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!
- 1 Grindelwald image
- 2 What's your problem?
- 3 First off:
- 4 Response
- 5 Percival Graves' Wand Edits, overzealous much?
- 6 Edit warring
- 7 I would just like to apologize
- 8 Xanderen - SeerLeviosa should have put a heading here, so you can name this whatever the hell you like.
- 9 Grindelwald's nationality
- 10 Spoiler tophats
- 11 Lockhart's wand
- 12 Our dispute:
Images that have been voted on are protected until a new vote is taken - that's how things are done here. All the character images weren't open to update to Cursed Child versions simply because the image vote was years ago. You want to see the Grindelwald image changed, contact an administrator and get a new vote going so everyone can reach a consensus. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 08:49, November 19, 2016 (UTC)
What's your problem?
I don't know what your issue with my additions to Grindelwald's page is, or what caued your wired fixation with undermining the magical prowess of established finctional characters in the Harry Potter universe, but the fact that you have some fancy idea about them being purely speculative doesn't actually make them so. There is in fact a life-sized Wall of China between speculation and observation.
Charisma: He inspired the loyalty of numerous witches and wizards to unite under the philosphy of the Greater Good, a number sufficent for him to form an army. And since he is NOT a Voldemort rip-off, and everyone who saw the movie that he is capable of manipulation, it is a given that his followers less likely to act out of fear. After all, Grindelwald was more of a revelutionary, while Voldemort were a plain old tyrant. There is hell of a difference. He HAS charisma, and he HAS ability to lead.
Acting: He was impersonating Percival Graves and weren't caught before his long-term plan went south. Enough said.
Magical Derexity: While posing as Graves, he gave an impression of being a highly accomplished wizard. NEVER, until he engaged all those Aurors, did he accomplish anything even coming REMOTELY CLOSE to even resembling Dumbledore's powers. Aka, he held back, as is to be expected by someone who needs to "stay in character".
Divination: He said he had a vision... That's... Divination? Grindelwald had a sight. Canon.
Occlumency: Lord Voldemort were said to be the most accomplished Legilimens alive, yet unable to penetrate Grindelwald's mind to gain information in his search of the Elder Wand. Read the book again.
Knowledge of Wandlore: "Grindelwald was well-versed in wandlore, having a superior understanding of the Elder Wand to Lord Voldemort. Unlike Voldemort, Grindelwald succeeded in attaining its mastery, as he was aware that to take control of the Elder Wand, he needed to not just steal the wand, but also to defeat the previous owner." FACT. Removing it is nonsensical.
Wand versatility: Wands, while they can be won, is not as EASILY won as the Elder Wand. And even if Grindelwald won the alligiance of Grave's wand, it would not automatically work as well for him as the wand that chose him. That's FACT. And being able to take another wand inferior to your own and make it work as effectively as he did in the film takes resourcefulness and the power of adaptability.
I'd like you to stop and think about WHY someone would write something that theoretically can be interpretated as speculation and ask them about it instead of pick pages you're dissatisfied with and toss away the contribrutions of other people who work just as hard as you to maintain this place.
In regard to my comment about 'edit priviliges' when I saw your edit, and I let it out on you unfairly, for which I apologize. Also, as for your question; ""Then why are you unable to respond to any of my points?", it is simply because I have failed to realize your points had been made in writing here. And now that I have seen them, I'll try to address them to the best of my ability.
Harry describes Draco's wand as working just as well for him as Hermione's had. That doesn't make "wand versatility" a thing... you don't know that Graves' wand was working as well for Grindelwald as his own might have done, or that it was "easily won". Actually, yeah, it kind of those. Twist it and turn it as you like, heck, flip it upside down if you want to, but it won't change the fact that a wand chooses the wizard. Therefore, no other wand, regardless of whether you won its alligiance or not, will be fully compatible with its new master. That's why Draco's wand worked as well as Hermione's wand rather than as well as Harry's. There are bound to be differentials, seen as how no two wands are quite alike just like no witch or wizard are quite the same, so the compatibility between wizard and wand will NEVER be as good as with the wand that chooses them. So in the end, its really just a question about the witch or wizards affinity for magic, their adaptability and their ability to make the most of what they have. And even if Grindelwald was to have been the master of Percival Graves's wand, it would not have worked as well for him as the wand he got while beginning at Durmstrang, meaning that it takes a great deal of effort and skill to pull off advanced magic with a different wand, at least if you compare it to your own. Therefore, yes, wand versatility is ABSOLUTELY a thing.
Occlumency: Grindelwald actually fails to conceal the Elder Wand's location, so saying that he could successfully shield his mind from Voldemort is outright incorrect. He did? Where did you read that? Voldemort tried but failed to make him disvulge where the wand was, lost his patience, killed Grindelwald determined to find clues elsewhere and made the connection afterwards when he at long last asked himself "Wait.... How DID Grindelwald end up in that prison, anyway?"
Divination: Grindelwald knew there was an Obscurus in New York because he sees it firsthand at the start of the film. All that "I've had vision" talk was just part of his manipulation of Credence. No, we see a curse from Grindelwald catch them off guard. It quite literary cannot have been an obscurus, let alone Credence's obscurus, attacking those Aurors, for obvious reasons. Meaning the vision is still quite possible.
Acting, charisma, and leadership: Nothing whatsoever to do with magic. Nor does Dumbledore's mention of genious level intellect, leadership abilities, or Professor McGonagall's physical aptitude to survive five stunners, but as I said, its "Magical abilities and skills. 2+2=4. You don't get the whole picture of what any of the characters are capable of if you don't include whatever other talents they have other than waving a stick and make things happen. They're human first and wizards second.
History of Magic: He knew where Ignotus Peverell was buried because his aunt lived in Godric's Hollow. It's not a "skill" that warrants listing. She was his great-aunt. That is a distinction of some merit, and she lived abroad. Sure, they might have been exchanging Christmas cards or something, but do you reckon you'd stay in touch with some old aunt of your mom/dad just because she was famous? Probably not. neither would I, because I could brag about being releated to that famous British magical historian, but other than that, it wouldn't make that much of a difference, since the history of magic in the cirriculum at Durmstrang in all porbability were narrowed down to that of the geographical proximity of the school, just like how Professor Binns talk exclusively about the magical history of Great Britain. However, by the time he visited Godric's Hallow, he had already been expelled from school, yet already carved the symbol of the Deathly Hallows into a wall there, proving that the idea of the Deathly Hallows had been on his mind a bit. And remember that the legend of the Deathly Hallows was something very few believed in, yet he found out How? Well, he would not have come across the myth in any textbook at Durmstrang, so it's not unreasonable to assume that he, like Albus, first became aware of it through a translated edition of Beddle the Bard's book. And even if he heard of it elsewhere, he would still have had to go through that whole process of first try to figure out from where the story originated and research it so he can separate history from myth and track down from the Hallows. And he already did this, before he visited Bathilda, a visit he took just so he could look for more clues, so ultimately, YES. He was well-versed in magical history concerning lore and powerful magical artefacts, because if you have ever tried to look up mythical concepts, you know you'll most likely have to go through a number of different intepretations and similar yet unrelated information before you find exactly what you're looking for.
Magical dexterity: That's your opinion, and nothing more. Newt and Tina had already realized that Grindelwald was trying to unleash the Obscurus on NY and were trying to stop him... why would he try and "stay in character" at this point? Unless I'm missing something Grindelwald has three duels in the film; he duels Tina and wins, then Newt and wins, and then the MACUSA Aurors + Newt and Tina, and is defeated. On what other occasion does he use magic were you feel he's "holding back".
That's obvious fact, and nothing less. Let's say you have a friend who can't talk, yet when you go out for Halloween, you know he is dressed as a Dark Knight. If you got separated, and someone later came along with a indentical costume and similar build, don't not say a word when spoken to and just nodded to confirm he's/she's listening, you just might be inclined to believe this is your friend. This would not have worked if this hypotetical imposter was a head taller than he's supposed to be, that would have looked pretty wired, and the guy would pretty soon be exposed. Different manner of trickery, same principle. Grindelwald would have been a moron (which he isn't) to steal the indetity of a senior official in MACUSA and balantly disregard the bounderies of the skills possessed by the real deal. People would have noticed, and Grindelwald would have been found out on the first day on work. As for you second point, no, they did not know Grindelwald tried to unleash an Obscurus, all they knew were that Credence was an obscurus, wreaking havoc and that Graves pursued him. Graves had already sentenced them to death under false pretenses, (with the real reason seemining to be he found them inconvinient AND expressed to USE the obscurus), so they wanted to reach Credence before Graves did. To help him, rather than use him like Graves or attack him like the rest of MACUSA. The fact that Graves was Grindelwald and that he sought to use the Obscural to expose wizardkind, were initially (until Grindelwald's speech) something about which they were oblivious.
And yes, he bests Newt and he bests Tina in duels, as can be expected by a seasoned Auror, which is exactly the indetity he has stolen. But before he began engaging in battle with all those Aurors, did Graves ever strike you as someone as powerful as Dumbledore or Voldemort? The wandless magic can be easily explained: The witches and wizards of South America uses wandless magic in everyday life, and while wands are more common in North America than in South, the geographical proximity dicates that wandless magic still would have been more common there than in the UK. Why he would stay in character? OBVIOUSLY because he were still interested in regaining Credence's confidence, which would have been ridiculously more difficult if he approached him as a stranger as opposed to Graves who, while having betrayed their trust, had treated him with kindness in the past. Also, had he outmatched all those Aurors and made a run for it after that speech, he would effectively have ensured would be found guilty of the crimes he committed. Even if the real Graves were to be dead at that point, that wouldn't have mattered, no one would ever find out. All they would have known would be that a member of one of the most prominent and politically influential wizarding families of North America betratyed them and possibly were in league with Grindelwald. A stain on the name and reputation of MACUSA that would have had political consequenses and caused a great deal of fuzz with the ICW. And all chaos, Grindelwald benefit from. He had in other words everything to gain and nothing to win by staying in character, and the only reason he showed the true immensity of his power in the end, was simply because he HAD to step up his game if he wanted to leave that place alive/get out safely. The restrained abilities he displayed as Graves wouldn't have sufficed.
Wandlore: Knowing a simple, basic fact about wandlore doesn't make him "well versed". Since when was the subtle laws of wand ownership a "simple, basic fact about wandlore"? Wandlore is a obscure craft, and canonically, only those who dedicates their life to its study knows much about it. (Unless you're Dumbledore or similary talented). You don't here anyone go like; "Do you tihnk Professor Snape is master of Professor Lockhart's wand now?" The Elder Wand had thus far only been won through murder. How would he have known he could refrain from murders that wasn't for the 'greater good' if he did not commit himself to figure out how wands worked? He would have studied wandlore in any case while attempting to figure out how to unlock the power of the Death Stick, he wouldn't necessarily have known beforehand that getting his hands on it was enough. After all, "The wand chooses the wizard", by contrast, IS a simple, basic fact of wandlroe, and Grindelwald would have wanted to know how to achieve the alligiance of the Elder Wand.
In canon Polyjuice potion mimics the impersonated person's voice as well as their appearance, he wasn't just "putting on an accent", as you claim, his voice was different. There is a big deal of difference between having a perfectly imitated voice, and a perfecly imitated accent. The latter is distinct, and takes hard work and practice, and in any case, Grindelwald imitated the mannerism of Graves as well as his accent, so he'd have to be good at improvisational acting anyway.
Okay, screw magical derexity, if Seth Cooper say wand varsility is not a thing, it goes to show that even an Admin can be wrong now and again... As I said, it's magical abilities and skills. Not Magical abilities and magical skills.
Fine... No divination...
Occlumency... Something's missing in your summury.
- Voldemort demands the Elder Wand's location.
- Grindelwald refuses and goads Voldemort into killing him.
- Voldemort does so, and leaves because his DEs summon him, not because he retrieved the information.
You don't specificly read that Voldemort is trying to penetrate Snape's mind in Malfoy Manor in the beginning of the book, yet you know he did due to that intense stare and how Snape met it calmly. Grindelwald and Voldemort looked straight at each other. Using Legilimency is second nature to Voldemort, so much so that he reputedly "always know when he is being lied to". When Voldemort yells that Grindelwald's lying, it's not the same manner he have done earlier, as if he have "exposed" someone a liar. It's more that Voldemort knew Grindelwald lied because he already learned and was convinced that he once had the Elder Wand, and when Grindelwald said he did not have it, Voldemort was unable to discover where it was and in frustration started "calling him names", to put it that way. If someone lies to Voldemort's face, they have eye contact and he still not know the truth, then the only manner in which they COULD have hid it from him is Occlumency.
"Charisma and so on belongs in "Personality and traits".
No, it don't, because manipulation and inspiring loyalty to a cause that is morally questionable takes skill.
Percival Graves' Wand Edits, overzealous much?
Dude, speculation on wands is allowed, quite a few pages have it somewhere. There's no need to remove absolutely everything on the speculation for Percival Graves' wand, you coulda shoved it all into Notes which is where most wand speculation goes. See also, Luna's First Wand - due to the design of the wand there's speculation over the wand wood in the notes. So you coulda gone with that, rather than outright culling absolutely everything. Some of that stuff did cite sources and hell, I've got the art book - Percival Graves' wand isn't just long, it is the longest wand in the film, ergo, it is unusually long.
If you truly believe that the information is correct, then why won't you look for community support to see what other editors think, whether they can see information that says whether or not you are correct. Because as far as I can see, your evidence is not good enough. That's what I would have done, if it had been me that had started the edit war. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 09:05, February 3, 2017 (UTC)
- I have not committed any vandalism. All I did was revert information that you had added, because it is apparently incorrect. Besides, even if you were to report me, I would just explain the truth behind the situation. I suggest you do the right thing, and seek community support, like talk to another user and see which information they think is correct. If I was in your position, it's what I would have done. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 09:11, February 3, 2017 (UTC)
I would just like to apologize
I know this just might be one of those "too little, too late" scenarios, but I just wanted to apologize for the way I treated you during that argument/duscussion back then. It was disrepectful, and I'm all but proud of it. :/ Ninclow (talk) 22:45, April 4, 2017 (UTC)
- Hey, sorry it took me a while to get around to replying - I just wanted to say thank you for the apology, and of course, I accept. I've not exactly conducted myself perfectly well either, so we're even. Hopefully we'll both be able to move on now. - 18:28, April 21, 2017 (UTC)
Xanderen - SeerLeviosa should have put a heading here, so you can name this whatever the hell you like.
Just wanted to let you know that It actually involves the copyright law. I am a law student. I know about copyrights quite well.
- Yeah in the Magical movie artbook - Grindelwald carved his motto in German onto the forehead of the skull artefact he has in the film - “Für das Allgemeinwohl” (For the Greater Good). 08:19, October 6, 2018 (UTC)
Germany is not the only country where German is spoken, though. It's also widely spoken in Austria and Switzerland. And I seem to remember one of the set reports said that at least Nurmengard was in Switzerland.--Rodolphus (talk) 08:24, October 6, 2018 (UTC)
Hi there. Just an FYI, the general trend on spoiler tophats has been to remove them one year after release date, giving plenty of time for people to see a film in the theater or at home, or read the book/script. While not official, the bot it built around this timeframe so any spoiler tophats will be applied until the relevant dates are reached. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 16:46, July 13, 2019 (UTC)
Hello, keep on reverting any incorrect edits by "Enchanting Enchanter", but you can be reassured I have reported them to admin staff regarding edit warring. Good work. RedWizard98 (talk) 16:41, August 17, 2019 (UTC)
It's called "Im new here and trying to reach out to me to let me know I'm doing something wrong is the right way for an established member to handle helping someone learn rather than working as fast as you can to get them banned or blocked". Ever stop to think that I might have mistaken the changes for the information not saving rather than purposing trying to fight with people on here? I figured it out after a while. Thanks for being so cool about it and not jumping to conclussions. Enchanting Enchanter (talk) 16:54, August 17, 2019 (UTC)
In light of how dangerously close our differing of opinion about Lockhart's page came to turning into a verbal fisty cuffs, I figured that we both would benefit from finding a more productive way of working with one another. Would you be interested in joining me in a little project I haven't gotten around to start yet? Maester Martin (talk) 23:13, August 17, 2019 (UTC)
- There's no fisty cuffs, and no, I'm not interested in working with you. As far as I'm concerned you're a permanently banned user who is employing a sockpuppet to continue to violate the rules - and you have been. You're engaging in precisely the same behaviour that resulted in being banned the first time, and have clearly learned nothing from the experience. Yesterday you openly admitted that you intend to continue edit warring until you get what you want on all matters. You are astoundingly arrogant, and the fact that you are being... tactfully allowed to continue to edit is a slap in the face to all the hard working editors here who follow the rules and respect the policies and guidelines of the community. I intend to appeal to the administration that your original permanent ban should be upheld and enforced, and I'd rather not engage with you any further. - 07:58, August 18, 2019 (UTC)
I am sorry it bothers you that I am so committed to get stuff right that I'm less of a conformist than you are, Xanderen, and I'm sorry that I upset you. However, no admin have reached out to me and said that I am blameworthy of doing anything wrong since I was allowed back in. And if you think, even for a moment, that I am any less hardworking or dedicated to this wiki than you are, well, I'm sorry, but then you're being the arrogant one. I am every bit within my right to voice my opinion about a page as you're entitled to disagree with me. And with all due respect, if you're so bad at working with others that you're going to be petty, spiteful and insist on making an effort to sabotage my place here in light of my return, well, then perhaps I should be the one disintersted in engaging with you. That said, I would also appreciate it if you don't put words in my mouth. I said no such thing, and I would never say any such thing. The point being made is that if a piece of canon is kinda vauge, it still a part of canon, and ought to be documented in the relevant article granted we frame 'it correctly. If we learn in Fantastic Beasts 3 of a wizard called Braxton Boltset who captures dark wizard and witches for a living working at the Ministry, I will note the likelihood of that man being an Auror, even if the title Auror has not been mentioned. Now, if you would please get off your high horse, wake up and smell the coffee, I'd be much obliged. In the meantime, I'll leave you alone, just like you want. Maester Martin (talk) 11:44, August 18, 2019 (UTC)