "There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors" and "Users who engage in personal attacks on other users will be blocked according to policy." So the "they started it" excuse and "why didn't you choose some other action" complaint is clearly answered by policy. As several previous warnings have not prevented you from engaging in further personal attacks, there is no reason to believe asking yet again would yield different results. Please note that future personal attacks will result in more extensive blocks and/or a permanent ban as needed. Everyone is expected to "Discuss the facts and how to express them, not the attributes of the other party" and "Maintain a civil atmosphere towards fellow users at all times" - no exceptions. --Ironyak1 (talk) 02:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Strawman me, why don't you? But you know, it doesn't really matter either, because I am fully prepared to ignore Red's existence from this point forward if that's what I have to do to avoid any further "breaches" of the policy you just quoted at me. Tfoc (talk) 03:54, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Lockhart's works and Cursed Child

Hi, your latest revision to Lockhart's works is much better, but that is an awkwardly long sentence in the middle, do you think you can improve it somehow?

The Cursed Child goes through the 2017–2020 school years very very quickly (with just a few scenes for each year, for example the sorting ceremony, a flying lesson or Harry giving Albus the consent letter for Hogsmeade). And the rest of the play except for the time travel scenes and some final scenes takes place entirely between 1 September and 31 October 2020. MalchonC (talk) 08:10, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Re: HM and MA crossover

What video? MalchonC (talk) 04:47, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

The feeling you get when you're making a point and forget to add the resource substantiating it... #WellThat'sNotEmbarrassing. Tfoc (talk) 05:30, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

There're more than three in MA so I doubt there's any real connection. MalchonC (talk) 05:43, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

There are more than three on display, but if you just watch video, you'll find three of them identical to the three that Jacob's sibling can choose from when buying their third wand. Tfoc (talk) 06:24, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Minerva McGonagall

Tfoc, I removed some of what you wrote because it was more of a large description of Wizards Unite events in general, that were not directly about Minerva (about her role in the Calamity), but about loads of different foundables from Hogwarts in general. Minerva was the Headmistress of Hogwarts, but I feel that information would better belong on a different page. When you also restored your preferred version of this page, you removed several fixes I made to references and an image of Minerva from Wizards Unite. I'd use her talk page instead. RedWizard98 (talk) 20:49, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

If you read the page history, you can see that I improved the names of several references, expanded references, updated file names, and removed excess information with an image of Minerva from Harry Potter: Wizards Unite. This is all visible and I don't think it needs undoing itself. RedWizard98 (talk) 21:00, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Talk Page Policy

As noted in the Harry Potter Wiki:Talk Page Policy comments should not be removed from Talk pages as you did here. If the question gets answered or article updated, as seems to be the case in this instance, just leave a comment that it's been resolved. This issue has been brought to your attention before in messages above so please make sure it doesn't happen going forward. Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 15:47, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Past tense

Hello, I've said this numerous times before, but the tense you write with is extremely inconsistent and is not entirely past tense, as much of it is present tense. You know that the wiki only allows in-universe articles that are not also real world subjects to be written in entirely the past tense, and you aren't a beginner user, so you should understand this entirely by now. Writing articles from the past tense only was agreed upon a long time ago in this wiki's forum and it hasn't changed since, and it isn't going to change anytime soon by the looks of it (unless you or someone else wants to review the topic in the Wizengamot forum). I now only write with the past tense, and so does everybody else, so need to fully as well. Kind regards RedWizard98 (talk) 15:42, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Your views on this wiki's tense policy are incorrect, to say the very least. Please read this ( and this ( to understand properly how articles are to be written. If you see an in-universe article, that is not "real world", that is written in the present tense, contrary to your thinking, but its tense is wrong and needs fixing. RedWizard98 (talk) 20:42, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

The present tense is still an old trend on some articles, however we have agreed we intend on rectifying this mistake, which is why we have re-written many articles to suit the present tense, myself included. The best thing to do, is to keep working on this area so we can have a wiki that is coherently written. RedWizard98 (talk) 21:39, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

RE The Leaky Cauldron

Hey - Yep, I saw your message just one of several pending items to attend to. I agree that the Early History paragraphs for the Leaky Cauldron are very close to the original Writing by J.K. Rowling: "The Leaky Cauldron" at Wizarding World article and should likely be reworded. Feel free to get a start on it - I'm sure others will likely help out as well. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 17:45, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Rufus Scrimgeour

Your removals to this page of are of entirely sourced, accurate information. They are inaccurate however, in your own head. There is no reason to remove other well-explained information from articles aside from personal bias. RedWizard98 (talk) 15:57, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Emeric the Evil

Whilst you are correct to state that Emeric was to an extent skilled with handling magical beasts given his shown ability to mount and fly on a dragon in The Tales of Beedle the Bard: Illustrated Edition, to say that the dragon is a "Wyvern" is speculative and misleading, seen as though it is basically your own opinion on its species and nothing else. Please don't write that it is a Wyvern again, because quite simply has never been called such a thing. Thanks. RedWizard98 (talk) 21:30, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Please don't try to entertain me with false information, claiming that Wyverns are a defined species in HP. Your edits are nothing short of fanon, and I'll regrettably have to let Seth Cooper know if you write this false information again. None of the images you've provided as Wyverns, they are dragons. I don't listen to fabricated information. Please don't invent information and pass it off as the truth. RedWizard98 (talk) 22:26, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Please send me an official canon source, such as a quote from the text of The Tales of Beedle the Bard: Illustrated Edition, or something else from Pottermore or J. K. Rowling (if one exists), that calls Emeric's unnamed dragon steed a Wyvern. Then, I will accept the creature as one. Thanks RedWizard98 (talk) 22:46, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
There is no need for making personal attacks in discussions. I don't know why you decided to do so, but I've had to report this behaviour, since is really quite unhelpful, hostile and against the wiki's new policy on this. Focus on the content of discussions as opposed to individual users. Thank you. RedWizard98 (talk) 23:18, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
And I would ask you to respect the opinions of experienced editors on this wiki, and not to express such strong annoyance when proved incorrect, accusing others as being "conspiracy theorists", which is bizarre and inaccurate. I have no concern with a so-called "persecution complex", your tone is deliberately hostile and it is unacceptable on this wiki, and in fact, all wikis. RedWizard98 (talk) 23:50, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Please, don't entertain me, or anyone else, with false, fake information in the future. I really think either the Harry Potter Fanon Wiki ( or the Dumbledore's Army Roleplay Wiki ('s_Army_Role-Play_Wiki) would be so much better for you than this wiki, then you won't have to worry about others rejecting all your edits, and you can feel free to invent as information much as you want. If you stay on this wiki, be prepared to see any future false statements you make be rebuffed and reverted by me or someone else like me. I'll also report you for fanon, which is a form of vandalism on this wiki. But as I said, do look into the Harry Potter Fanon Wiki. RedWizard98 (talk) 09:15, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Again, for insisting a ride a non-existent "high-horse", you have been most regrettably reported officially for both fanon and personal attacks, on the administrator attention board, which I did yesterday and today. The results of which will have to be awaited. RedWizard98 (talk) 13:03, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

By the way, users are free to message other users whenever they please, regardless of what other users may think. That is one of the many wonderful things about this wiki. You therefore cannot reasonably demand others to stop contacting you. Please don't forget to consider the two wonderful fanon wiki website links I posted above. Kind regards RedWizard98 (talk) 14:26, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
You have no right to declare "bye" to anyone. This is a place of free discussion, debate and communication; if you don't like it, fine, but please find another online community to join if so. If you find talking to others who disagree with you to be so intolerable, perhaps take a break from it and find something else to do instead. RedWizard98 (talk) 15:04, 30 May 2021 (UTC)


First off, I'm not sure why you saw fit to "inform" me that wyverns has four legs when half my post on the "request for admin attention" page was all about why whys and hows of my misconception of the Wyvern as having two legs instead of four, and how Sirius was kind enough to show me that yes; The White Wyvern does indeed have four legs, not two. I already acknowledged it.

But let me see if I get this right, Irnoyak1... Since I didn't react well to borderline bullying, and I had the audacity to call him out on his borderline bullying and tell him to stop, and because RedWizard89 chose to continue the argument instead of, in your own words, "acknowledging his persistent role in this ongoing and disruptive feud", I'm blocked for a week? What sort reasoning is that? Your justification for it doesn't track either: What do you mean "As both of you can't state here that you'll agree to disagree" - I just did that in my response to RedWizards' accusations above. I just acknowledged that "because we couldn't get along, hey, maybe this might be a solution to put a stop to the hostilities?", and then you tell me I wasn't open to end the hostilities? Did you even read what I wrote? Did you even give me time to notice that you had responded to us with the ultimatum of agreeing to disagree or facing a block so I can throw in my ten cents and - you know, agree to disagree? I can sort of see why you blocked RedWizard98, since he pressed the issue after you issued the warning/ultimatum, but I fail to see how you're justified in making my status as blocked or unblocked contingent on his attitude after the fact, or at the very least given me a few days less for not also pressing the issue after you got involved, and for not failing to acknowledge my part in this mess.

Considering how the quarrel was actually over well before you blocked my account, and I'm not responsible for what RedWizard98 says or does, I would kindly ask you to unblock me, please. I was in the middle of an edit to add more HM info to Dumbledore's page, and I'd like to get back to it while I still can. In the upcoming week, I'll be directing an instructional video aimed at mental health care as a project I'm working on in my day class in movie making, so I will be swamped by the time you originally meant to let me back in. I'm still free to do it now, though, and would hate to lose the thread. Tfoc (talk) 18:43, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I read all of what you wrote, which again is criticizing another editor across multiple talk pages, instead of focusing on just the article content, which is against the Harry Potter Wiki:No personal attacks policy and which you have been told repeatedly not to do. That alone is the justification for the block. You need to actually do as you said multiple times you were going to and ignore RedWizard98, or just report his actions to administration, rather than get dragged in again into another back-and-forth personal attack. The "he started it" excuse does not justify your reaction, which is the only thing you can control in such situations. Best of luck with your classwork. --Ironyak1 (talk) 18:57, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

So that's the solution? Running to the "grownups" with a finger in my eye every time RedWizard89 disrespect me, as opposed to having the self-respect to stand up for myself? You do realize that I am twenty-seven years old, and that resolving differences with those around me by communicating with them is what and how I am supposed to deal with these things? Because that's what adults actually do, they talk things out. Doesn't magically mean they're going to be the best of chums, but it is vastly preferable to you basically asking me to shed two decades off my back when RedWizard89 is being passive aggressive and disrespectful. It's not a matter of "he started it", you see, it is a matter of principle. He is being impertinent, and I'm not having it. Just like you wouldn't stand for it if somebody disrespected you. As for the policy? Telling RedWizard to stop harassing me, even if I'm firm about it, don't qualify as a personal attack. Not without a series of mental gymnastics that I believe you're too intellectually honest to embark on. Which, by the way, isn't a "personal attack" either, it's a compliment. Means you have integrity. Now the question becomes if that integrity is going to lead you to the conclusion that you have, in fact, made a hasty if well-intentioned decision with the block button when it wasn't necessary, or if you aren't. In which case, sucks for me. I guess updating isn't all that important then. Every page - more or less - about or around HM is severely lacking. Wouldn't have hated to get a group of people together for a project and systematically tackle it by seeing if anyone would be up for volunteering to update specific articles or character pages relating to HM... Rakepick comes to mind.

Thanks; I've been told that if we do well, I can use it as reference on my CV if I ever want to direct something professionally, so that's exciting! :-D Tfoc (talk) 21:08, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

As noted on Harry Potter Wiki:No personal attacks - "If you are personally attacked, you should ask the attacker to stop and note this policy. If they continue, contact an Administrator and clearly state the problem." Otherwise, one tends just end up engaging in the same sort of personal attacks one is complaining about and also land in trouble. There are a million adages I could quote here - "Two wrongs don't make one right", "Strong minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, weak minds discuss people", "Never argue with a fool; onlookers may not be able to tell the difference", and so forth. If you keep allowing yourself to be baited into personal arguments it's going to result in further blocks or a permanent ban in the future so please keep this in mind when making a decision how best to response. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 03:57, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Doesn't change the fact that you were basically giving us an ultimatum of "do you want to do such and such, or be blocked?" and then only he got to respond, and then you blocked me as if I can be held responsible for the attitude he responded with... Tfoc (talk) 01:08, 3 Jun 2021 (UTC)

Ah, you're misreading it - the statement was more "you're both going to be blocked, unless you both agree to stop this feud." As you both can't agree to stop, then you both were blocked for the back-and-forth personal attacks you already had committed. It takes two to tango. Please keep this in mind when the music starts up next time and choose to sit out the song instead. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 07:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

So what's the lesson supposed to be, exactly? Wouldn't it be more fair and more logically coherent to say, for instance, that the person open to taking responsibility for their actions by agreeing to work with you to take the necessary steps to end the feud, whatever those might be, wasn't blocked, and that the one who didn't do that was blocked? Not to mention the ethical aspects of the incident, where you hold me to be as big of a culprit for being provoked by a borderline bully as the latter is for going out of his way to provoke me in the first place, and being a borderline bully. All you decision to block both of us have achieved so far, especially in view of how I wasn't allowed to take a position regarding your ultimatum, is to hold me responsible for RedWizards98's failure to acknowledge his part in the feud. How's that fair? Tfoc (talk) 01:33 PM, 3 Jun 2021 (UTC)

The blocks are fair because you both broke the Harry Potter Wiki:No personal attacks policy regardless of who started it - I'll be sure not to offer any chances to make amends in the future. --Ironyak1 (talk) 16:20, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Never mind the fact that you have expressed an inclination to judge me basically getting bullied by the same token as RedWizard bullying; and let's ignore for a moment that referring to how I told RedWizard98 to stop being condescending and passive-aggressive is, with all due respect, flimsy at best, I would be remiss if I didn't point out the fact that you didn't offer me any chance to make amends at all, Ironyak1, so I don't think it'll make a whole lot of difference where I'm concerned.

You can claim that the block's are fair, of course, and you can preach wiki policies till you're blue in the face, I; but the actual facts of the matter is that it isn't fair. You put an ultimatum on the table. You told us that we would not be blocked if a specific set of criteria was met, and then you disallowed me any opportunity to meet them by blocking me based on RedWizards' reaction to it. You made the decision of whether or not I got blocked contingent on the behaviour of somebody else, and by extension held me jointly responsible for their conduct. As irreligious, you see, I just so happen to find the idea of substitutionary atonement, or penal substitution as it's also called, to be both logically and ethically problematic. I am sorry if pointing that out to you annoys you, but if you are going to get all sore about my attempt at constructive criticism and let it colour how you will moderate me in the future, I must ask you to please excuse yourself from the decision-making process the next time there's reason to believe I've done something that warrants a block and leave it to someone who won't be biased against me. Not that I found you to be especially biased against me on this occasion, mind you, but the last sentence of your previous post implied you might be in the future, and I resent that. That said, I will of course take your constructive criticism to heart and do my utmost not to dance the next time the piper starts playing; as per your suggestion. Tfoc (talk) 08:53 PM, 3 Jun 2021 (UTC)

Re: Public inquiry

Pardon? MalchonC (talk) 12:53, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Re: McGonagall block

Your "Neville as Head of Gryffindor" statement, obviously. MalchonC (talk) 10:58, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I see, yet you moved the statement around (to a different paragraph, that's why in the diffs it is shown as having been changed) without rectifying your own mistake, so I'll say you still need to learn what needs to be done in wiki articles. I'll shorten the protection to a day. MalchonC (talk) 11:38, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Look, I can't know if you really just didn't notice or were too unbothered to remove it, but anyway, this doesn't seem like too much of a big deal now so I'll lift the protection, but if you add Neville as Head of Gryffindor again to any article without receiving direct confirmation from Harry Potter: Magic Awakened or any other source, there will be further protections and/or reports to admins. MalchonC (talk) 13:48, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Call us nay-sayers or minority if you'd like. You can even petition for a vote to be opened, and if it does turn out that it not being a direct confirmation is indeed the unpopular one, I will then have nothing to say and you can add it to whatever article you'd like, but until then, making that mistake again is not funny anymore. MalchonC (talk) 14:19, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

They aren't, that's why they're mistakes. And we being a minority or not doesn't really affect how we make decisions on this very site. We can't reach out to all Potterheads in the world, so whoever participates in discussions here decisively determine how a controversy is resolved. If other people have the same opinion that's unpopular here, but don't bother to chime in, then it's neither up to us to guess what they really believe, nor do they have anything to do with what's going on here. MalchonC (talk) 14:48, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Re: Customer service on MA

I used it from within the game itself, download the PC version from here, then use a NetEast email address to log in the game, and click into customer service from there. MalchonC (talk) 11:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

"What program"? It's just like any other game, which, after installation, would be launched by double-clicking on a shortcut placed on the desktop, so not sure what you mean. Do you mean what operating system? It's Windows 10. And yes, the text is almost all in Chinese, it's the only language available so far. MalchonC (talk) 12:11, 22 June 2021 (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.