User talk:Michaelsanders/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Horcrux? 2 Hogwarts Houses Character Traits 3 The Hogwarts Founders, original reasearch 4 Civility 5 Original research on Lord Voldemort 6 Please Use Edit Summaries 7 RIta Skeeter 8 Wizards and Judaism: a comparison 9 Black Family Tree 10 Weasley Description 11 Bellatrix 12 Re: Comments to fb5edel 13 Re: Test 14 Hogwarts 15 Head Boy/Prefect 16 Reply 17 outside opinions 18 slug club 19 Reply to your comment about the birthdays article 20 Re:Assistance 21 Crouch 22 Message 23 I don't have my books 24 Magical objects 25 Harry Potter (character) 26 Dumbledore 27 Edit Summaries? 28 Reverts to Lack of RAB Theory Support 29 Pansy Parkinson 30 Edit summary on Harry Potter (character) 31 3RR and civility 32 Capitalization in towers 33 Editing other Users' comments 34 3RR block 35 Archive? 36 Stop Reverting Half-Blood Prince 37 Hello, Michael 38 3RR rule 39 Blocked, 31 hours 40 31 Hours are long passed, please unblock me 41 Reply 42 Boggart 43 Noticing your comments on various talk pages 44 Reply 45 Sirius Black 46 McGonagall 47 Removal 48 Hypocrite 49 Good article Nomination 50 Hogwarts logo SVG 51 Destroyed Horcrux that Dumbledore removed 52 Check your facts, please 53 Personal Attacks 54 Goblet of Fire plot overview 55 Umbridge 56 She 57 Neviile Longbottom 58 HP7 59 Ministry of Magic enemies 60 Personal attacks 61 Quick opinion 62 Your report to WP:ANI 62.1 An excerpt from my message on PeaceNT's talk 62.2 Bad faith 63 your user page 64 Half-blood Prince 65 Otter Detail

[edit] Horcrux?

Is that section about it being the Horcrux creation spell being what kills the victim in the books? I should warn you, if it can't be backed up with a passage in the Harry Potter books, or in an interview by J.K. Rowling, then it probably will be removed as "Fan speculation". It was my impression that the sequence of events ran: Commit murder (evil act tears soul apart) -> Cast Horcrux creation spell on physical object -> soul fragment is transfered/trapped in object. However, my impressions are not always right, which is why I ask if it explains differently in the books, and if so where? - Vedexent 00:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hogwarts Houses Character Traits

I found your additions (20 April 2006) regarding character traits of Hogwarts houses to be speculative and removed them in light of the Wikipaedia neutral point of view policy. If there are references from the books, movies, or the author that, for example, indicate that Hufflepuffs are tribal or that Ravenclaws do not care about success, then please put the additions back in with attribution and write me a nasty note. Alternatively, consider rephrasing your additions as opinion. - PhillyIdol (21 April 2006)

[edit] The Hogwarts Founders, original reasearch

Hi, Michaelsanders. I have again removed your edits to the article in light of these violating Wikipedia's "no original research" policy, which I try to explain in the article's talk page. --Mercurio 00:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Civility

Please refrain from personal attack edit summaries. Telling someone to get over themselves is unhelpful to the wikipedia project, I suggest you sit back have a cup of tea and go thoroughly read all the wiki policies. I would also advise on re-wording your agressive user page, wikipedia is no place for personal crusades. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 23:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original research on Lord Voldemort

Hi Michaelsanders, I reverted your edit on the Lord Voldemort page because of the WP:NOR policy: no original research. While I enjoyed reading your paragraph about the House of Anjou, Wikipedia is not the right place for that. You should write an essay about it and submit it to a fan site, perhaps the Harry Potter Lexicon [1]. So you don't have to go searching though the versions, here is a copy of what you wrote:

The House of Anjou and the Family of Gaunt

Lord Voldemort is maternally descended from the 'House of Gaunt', which has semi-noble history, and which has been suggested by fans as being descended from the historical figure John of Gaunt, a son of Edward III of England (this being supported by a connection of the family to the Peverells, a family supposedly descended from an illegitimate child of William the Conqueror. It is interesting, then, that there are similarities between the historical Angevin ancestors of John of Gaunt and the fictional Lord Voldemort: passionate and dynamic, with clever minds and strong wills; having a hot temper which sometimes prejudiced their calculated schemes; their minds and bodies appeared to work faster than those of normal men, and they appeared larger than life. When they conceived anything, it was on a grand scale. Furthermore, courtiers said of the household of Henry II that to be there 'was to know the fires of Hell'; Richard I had a 'ruthless energy that brooked no opposition'; and 'John defied every man, seeming to challenge the whole world single-handed... "He feared not God, nor respected men."' The violent temper of the Angevins, and their vicious reactions to being thwarted, has been described as 'almost pathological in its intensity'. It is disturbing how closely these descriptions of the House of Anjou match what we have seen of a fictional character who may be supposedly descended from the House of Anjou.

Thanks! --Fbv65edel ^{(discuss | contribs)} 00:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please Use Edit Summaries

Martinp23 13:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Especially when reverting, lest it look like vandalism. I reverted your edit to Rita Skeeter based on the fact that it was speculation, violating No original research. Please find textual evidence or an interview from Rowling if you want to include those edits. Karwynn (talk) 22:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RIta Skeeter

I've opened up a talk section about the disagreement we seem to have, and I'd like your input: Talk:Rita_Skeeter#Business_about_the_Slytherins See you there, Karwynn (talk) 22:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wizards and Judaism: a comparison

First of all, the obvious: we have a very small group of people, who are a minority *everywhere*. And who have been consequently suspicious of the majority around them. This group of people has been perennially persecuted by the majority, until finally one huge period of persecution persuaded the victims to decide that ‘something must be done’. In the case of the Jews, the Holocaust persuaded not only them, but everyone, that the persecutions must stop. In the case of Wizards, they chose to take themselves out of the equation permanently, following the mania of the 17th century (the Seclusion began around the end of that).

Owing to the factors which created their oppression, any serious land-ownership iis scuttled. In the case of the Jews, it was simply the brutal prevention of land-ownership by any Jew in most countries. In the case of Wizards, it was more subtle: the Ministry ordered them to sell up and go into hiding in such enclaves as Diagon Alley and Hogsmeade (which are somewhat reminiscent of the old ghettos: with Hogsmeade, perhaps, as The Ghetto, in Venice). Wizards can still own land (the Malfoys have a manor, and the Weasleys own a good chunk of real estate: presumably hereditary and entailed, otherwise they could neither afford it nor resist selling it), but a ‘practising wizard’ would probably have difficulties being important in land ownership (it would probably create account irregularities if one replaced a window with magic, say). And there is no way that a wizard can safely be a farmer: there aren’t enough wizards in Britain to maintain a farm, meaning that the farmer would require muggle assistance: thereby axing any chance of using magic on the farm.

Instead, what we have is a culture which is largely commercial, focusing on the buying and selling of goods. And the most imposing public edifice, aside from Hogwarts, that we have seen so far, is Gringotts. A bank. Which looms over the rest of Diagon Alley. And, indeed, Gringotts is a big employer in the wizarding world. Apart from that, and from public institutions such as St Mungo’s, the Ministry, and Hogwarts, there do not seem to be many other jobs in the wizarding world: unless one starts up a business of ones own, and becomes self-employed (Diagon Alley seems populated by these: for example, Madam Malkin’s robe shop, which she runs personally, and Ollivander’s, which one presumes is a family business).

There is the issue of language. Certainly prior to 1948, most Jewish families did not use Hebrew as an everyday language. It was used generally as a Ritual Tongue, used for prayers and blessings and at appropriate occasions (Bar Mitzvahs), but it was not even appropriate for everyday use (prior to the 20th century, many everyday words had been lost, or never developed, meaning that one could not adequately speak in Hebrew in trivial matters). Instead, Jewish families would generally speak in the language of the country they lived in (or in Yiddish, a mediaeval mixture of Hebrew and Rhenish German, and carried all over Europe by immigration. Since there has not been any equivalent immigration in Wizarding Terms, there is no easy equivalent for Yiddish – we have not seen any wizards speaking a debased form of Latin). And then we look at Rowlings wizards. Most – indeed, none, so far as we know – use Latin as an everyday tongue. It is the language used in wizarding rituals – for spells (that we have never known a wizard perform magic by using his own language would suggest that the words are as important as the intention). And at least some wizards seem to have a basic knowledge of Latin (Snape was able to give meaningful names to his spells – levicorpus ‘levitates’ the ‘corpus’ (body), and sectumsempra effectively means ‘slash’). Both Jews and wizards are looked at with a mixture of amusement and confusion, at least in part, because of this use of an unfamiliar language.

There is the issue of clothing and names. Vernon’s distaste for the wizards he saw would have been more pronounced had he not thought it was all a gimmick for charity. I suspect he would be just as disdainful of a person in the typical Jewish garb – yarmulke and all. And the names of the wizarding world, which seem odd and, perhaps amusing to we outsiders, are not strange to wizards, any more than a typically Jewish name is to a Jew (Weasley, perhaps, is the equivalent of Meier. And Sinistra as odd as Gosstompsky. ‘Draco Malfoy’, on the other hand, was sniggered at by Ron Weasley in Book One, suggesting that that name is odd to the ears of a wizard. Or maybe, since the Weasley’s are not a particularly tolerant family, it is simply a general insult).

And then there is the issue of blood-purity. Which certainly did exist, once upon a time in the ghetto, even if it doesn’t really exist now. That it did exist is certain. And it was probably as hard-line in the Real World tm as in the Potterverse. Whilst I would hesitate to state that the terms pure-blood and half-blood themselves were ever used prior to Harry Potter ( because I simply can’t say), the basic gist was always out there. I should know. I have always thought of myself as Half-Jewish, though I have only ever used the term half-blood ironically (and, at that, only since I heard it in HP).

Quite simply, a Jewish boy had to marry a Jewish girl. A Jewish girl had to marry a Jewish boy. They had to marry those roughly in the same class as themselves. And the status of a Jewish boy was determined by his performance in the Bar Mitzvah ceremony. Officially, this was then, as now, merely a public recognition of an automatic coming of age; one's chances were officially not affected by one's performance in the ceremony. However, in the claustrophobic and crowded culture of the ghetto, only a third of the population would marry. And generally, the mothers of those girls considered 'best' within that society (regardless of outsiders or modern viewers might think of them) would choose those boys who were also considered 'best' (again, regardless of outsider or modern opinion). Status, class, wealth, were factors in this. So was the boy's perfmormance in his Bar Mitzvah.

Now consider the wizards. Specifically, familys such as the Blacks. Who, such was their conviction that they were ‘practically royalty’, seem to have forgotten that they actually lived in a tall, narrow, dingy house in a particularly nasty part of Muggle London, which could easily qualify for the label of ‘Muggle Dunghill’ (as a wiser person pointed out, Bellatrix’s comment was in fact a blatant case of Pot vs Kettle), where they seem to have spent most of their time cowering inside, keeping it hidden s that some foolish Muggle tradesman wouldn’t knock on the door. This family, who would rather their children marry Purebloods from the Flint or Crabbe families, than any Muggle-born or Halfblood. Consider the fact that expulsion from Hogwarts requires ones wand to be snapped, making one effectively no longer a wizard (Hagrid, though a professor, is not a wizard, because he never passed the Ordinary Wizarding Levels. And also because of the little matter of his having demonstrably taken a dangerous beast into a castle full of children, but that clearly isn’t something which gives anyone – except perhaps Ron – much pause for thought).

Consider the restrictions on marriage in Jewish society, prior to 20th century. A Jewish girl wasn’t allowed to demean herself by marrying a non-Jewish man. Any children between a Jewish man and his non-Jewish wife were not even Jews (an attitude which I will attest to having largely disappeared, at least in moderate circles). Which, transferred literally, gives an interesting reading of several Halfbloods in canon (Snape is the product of a witch and a muggle, but was raised as a wizard; Voldemort was produced likewise, and would have been raised as a wizard had his mother not died; Dean Thomas, on the other hand, is the product of a wizard and a muggle, and therefore is considered Muggle-born rather than halfblood – though only through the sleight of hand in his backstory which left him unaware of his true paternity). Certainly, the two are closely linked: in both societies, pure-bloods were welcomed, half-bloods were disliked, and converts (which a muggle-born effectively is: Hermione Granger is a pretty good example of any sort of convert ruthlessly eradicating her former life) were shunned. And these attitudes, in moderate circles are changing today. In the more orthodox circles, however, you can still get families who are proud of being pure Cohens, say. Or people who, for all their basic identification with the country they live in, are still oddly proud of not having ‘a drop of British blood’.

The Weasley family, in a Jewish!Harry Potter scenario, would be reform Jews. Moderate. They don’t care very much about who the kids marry (to a point). They still respect the rituals, but are very much willing to fit in with those around them (the Weasley kids, you’ll notice, have no problem fitting in with the Muggles around them. Albeit whilst wearing 1950s Fair Isle Jumpers). Indeed, Mr Weasley, in this scenario, would probably have Discovered Jesus, with all the attendant irritation from the rest of the family, who are happy with their own culture and religion, and don’t want the Traitor banging on about his great love. Hence his banishment to the garden shed. Mrs Weasley, who has far less tolerance for those unlike her, probably came from a more orthodox family (we know that her uncle and his wife were respectably displayed on the Black Family Tree, which bodes ill for our view of her family), and consequently has a less flattering opinion of those who are not as respectable or well-behaved, or attending to tradition as her (she certainly thinks far less of Muggles than her husband : ‘swarming with muggles’ anyone? But her dislike of Fleur is probably more a personality clash than a hatred of ‘halfbreeds’.). And consequently finds being married to someone who doesn’t really care about tradition a bit of a chore (one can imagine Molly getting in a strop over a pork meal, with Arthur being baffled, and the twins going out of their way to irritate her).

The families such as the Malfoys and the Blacks, in this iteration, are Orthodox. With all the attendant stereotypes. They probably keep the milk and meat separate, do no work on Saturdays, and stick the crockery in the attic at Pesach (or get the House-elf to do it). And they don’t care how they come off to outsiders.

So, what part does Voldemort and the Death Eaters play in this scenario? Obviously, the crude and simplistic ‘Death Eaters = Nazis’ is not appropriate: whilst the Death Eaters do attack magicians, their primary enemies are the muggles (given that Voldemorts public motivations, that of wizard domination, are not his private goals – immortality – he cannot really be considered here). The muggles being the oppressive majority that wizards want to escape. The avowed goal of the death eaters, reputedly, is to break the wizarding seclusion, and to allow wizards to live openly as wizards, without fear of persecution. What the Death Eaters effectively want, is a Land of Their Own. And if they need to use force to get it, so be it. If they have to oppress the majority of those who live in that land, so be it.

The Death Eaters are not Nazis. They are Zionists. Possibly the main Jewish terrorist organisation operating in Palestine prior to 1948: Irgun (who were terrorists: their crimes include the bombing of the King David hotel in Jerusalem). Or possibly the State of Israel, who, you may recall, have effectively conquered the homeland of the Palestinians. As well as engaging in various atrocities with Egypt and Lebanon, and behaving in a manner which has earned other countries a diplomatic cold-shoulder.

And finally, a minor point. If wizards are Jews, then, naturally, non-wizards (‘Muggles’, a mildly offensive word to those who are muggles but used freely by wizards) would be gentiles. Which leads us to the offensive term ‘mudblood’. And the term generally regarded as, emotively, its equal in pure foulness – the ‘n-word’. Except, as one discovers when reading various fan-forums, the racial analogy is rather clumsy, because, to be blunt, no parent is going to discover on their child’s eleventh birthday that, having thought the child was black for the past eleven years, he is in fact secretly white. Nor does it make much sense to call Hermione mud-blood, if one compares it to the ‘n-word’, because according to that analogy, Hermione is not black: unless she still is ‘black’, in which case she is not ‘white’ and cannot be at the school.

But there is an equally deplorable word, which seems far more appropriate. It is as offensive as mudblood is in the wizarding world, and possibly as offensive as the n-word really is. And it would make a lot more sense, on Draco Malfoy’s lips at least, than the ‘n-word’. It is the ‘S-Word’.

In Malfoy’s eyes, Hermione is a shixter.

[edit] Black Family Tree

Seeing your talk page, you have a history of breaking the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. You must realize that you have no evidence that the Potters and Weasleys are related other than a Potter married into the Black family. Are all people with your last name related to you? Do not get me wrong, I agree with you that it is strong possiblity that the Potters and Weasleys are somehow related. The fact is until you can back it up with reliable sources this section will be deleted again. If you continue breaking the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy your account can be blocked or worse you will be banned. So, either cite reliable sources or delete the Weasley - Potters section from the a Black family tree. (Duane543 17:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC))

My whole point is that this section of the article is based on the Theory that the male Potter is James. Until you can prove the male Potter is James through reliable sources, the section should be deleted. If you want to keep it that baddly, why not move it to the talk page of the article. That way people can still see your work and I would not think that you would be breaking any Wikipedia's policies, but I do not know for sure. If you still think that I am in the wrong about you breaking the Wikipedia:Verifiability or Wikipedia:No original research policies, please feel free to write to an Wikipedia administrator about it.(Duane543 00:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC))

So what do you want to do? Move it to the talk page or delete it. (Duane543 14:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC))

Hi Micheal, I deleted the section because it is a clear violation of Wikipedia:No original research. If there is some notable evidence (either from J.K. Rowling herself or from one of the official sites) that Dorea Black is Harry's grandmother, then a brief mention of how Harry is related to the Weasley family might be appropriate, but certainly not one as long as this section. If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Weasley Description

• Please edit only to reflect canon. The narrative description of the family is not a negative one, therefore the article's should reflect that.

John Reaves 01:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. John Reaves 01:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. John Reaves 01:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I've posted a reply on the Ginny Weasley Talk Page John Reaves 03:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I have made some changes to the article in question to end this edit war. Please refrain from stonewalling someones edits next time, and instead work with them to resolve the issue. ←Phŋж2Âshəs |Đ|©| 04:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bellatrix

I'm sorry fo that mistake on the site about Bellatrix Lestrange. I copied the description from the site about Narcissa and I forgot to write that it's about Bellatrix. I am going to correct it.

[edit] Re: Comments to fb5edel

Our old conflict also involved edits based on speculation, but as I noted to him, that one has already been resolved. It wasn't meant to offend you, but if you feel offended, I can always remove that part of the comment from his talk page. --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, okay, no need for further explanation. My comment was based on a quick glance at the topic. I've removed the text that would seem to indicate that your current discussion is regarding speculation. As to this current issue, I am staying silent for now unless there is still a need for third party opinions. Oh, and where did I say 'well done'? I suppose if you were talking about my postscript comment, that was in appreciation for his own note of confidence on ME, not on anything he did on the talk page. Please, I've been on Wikibreak for a while, and yes, I didn't read the talk page too clearly. I've removed the speculation text, so there is no further need for you to feel offended. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, in that case, taking in everything, I can see how you would think I'm congratulating him. Hopefully, it doesn't read that way now. As for the topic, I'll stay silent on it, since you believe the topic on hand is trivial anyways. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Michael, I thought you favoured "if you have something to say about a person, you should tell them." Since you obviously don't believe that, I'll watch what I say whenever I see that you're around, okay? Besides, my words weren't even about you, so please stop with the jumping on me for every little comment I make, okay? --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, here you go. My opinion on Lord Voldemort considered all the discussion I read before, AND it was based on my previous experience with the two articles. I find it insulting that you would think I would just wade in and spout off without thinking. I've thought long and hard about the Lord Voldemort/Tom Riddle discussion. I've been involved in those discussions for a while. I was asked to make a opinion, and I made it. I used to be quite involved with Harry Potter articles, but I've largely stayed way from the quagmire that they've become. However, you will note that I've only lent my recent opinions when it was asked for, and each time, I have thought about it before wading in. I am not some new guy who suddenly popped in with sudden thoughts: these are based on discussions I've held a long time ago, and I still read discussions before I lend my opinion. I'm not going to let one person slag me and let it slide, but at the same time, I only lent my opinion when it was asked for. You're giving me more reason to stay away, and while I'm sure that's exactly what you want, quite frankly, I'm not the sort of person who will keep doing something out of spite. I will give you exactly what you want and not be involved in any sort of Harry Potter discussion where you're involved. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Tom Riddle being redirected to Riddle family was done outside of when I discussed it, therefore, yes, I don't fully know why it was done. I only point out the directness because I really have found that I have to be extremely careful when I speak to you. I am usually more direct with other people, but I've felt pretty frustrated when I have to watch my words with you. Perhaps I don't have to be, so maybe I was wrong in this regard. The speculation thing was a mistake, yes, but it was one comment and I already removed it. Did I apologise for it? If not, here it is: I apologise for saying that my previous conflict with you was "also about speculation". Yes, without a doubt I am being much more incoherent than usual, because I am feeling pretty frustrated. I know I shouldn't be, but I've felt pretty frustrated whenever I've been in a conversation where you were involved. Is that something against you? I'm not sure. Maybe it's me. I'm sure it's me. Regardless of whether it's you or me, I think it's in both our interests (more mine) that I remove myself from these conversations, lest I get even more frustrated and more incoherent. --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. I'm not sure I like my editing style either. In any case, Harry Potter articles took up too much of my time and mental stress, and that's really not what I came to Wikipedia for. The fact that you don't particularly like me is fine, but also proves that I've become too brusque on Harry Potter articles (and in general), which is very contrary to how I used to be like. When I found myself like that with closing controversial AfDs, I took a break from it to reduce my Wikistress. I don't think I'll become less brusque on Harry Potter articles, because things in there haven't changed at all: there were a few of us who had to deal with the same things on a daily basis on Harry Potter articles, and that's not going to change. Since these are the same arguments again and again, my way of dealing with these things has become shorter and shorter. Therefore, in the interests of removing another grumpy old man unwilling to change, I remove myself. I think Harry Potter articles will be much better without me. --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Test

Hello.

Yes, I was actually doing this to prove to a friend how quickly false edits are caught and removed on Wikipedia, I've seen other people do this in edit history and didn't think that this minor form of vandalism had consequences on Wikipedia: but I do not plan on repeating this action anyway. --Alegoo92 21:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hogwarts

I never said it had five houses. Have I even talked to you? 65.118.187.102 20:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Head Boy/Prefect

Yes, I understand that. But is it impossible to assume, that since it was mentioned that both James and Remus became prefects, that James became Head Boy while Remus was still a prefect? Disinclination 00:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

Hi! I've replied to your post on Talk:Severus Snape. CattleGirl ^{talk | e@ | review me!} 06:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] outside opinions

Hey Michael, Is their any editor(s) in particular that you like that you would want to give an opinion to the Slug Club debate of ours. OR Should one of us post a message on the WikiProject Harry Potter talk page to get the opinions. (Duane543 04:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC))

Looks like User:Fbv65edelput the Slug Club page up for deletion. Just thought that you would like to know. (Duane543 18:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC))

Thanks for clearing that issue up. (Duane543 03:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC))

[edit] slug club

How could I resist? Sandpiper 18:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply to your comment about the birthdays article

I'd go chronologically since the article is about dates. Also, there seems to be some birthdays missing, most notably Dumbledore's. I guess the birthdays without years could go in thier own section. John Reaves 22:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's what I meant. Any known dates for anybody should be included. John Reaves 22:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, can we delete the Zodiac signs since they're irrelevant and unrelated (and astrology is stupid)? John Reaves 23:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no discussion about it, but I think it's safe to assume that nobody will miss them. John Reaves 23:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Assistance

Hi Michael,

Sure, I'll do what I can tomorrow. Thanks for asking, Deathphoenix ʕ 06:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess we are both talking about the same thing, had a look at the AfDs. I'm afraid that while I do agree the content ought to be included, I don't really agree it ought to be separate from the articles others had suggested as places to put it. In general I think all information on one topic should be in one place, as far as possible. Having it in two places makes it very easy for two articles to disagree with one another, or each to contain only half the story (unhelpfull to readers). I have seen this sort of thing quite often on wiki, where different people have started articles with different titles on essentially the same subject. Wiki is frequently badly organised. (try looking up tumuli/burial mounds or another dozen or so names for those lumps of mud with people buried under them.) On the whole I tend to be looking for opportunities to combine related articles rather than split them, unless there is a apecific need to keep them apart.

But you are right that there is a significant faction of people who don't think fiction should be included, certainly not to the level present in HP (notwithstanding 'wiki is not paper'), and who have written content rules rather designed to ban the sort of stuff presently in wiki HP. The trouble is that different people are interested in writing rules to those interested in content. Sandpiper 17:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Micheal... pretty much what Sandpiper wrote. I think I'm in the middle with regards to inclusionism vs. deletionism. I believe that fiction can be written in an encyclopedic way, but on the flip side, there can be some things written on fiction that is unencyclopedic and needs to be deleted. FWIW, the two lists were not unenyclopedic, but, as Sandpiper said, the information on one topic should really be in one place when possible. Not everyone is rampant in deletionism: most trivial Harry Potter articles actually end up getting merged to other articles, rather than actually deleted. This means the content is still kept, but in another form. While it can be stressful to have an article nominated for AfD, I can say with some confidence (since I've closed many contentious AfDs before) that these two articles look to be heading towards being merged rather than deleted. No, I won't be closing these AfDs (due to conflict of interest concerns), but the consensus seems to be leaning towards a merge. If you have any further questions, please don't hesitate to ask. --Deathphoenix ʕ 00:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

My pleasure. Hey, Sandpiper and I often have our disagreements, but we've been able to work together well enough. No reason why you and I can't do the same. :-) As for T-dot, he's involved with a few other Wikipedia projects, so I wouldn't worry too much about that. I've cut back on my Wikipedia activities a fair bit, so it's easy for me to lend a voice when needed. Cheers, Deathphoenix ʕ 01:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crouch

This is true, but I believe 'Bartemius' is only mentioned in formal circumstances, and perhaps the first reference by Dumbledore? Anyway I doubt people searching for him will search Bartemius, and that's why there are redirects anyway. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 00:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, I see your point. When it comes down to two equally popular names (if we agree that they are equally popular… I'd still say that Barty weighs more than Bartemius, but we can let this be for now), besides going with the shorter name, WP:NC(P) suggests using Google to see which has more hits. Bartemius Crouch has 15,000; Barty Crouch has 119,000 with a link to the images page from the web results (meaning that there are more images for Barty than Bartemius too). --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 01:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Message

Thought you should know that the two HP AfDs have closed and the result for both was to merge and redirect (the birthday list was originally deleted, but I got it restored). Also thought I should show you this-I'm not sure why your name is there. John Reaves 23:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I don't have my books

What does it say in GoF? Does it explicitly state that he is a gamekeeper? Please start using more edit summaries, it would save a lot of time. John Reaves 13:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clairfying.John Reaves 23:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Magical objects

It isn't necessary to have that much info; it's not quite relevant with the article/storyline at all. Since I can't revert it due to WP:3RR, you can revert it if you want (but I'm not forcing you to). ♥ Fredil 23:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

All right, I see your reasoning. ♥ Fredil 23:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Harry Potter (character)

Perhaps we could rewrite the article together. It isn't exactly article-worthy yet, and an article of such importance deserves a good ranking (right now it's only B; see its talkpage). ♥ Fredil 15:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dumbledore

Hey, thanks for enlightening my confusion. :-P So stupid of me, as I hadnt thought of that before, I reread the books again and saw the difference just like what you explained. Thanks again! Kathzzzz^{kiSs me!} 06:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit Summaries?

I'm not going to bother with a formal template warning or anything since I know you know what they are and that your not using them. I'm just wondering what your reasoning is. They're useful to other editors who might not want to bother looking at every edit you make. John Reaves 05:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverts to Lack of RAB Theory Support

"The Argument that R.A.B. is Not Regulus Black

There are, however, counter-arguments to the theory that Regulus Black is R.A.B. From what Rowling has shown readers, Kreacher is completely lacking in both the sanity and fortitude to be involved in such an arduous venture, let alone play a major role. Rowling has also given nothing to indicate that Regulus Black had the courage to drink the potion which has been seen, by its effects upon Albus Dumbledore, to cause such great pain. (Though proponents of the theory believe that it was drinking the potion that produced the state that Kreacher is now in.)

The popular theory that the ‘unopenable locket’ in no. 12 Grimmauld Place is Slytherin’s locket, and a horcrux, is flawed: although it is indeed a heavy locket, its colour was not referred to. More importantly, Harry did not notice the prominent snake engraved upon it, which one would expect him to note immediately (after all, snakes in wizarding Britain seem to be very much linked to Slytherin, and Harry has a sensitivity to snakes due to his inheritance of Voldemort’s power). Rowling has a history of hiding red herrings in her novels (for example, the suggestion in HBP that Nymphadora Tonks was in love with Sirius Black: she in fact proves to be in love with Remus Lupin), and it would be unsurprising if the locket were to prove one.

The title of ‘Dark Lord’ has been shown not to be the exclusive preserve of (former) Death Eaters: Professor Trelawney uses the title in her two prophecies, and the indubitably virtuous Ginny Weasley uses it in her valentine to Harry Potter. One must also remember that when Harry mocks Snape with the claim that ‘only Death Eaters’ call Voldemort ‘Dark Lord’, he is still a student, and still has little knowledge of the wizarding world: it cannot be assumed that he has any great knowledge of the usage.

Thus far in the novels, all accounts of Regulus Black have suggested that he was a coward; Sirius Black specifically claimed that Regulus became scared of his involvement in Voldemort’s organisation, and tried to escape, only to be killed. Nothing has been said to suggest that Regulus Black was brave enough, or had any inclination, to shift loyalties and damage Voldemort.

Theoretically, Black could have learned the secret of one of the Horcruxes, etc., but there has been no confirmation or denial of any suggestions of how it could have happened. Certainly, finding out about the secret of even one of Voldemort's horcruxes would be a tremendous task for Regulus who, given his birth year, can only have been out of school for around six months before his death. Although, since Harry has achieved so many feats without graduating, it is still possible that a Death Eater and recent Hogwarts graduate could accomplish this."

The entry above is the issue here. As an aside, I was wondering how much of it you had personally written.

I am to assume that by reverting my edits, you have not grasped why this entry is in many places quite clearly biased. When reading it, I can quite clearly see that there is some kind of personal favouritism for this particular theory, for whatever the reason the editor may have had. You on the other hand, do not recognise the bias, so I will make the various objectionable points clear to you:

Firstly, Kreacher has absolutely nothing to do with this section. I suppose that there is some kind of branch to the 'RAB is Regulus Black' theory which states that Kreacher helped Regulus retrieve the Horcrux. However, the plausibility or implausibility of such a claim has absolutely nothing to do with the plausibility or implausibility of the claim that RAB is Regulus Black. It is a complete logical fallacy and utter nonsese to suggest otherwise. Discrediting the accuracy of an obscure claim which would seem to back up a theory does not make said theory any less plausible. As the theory that Kreacher aided Regulus is also not present in supporting section, its presence here is completely untennable.

Secondly, the word 'flawed' is a weasel word. How can you possibly support its use? It is completely out of place (not to mention immature) in an article of speculative nature to claim that somebody else's theory is 'flawed', and the argument that follows certainally does not prove it to be so. Therefore, I reworded the section to reinforce its speculative tone.

Finally, Rowling's use of Red Herrings is both only mildly, if at all relevant, and also unsupported. This is the one case in which I am not entirely convinced as to its bias. However, the current example of Rowling's apparently lavish use of Red Herrings throughout her books is not really what I would consider a true Red Herring; the weasel phrase of 'for example' suggests that there are many more examples of Rowling using Red Herrings: if more examples can be provided, then the presence of this section is not so questionable. Until then, however, it must be removed for its failure to cite evidence among other things.

Do you now understand the points and nature of the points of issue that you reverted back into the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.82.101 (talk)

[edit] Pansy Parkinson

Okay. I see it now. Pansy is in the same graduating class (or Year) as Harry. The way I read what was there it seemed that Pansy was a Slytherin during Harry's (single) year at Hogwarts (without saying if she was in the same class (grad year). Can you confirm that she is a first year the same year as Harry? There should be a more clear way of writing it. Thanks. --EarthPerson 19:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Per your message to my talk page - Done and thanks. --EarthPerson 21:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summary on Harry Potter (character)

Please avoid using abusive edit summaries as per Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Thanks and happy editing. John Reaves 01:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

You're right, I didn't look, I just assumed. Although it doesn't excuse your edit summary. John Reaves 01:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalise pages, as you did to Harry Potter (character), you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. - Amos Han 02:00, 09 January 2007 (UTC)

Please stop changing the spelling of "Defense". It is spelled with an S, not a C. Amos Han 02:03, 09 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I just found out that Defense is spelled with an S in USA and a C in England. So the above message is correct in USA but you may be correct only in England.

You certainly have the right to change any discrepancy between British and American English, but your personal attacks are infantile and uncalled for. Surely you must realize that an American writer is not going to be aware of every minor difference between our language styles. If you continue with this abuse, I'll ask that you be banned. PNW Raven 02:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Michael, I'm just going to lightly caution you not to bite the newcomers. As an American, I thought Defense was spelled with an s universally until I came to Wikipedia, and Amos Han was just trying to correct what looked like a spelling error. That doesn't excuse him for continuously reverting, but telling him you live in "Britain" and not "England" and calling Americans in general "blind idiots" is just not the kind of attitude wanted around here, and you know that. I'm not giving a "warning," just a light caution, as I said above. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 02:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

In response to your message on my Talk Page, I'd say that the comment "Blind American idiots" falls under the category of an abusive insult. Your hostile tone and brusque comments on the edit page were inappropriate. All you had to say was something like, "I changed this word to the British spelling to comply with the Wikipedia style guide . . ." Try being a little more polite. PNW Raven 02:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for "reminding" me to sign my post above. It was only an oversight on my part. PNW Raven 02:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Please stop making "corrective" remarks about what I've done "wrong." Obviously you're just doing it as a means of sarcastic retaliation. PNW Raven 02:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

You left me a message there, why shouldn't I respond there? You were bigoted in saying "Blind American idiots". John Reaves 02:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay...you just proved me right and made yourself look worse. John Reaves 02:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Why are you being such a hypocrite? Why is it okay for you to address me on PNW Raven's page, but I can't address you there. John Reaves 02:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Or what? Are you going fly over to the dreaded U.S. and slap me around? You're a hypocrite because you feel you can address me on Raven's user talk page but I can't address you. What's your illogical rant for that? Actually, I do read your sorry excuses for edit summaries the 19%, or so, of the time that you use them. Such gems as "?", "rubbish" and let's not forget "Blind American idiot(s)" - yes, very informative. This could have been prevented by you. I fixed the edits of whoever that guy was, I didn't confuse him. You've still yet to address your reasoning for not using edit summaries. John Reaves 03:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way Michael - I believe the correct British vernacular is Bloody Americans, not Blind Americans or whatever. We Americans have no idea what is meant by that exactly, and don't really care: but we think it sounds way cool when you British folk say it; and the more sarcastic and denegrating it sounds, the better it is. It is almost like a badge of honor - on the same lines as Yankee Doodle (and we also don't know and don't care to dwell on what was meant by that). I think it has something to do with our ability to be so annoying that we can sometimes get the dander up on our ordinarily unflappable "just a flesh wound" British cousins (although in seeing a few recent sessions of the British Parliament, when the House of Commons is berating the Prime Minister, we are starting to wonder about that now...). All in fun Michael. Have a great day. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 12:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR and civility

You reverted Harry Potter (character) four times, which is a violation of WP:3RR, which says that editors can be blocked for reverting an article more than three times in a 24 hour period. Please be careful about this and don't engage in revert wars. Also, as others have pointed out above, please don't be rude in your talk comments or edit summaries. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I did follow what happened, and it doesn't justify your revert warring nor your incivility. --Milo H Minderbinder 15:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm perfectly aware of what happened. 3RR doesn't make exceptions for reverting to the "correct" info. I'm not interested in discussing this further - if you want to keep arguing and uncivil about it, I can just put it on the 3RR notice board and we can let the admins decide if it's a violation or not. It's up to you how you'd like to proceed. --Milo H Minderbinder 15:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Just letting you know: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Michaelsanders reported by User:Milo H Minderbinder (Result:) --Milo H Minderbinder 16:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Capitalization in towers

I'm at work so I can't look just yet (though I might be able to soon, it is a library) but generally I wouldn't capitalize tower, let's see what Rowling said. John Reaves 15:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Good enough for me. John Reaves 22:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editing other Users' comments

Don't. This could lead to an editing block. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR block

Hello Mr. Sanders. I've just blocked you for 24 hours for violation of 3RR. I take no pleasure in doing so, because the principle behind your edit--to preserve consistency of spelling--was the correct one. Nonetheless, 3RR is fundamental, and you're not allow to revert the same article three times even if you're in the right. Yes, there is an exception for out-and-out vandalism. But a disagreement about spelling cannot be called vandalism, which has a very specific meaning in wikipedia (see WP:VAND). I also encourage you to voice your disagreements less aggressively than you've done in these edits, where your edit summaries were a bit incivil. As a blocked user, you are limited to editing your own talk-page. I will watch this page if there is some further point you wish to make. Bucketsofg 21:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

This is remarkably unfair. Firstly, my point was that at the time I thought it was vandalism: only realising that it wasn't when the editor explained himself. Secondly, this is the first time I have ever exceeded 3RR - other users, who have deliberately flouted the rules, are able to get off with a warning, why should I be victimised by this teechnicality? Michaelsanders 21:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

A block for 3RR is fairly automatic, and most come without warning--this is exactly why you should be very selective about what reverts you make and why. Do others get away with worse things? Very probably, sometimes. But that can never be a justification. Bucketsofg 22:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Selective? Of trying to maintain the correct information? How are we supposed to maintain wikipedia standards if those who aim for the correct information have to fear persecution themselves? Michaelsanders 23:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, as I said in my first message, reversions over spelling, etc., are not exempt from 3RR. The only exemption is clear vandalism--that is, edits that cannot be explained as an innocent mistake. I am willing to lift the block if you commit yourself to be more careful in the future. Bucketsofg 23:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I suppose I'll have to: and if the encyclopedia goes to ruin, well, obviously, I'll just stick to the rules and leave it to someone else to clean up.

That's the wikipedia way.

"O, it is excellent To have a giant's strength; but it is tyrannous To use it like a giant."

Michaelsanders 00:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• I'm sure that there are plenty of other improvement to be made and misspellings to correct, and sometimes one just has to trust that someone else will recognize the rightness of your edit anyway. Anyway, I'll lift the block now. Happy editing. Bucketsofg 00:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I am still blocked. If I am to be unblocked now, please do so; if not, please tell me. Michaelsanders 01:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Try now. Bucketsofg 01:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archive?

Do you want me to archive your talk page? John Reaves 06:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Well? John Reaves 08:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stop Reverting Half-Blood Prince

Please stop reverting other editors' revisions to the HBP article (and any other HP pages) to only YOUR version. The Harry Potter pages are NOT your exclusive property, and you need to respect other people's work on them. You have consistently removed my editing and reverted to your earlier version which has added unnecessary details, descriptions, and information that only serves to lose a reader's interest. Does it add anything to the article by describing how the Prince's notes were 'scrawled at the bottom of the page?' All this does is make the article longer and harder for the reader to get through. The HBP page is a "footnote" to the Severus Snape page, and it should only contain brief, essential information about this "sub-character" and not reiterate the entire plot. As it is, every HP page has been overly leaden with extraneous, unimportant information and convoluted sentence structure that bore readers halfway through. A good writer uses as few words as possible and makes every word count. An article should be written to best serve the reader, not the author. I am going to report your actions, as you seem to have a history of reverting other editors work. BTW, the revert to the American version of whatever word it was you were complaining about was merely an oversight. I have no problem with using the British style, although, as an American, it does not come automatically to me, and I have to make revisions later. PNW Raven 15:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

What I did was edit your version to streamline the content--I did not just revert back to a previous version. I took out excessive detail and left the overall structure you had revised in a previous edit. You then continually reverted everything to EXACTLY what you had written before claiming all the details were 'necessary.' I'd be more than happy to talk about it on the Discussion Page. PNW Raven 15:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I count three editors reverting those changes - one editor reverting looks like a revert war, three editors making the same reverts looks more like consensus. You've made five reverts on that page, I filed it at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Michaelsanders_reported_by_User:Milo_H_Minderbinder_.28Result:.29 --Milo H Minderbinder 15:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Michael: I'll take at look at the HBP Discussion page. I'm certain we will work this out to our mutual satisfaction. I think Peacent's edits look good and seems to me a good compromise. PNW Raven 18:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello, Michael

I am an admin on Wikipedia. You probably don't know it, but I went to bat for you with Bucketsofg over your 3RR block, contending that you should have received a warning. Now that you know about the 3RR rule, please be aware that three reverts are not a right, but are considered an "electric fence". That means that multiple reversions of an article, even if they don't qualify as three reverts in a 24 hour period, is just as unacceptable, and could lead to your being blocked again. You need to discuss your disagreements with the other editors, and if that doesn't resolve the differences, follow the dispute resolution process. Good luck with your editing. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad things are starting to calm down. And I know what you mean about withdrawal.  :) Although I did go away for a year a couple of years ago, I eventually got drawn back in. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't say you've squandered anything, since you haven't been blocked again.  :) Believe me, I know all about conflict, especially since coming here. Sometimes I try to avoid it altogether and sometimes I find myself diving headfirst into it. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR rule

The rule is that you are not allowed to make three reverts (or partial reverts!) to a single page, regardless of version. So you've clearly broken the rule. Bucketsofg 19:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked, 31 hours

---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me - why have I been blocked? If you look at the history of the relevant page, you will see that: 1) I did not exceed the 3-revert limit 2) It was not an edit war: at least one other editor agreed with me (PeaceNT). That makes it consensus, rather than an edit war. 3) I explained very thoroughly why I was reverting: "Revert pointless catalogues - redirects by their very nature don't have them", "Consistency - either catalogue every HP redirect, or leave them uncatalogued. Most are uncatalogued", and "Revert - however, every other HP redirect isn't. Why the exception?" - i.e. redirects are not categorised, and that since no other redirect was catalogued, it would be inconsistent to keep that catalogued. That is not an unclear explanation. Furthermore, it was the other editor, not myself, who deliberately flouted the rules, showing a clear recognition and disregard for the 3RR rule, before proceeding to verbally savage me. Why am I not only being blocked, but receiving a harsher sentence? Michaelsanders 20:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 31 Hours are long passed, please unblock me

Why am I still blocked? The 31-point is past. Please unblock me now. Michaelsanders 08:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

{{unblock|Blocking period has elapsed, blocking admin refuses to talk to me}} There was still an autoblock in force, I've lifted it now. Sorry for the inconvenience. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

I'm more than welcome to look at your contributions. I'm also more than welcome to click on an article you edited. I'm also more than welcome to edit said article. Get over it. John Reaves 10:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Boggart

It seems that we can't reconcile our ideas about the number of boggarts. I must affirm that there's only a boggart in my book. These are my invocations: + The chapter title: THE BOGGART IN THE WARDROBE
+ Lupin's words: "Nothing to worry about," said Professor Lupin calmly because a few people had jumped backward in alarm. "There's a boggart in there."
+ Moreover, only one boggart Snape, then one boggart mummy, one boggart spider and the last one boggart moon. It means that there's only one boggart in the wardrobe overall. So your comment that "boggarts take the form of a globe of the full moon when facing him. Lupin, however, is capable of dealing with these: in one lesson, he deliberately challenges a boggart,.." is wrong.
In addition, you shouldn't give your own comment in the article because it destroys the neutrality which is against Wiki's rules._AbelinCAusesobad 17:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to eavesdrop; I was here for another reason, and noticed this. I'm afraid that, on the basis of what he says here, at least, Causesobad seems to misunderstand the sentence to which he's objecting. He argues that Lupin faced only one boggart, and the sentence in question explicitly says that Lupin challenged one boggart. He also quotes Lupin as saying "There's a boggart in there", so demonstrating that more than one boggart exists in general; thus "boggarts take the form of a globe [...] he deliberately challenges a boggart" is perfectly consistent with the evidence he gives.

I can't believe that I'm arguing about boggarts in Harry Potter... --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Noticing your comments on various talk pages

I've stumble across some of your comments, and I must say I was not terribly impressed. I don't want this to be taken as any more than a personal query, but I was left wondering exactly what your motives behind your uncivil comments? I can tell you personally that I know how frustrating it is to deal with disagreements, but I also rarely make attacks. I guess I thought if I could talk to you about it and discover the reasoning, I can not only learn more about Wikipedians and their feelings, but perhaps help you come up with more measured responses. You are welcome to hate whomever you like, but it's always a good idea to sound polite even if you're inwardly seething. That's only a personal philosophy, though. Well, if you want to talk, then please do so. If not, that's fine. I'm only interested in learning and helping, and not in any criticism or anything like that. However, I won't take it personally if you judge me unworthy for being an Idiot American. I suppose some people don't like us. —Keakealani·?·!·@ 08:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

Well, I guess you were the one to warn. You have no reason to revert this except to start controversy. I'll consider your suggestion, in the mean time, leave it alone. There's a difference between article and categories. John Reaves 11:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The redirect policy states

"Redirects should not normally contain categories that would fit on the target page because it can result in duplicate listings of the same page within a category. Relevant categories should be moved to the main page where the redirect is pointing."

"Minor characters" wouldn't create a duplicate listing since they're different titles. And as far as I know, you can't categorize multiple titles within one article, i.e. Burke and Amy Benson can't both be categorized into the characters category under the "Minor characters" title. John Reaves 11:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

You are the one with an issue, you may take it up on the talk page if you feel so inclined. John Reaves 12:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

If you got a problem with me and my edits, be a man about it and post the comments to my talk page rather then using a content dispute on the Project page to push your agenda. John Reaves 13:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Still couldn't do this could you?

Your entire existence at the project seems to be to refute other editors and start disputes, you are the one that lacks in constructive edits, unless badgering someone until they give up on you is useful. As far as nastiness and rudeness goes, I would encourage you to not write checks you can't cash in the future; if it bothers you that much you shouldn't be dishing it out in the first place. Be aware that just because you used a dictionary or thesaurus to find some obscure words while replying doesn't mean that your responses and arguments are intellectual. John Reaves 14:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

There's having a good vocabulary, and then there's being a pedant. Also, I laugh at the idea of being threatened by you. I claimed it was "beyond you"? Don't make completely untrue comments, I never said that. You are consistently rude, not only in manners, but in actions - i.e. not using edit summaries. The vandalism stems from nominating articles for speedy deletion and people becoming upset, and, well you probably get the rest. You'd have experience with this if you actually spent any time on Wikipedia outside of making sure the HP articles didn't change against your liking. John Reaves 14:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

And what, per say, is wrong with "questioning the details"? John Reaves 14:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

You suggested I was threatened by you, I simply clarified. I know what "beyond me" means, it's not specific to Britain, it's common in the U.S. also, I just didn't register the italics and it threw me off. Simply rephrasing comments I left you and leaving them for me doesn't really present much of a discussion, especially when they don't apply. John Reaves 14:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

What exactly is better? Some of us aren't always within reach of our Harry Potter books, so you'll have to excuse the attempts to verify information. Didn't you just question a detail on the HP Beasts page a few days ago? John Reaves 14:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, whatever. Perhaps my comments and the actual value of your contributions are beyond you. John Reaves 15:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, would you like an archive? You never bothered replying above. John Reaves 15:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I assumed you couldn't do it. My comments have always been in support, I just chose not to stubbornly defend them to get my way on a minor issue. I'll continue to "pour the hate" as long as you promise to continue exaggerating and blowing everything I say out of proportion. John Reaves 15:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Like I said above...exaggerating and blowing everything I say out of proportionJohn Reaves 15:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

It left you plenty of choice. There's nothing that says "Users who annoy you should have a 3RR violation held over their head and used repeatedly as a threat." I've struck out any comments I regret. John Reaves 16:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

(Reply from WPHP talk) - I was suggesting 'bitching' as an informal verb actually, not slang. How/Why does that offend you in the first place? The 'jackass' comment I regret also. How was it a "slanging" match?

So are you going to answer any of these questions? John Reaves 16:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, why should I apologize to you when you've yet to apologize for calling me a "Blind American idiot"? John Reaves 16:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The question was why/how does the word bitching offend you? Also, how was it a "slanging match"? And no, you didn't apologize for the remark, just the "blind" part. John Reaves 16:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

So I guess your not going to answer the question. Yeah, that apology looked real sincere. 16:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how whether or not I would use it with my parents is relevant, as your not my parent, elder. You chose to find it offensive, I know I've used it plenty of times before without a problem. Now "jackass" on the other hand, that's offensive. I am sorry for that, that was uncalled for (though I must admit, I didn't expect you to be a stickler for the rules). John Reaves 17:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sirius Black

Michael, I'll take a look at the Sirius Black page and make any needed changes, and then we can discuss. PNW Raven 14:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Check my Talk Page regarding this. PNW Raven 00:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Just FYI: I've started editing this page. It will take me a little while, but I am working on it.PNW Raven 02:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] McGonagall

I know the paragraph is about Mc's job, however it's still too long and goes into many details about Slughorn: "Horace Slughorn took over the position of Head of Slytherin House for the funeral of Professor Dumbledore, and if he does not resign or leave Hogwarts, he is expected to keep the position - in his previous term of employment at Hogwarts, he was Potions Master and Head of Slytherin House, both positions filled by Snape at some point since Slughorn's first retirement.". Keep it if you like, but I suggest that you should condense it. _AbelinCAusesobad 15:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC) p/s: It's a bit strange of you to archive your talk page. And it seems that your relationship with JR is not very good recently, doesn't it?

Yeah, the article looks better now. About the JR problem, I think both you and him should keep calm and stop hurting each other. The two of you are core participants of HP project, so it's not very good let other editors see interior dissidence among the members. You'd better carry a reconcilement, agree? _AbelinCAusesobad 06:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal

It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Minor Ministry officials in Harry Potter. Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Sbrools ^{(talk . contribs)} 16:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

okay. --Sbrools ^{(talk . contribs)} 16:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hypocrite

Remember when you left this on my talk page

"I'm not going to pretend that you just 'happened' to stumble across this article. Stop spying on my edits, please".

You should really start abiding by the b.s. you tend to spew (e.g. your talk user page). You can also see a reply to your further meddling on my talk page. John Reaves (talk) 18:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

1) I obviously can't deny that vandalism happened, but I didn't do it. I used to have myself logged in on a shared computer and my account got used. It's the truth, although you probably don't believe me, I'm being honest. I had completely forgotten about it, and didn't know about some of it. I wouldn't have denied it if I had known/remembered, afterall, it's in my history so it would have been foolish to deny it had I remembered.

2) When have I used a sockpuppet?

3) Yes I have been uncivil, you have too, so stop acting so high and mighty. We both seem to share similar qualities that don't mix well. I'm aware of the issue, and I'm trying to improve.

4) How do you call deleting a Myspace link from one article you happened to have edited stalking? Interjecting when you see yourself being slandered on a talk page that's is on your watchlist certainly isn't stalking either. I never accused you of stalking, I've merely pointed out another level of your hypocrisy.

5) Your grasp of policy leaves something to be desired as continuously fail to comprehend what original research is. The only reason I got blocked was that you couldn't handle yourself and had to run for help like a little boy.

John Reaves (talk) 22:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing I can do if you don't believe me, it's the truth. Yes, I was blocked years ago for being stupid and ignorant and once again for being stubborn. You too have been blocked twice so don't hold yourself to a higher standard. I don't see why past actions should prevent someone from from enforcing rules. This one instance of "sockpuppeting" you refer to was the addition of a tag while not logged in at a library, not the lie you've concocted ([see for yourself]). Anyone that looks in your HP archive will see that you came blazing into Wikipedia with uncivlity and that original research you love so much. Frankly, I tired of dealing with you and your comments that are as full of themselves as you are. So how about we go our separate ways and try to avoid each other? John Reaves (talk) 23:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good article Nomination

Hey Michael, I happen to run across your nomination for the the Sirius Black page to become a Good Article. Good luck, but what I have seen, the evaluators follow on the Wiki policies to letter (as they should). Some of the main problems that will come up are WP:VERIFY policy because the article does not have enough references and what references it does have are not specific enough(like page numbers). Another is the policy that will give the article problems is the WP:WAF, because the article will be considered too much in-universe perspective. Just giving you a heads up. Also, whatever the evaluators say, do not take it personal. (Duane543 04:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Hogwarts logo SVG

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Rules_of_thumb

“

"Use JPEG format for photographic images, and SVG format for icons, logos, drawings, maps, flags, and such, falling back to PNG when only a raster image is available. Use GIF format for inline animations, Ogg/Theora for video."

”

Do you know what an svg file is? I'm sure there are many pretty low-res jpeg images of the US president's seal, but for some reason, an svg is preferred. Even if it doesnt have all the cosy pencil shadows.

If you think it's ugly, you can edit in inkscape

[edit] Destroyed Horcrux that Dumbledore removed

Hey Michael, I wanted to ask you about this just to satisfy my own curiosity. Could you tell me the quote in the book that says he removed the ring, or is it just that Harry noticed that the ring was no longer there? Not for the article (I think it's probably clear enough in the article that it doesn't require a citation) but for my own curiosity. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 16:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 17:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting... that its absence was noted in such a fashion does mean that it's not some irrelevant thing, but I agree, it seems strange that Harry would think of the mouth-organ in that context. Thanks for looking it up, Deathphoenix ʕ 17:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Check your facts, please

Regarding this edit: the Andromeda Galaxy is not known as "Andromeda" and is different from Andromeda (constellation). See also Andromeda. I don't re-revert as a matter of principle, so please correct the article yourself. Respectfully, Kosebamse 13:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Attacks

Hello, I was just wondering if you might be willing to remove you personal insults to Jay made on the Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows discussion page. I orginally removed them, but decided that I do not have the authority, and should ask the commenter instead. I will also be asking Jay to remove his. This would help renew a more pleasant discussion of Harry Potter. If you would like to continue your personal attacks and arguments with Jay, please do so on his or your user pages. Thank you very much, --User:Lulurascal

You don't need to get all upset about my request. It was just a request and nothing more. I am sorry if you took it as an offense. You might be please to know that I will no longer be watching Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows page. This toxic environment has definitely made me run the other way. Let's just leave it at this, and have it be that happy moment of farewell, and go our separate ways. --User:Lulurascal

[edit] Goblet of Fire plot overview

Can I ask why you've reverted my edits to Goblet of Fire? The overview needed significant culling. --Dave. 14:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It's supposed to be a short summation though. As it was it rivalled the main plot section in length. If it doesn't read very well I've no objection to you improving it, but I though simply reverting it was rather harsh. --Dave. 14:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Umbridge

Genuine apologies, I didn't realise youd rewritten it. Thedreamdied 18:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] She

Yes it is she. btw, I lied, I am too much of an HP fan to just leave, and we were always of the same opinion from the start. I was actually going to say the exact same thing as you, but you beat me to it, and my request was really for the other person to erase his personal attacks, but I thought that I needed to be fair, and I didn't realize how serious deleting other peoples comments were on discussion pages, but I was wrong to do it, and I realized that. --User:Lulurascal

thanks for letting me know wiki etiquette. Even though I'm an established user, nothing I have ever contributed to has been that controversial until now. --User:Lulurascal

[edit] Neviile Longbottom

Why have you removed my new information from neville's article. Whats wrong with you? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cid Campeador (talk • contribs) 20:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] HP7

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, we remind you not to attack other editors, as you did here: Talk:Harry_Potter_and_the_Deathly_Hallows. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Folken de Fanel 23:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

You have accused me of being "self-righteous and conceited " which is a personal attack, that is a comment on the editor and not on the contributions. Folken de Fanel 00:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I can see no personal attacks in what you quote. Be careful however, you handle your threats. They could turn against you. , please do not violate the 3RR rule, and the WP:OR and WP:RS and Wikipedia:No personal attacks rules. Doing so may lead to you being reported, and to a temporary block from editing. Folken de Fanel 00:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I can see no offense in what you quote. "you are being rude and disrespectful"; that's true, I was verbally attacked. "stop playing the fool"; that's true, the person was deliberately playing on words in his argumentation. "Were you respectful, you'd have done the same"; "you dumbly reverted": that's true, "dumbly", because when something is "dumb", there is no reflexion, it's something automatic. Be carefull. Folken de Fanel 00:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ministry of Magic enemies

Mind explaining why you keep reverting my edit regarding the Ministry of Magic enemies? For it to be the most thorough and accurate "dark witches and wizards" covers all spectrums, including Voldemort. The Ministry obviously has more than just Voldemort on their mind. I'd appreciate an explaination. - Throw 04:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks

With regards to your comments on [[:Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows]]: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.Folken de Fanel 22:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

By the way, do not mess around with my talk page any longer. As Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types_of_vandalism says, "on a user's own talk page this policy does not itself prohibit the removal and archival of comments at the user's discretion". That admins want to add/delete/reinstate their own warnings is one thing. However, that external users (that means you) should meddle with others' talk pages and reinstate unwanted warnings/comments is another, and it is called Talk page vandalism. Folken de Fanel 11:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, do not give me order or try to intimidate me and push me out of Wikipedia. It will only be concidered personal attack, and you will only earn more warnings. Folken de Fanel 11:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

As written in the official wikipedia rules, "on a user's own talk page this policy does not itself prohibit the removal and archival of comments at the user's discretion". It is very explicit and you are not allowed to contradict it, and you can't either create your own rules. If I don't want some comments on my talk page, they won't appear on it, and you have no right to to remove/add comments that aren't yours, as per Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types_of_vandalism.
You're the only one here who refuse to conform to rules and customs. I'll never "loose membership", anyway this issue is not yours to decide and all your attempts will fail. You have no right to mess up with my talk page, as the Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types_of_vandalism rule clearly stated, so don't try anything, it will only backfire at you. I remind you that there has no bad faith accusation, just observations of your behavior. You have messed up with my talk page at least 3 times before I adressed you any warning. Now you're warned, you know that you can't mess up with others' talk pages, so if you do it again, you won't be saved by any claims of "good faith".
I remind you that I have expressedly stated a few days ago that I didn't want you to talk to me, I made this very clear: that you're still messing up with my talk page, and moreover, only to write threats and to try to force me out of Wikipedia by intimidation, will only be seen as harassment. So don't think you're gonna win this.
I really don't care about you, my life doesn't depend on your staying on Wikipedia or not. I'm not like you, I'm not trying to force you out of Wikipedia. However if you start attacking me, I will use all the tools available to defend myself, and if you have to be blocked, well, if you continue this way, you will be, as I have no intention of leaving Wikipedia and I'm not gonna let you intimidate me. However, let me clear things up again: I don't want you to be banned. Really. I don't care whether you stay or not, and I'm not upset or angry because with have an opinion conflict. However, if you start to make things personal and if you refuse do anything other than mess with me outside of the discussion about the article, I'll be forced to use any possibility to make my "stay" here enjoyable. Folken de Fanel 16:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

You are neither more veteran or more experienced. Please don't use the word "warn" as it sounds as a threat.
First, it is not up to you to judge anything about my "attitude", and I'm only going by the rules of Wikipedia. That I don't want to read any of your threats or harmful comments on my talk page concerns me only, not you. My talk page doesn't concern you, only me. You have no right to mess up with it and reinstate any comment you want, including yours or others.

I don't want to hear about you. So the solution is to leave me alone, since you're the one adressing me. Just stop it. If I don't want to speak to you, insisting will only create more problems, and it will only put you into a difficult situation.

I have never been uncivil, contrary to you. I merely reminded you how it works on Wikipedia. I never said you were "self-righteous and conceited", I never said you were "pathetically juvenile" or that you were "behaving like an ape dancing in a judges robes". However you said all this to me.

I have never ever made any bad faith accusations of anything. As I said, you messed up 3 times with my talk page, and THEN you were warned you could not do it. You did it 3 TIMES, so it was no mistake, and if you didn't know you couldn't do it, now you know. I, on the contrary, have assumed TOTAL good faith by not reporting you, while I should have and you really deserved it. You've just recieved your 1st warning for this, so no there can be no bad faith accusations. Now you know what you're doing is vandalism.

You are the only one stiring up troubles, just because I don't think the same thing as you.

It's your personal crusade. As I have already said, I do not care about you, it doesn't matter to me whether you stay or leave, and I'm not upset for a little opinion conflict on the Deathly Hallows article. However, by insisting in making harmful comments, trying to intimidate me, and messing up with my talk page, you are turning this personal. And as I have said, if you start to be harmful against me, I will have no choice but to defend myself.

So, change your behavior, and don't insist in talking to me anymore. If I don't want you to talk to me, then, in order not to cause troubles, don't talk to me. And do not try to threaten me, as will never succeed in either making me leaving wikipedia, or making me agree with you about HP. Folken de Fanel 17:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quick opinion

I added "awesome creatures" in reference to creatures in the wizarding world at the Harry Potter article. I of course mean awesome in the literal sense (i.e impressive or awe-inspiring). Do you think this meaning is too far gone and will therefore appear as unencyclopedic/POV slang? John Reaves (talk) 23:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your report to WP:ANI

The diffs you provided to prove User:Folken de Fanel "bad-faith" don't quite make sense. An editor is at liberty to remove comments he/she doesn't want from his/her own talk page. There's no policy against that action. PeaceNT 12:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll take a serious look at both your report and the respective talk page. (Can't believe I missed such an eventful debate going on there) PeaceNT 13:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The WP:ANI report is to be left for the administrators, still, I want to express my two cents a quick remark on this issue of WP:CIVIL.

Having scanned through the Deathly Hallows discussion (it is damn long), the way I see it, this "bust up" is basically between you and User:Folken de Fanel. You appear to have valid reasons for the accusation, however, this doesn't mean you are entirely in the right. The problem, I might add (... Michael, please, please, please don't take offence), is that you appear not to be able to keep your head in the dispute. The debate involves a number of editors, most of them, save for you two, seem to have the ability to remain fairly calm. User:Folken de Fanel, of course, has his inappropriate behaviours, but it's up to you to choose the manner of responding. Apparently you didn't attempt to avert the heated argument. And that is not in this particular situation, Michael, I've noticed your statements in a few other talk pages, I don't know why, but it seems you easily run into quarrels with different editors, probably because you're rather sensitive (my humble guess).

Without doubt, you have every right to expect others to "behave appropriately", but besides that, you should also consider improving the "skill" to show placid reactions to various circumstances (as I can assure you not everyone can be diplomatic every time).

This case is indeed a dispute, an unrelenting one, which is why I suggested you and him apply the process of dispute resolution, but that is your choice. Regards PeaceNT 05:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An excerpt from my message on PeaceNT's talk

I'm sure that after a week or two without talking to each other, things will get clearer, the 2 parties will become more aware of their own mistakes and things will become more peaceful. However, we first have to both make a step towards the other one: Michealsanders, I propose that we shake hands and that we temporarily put aside our disputes, for we both have something to win in this, and of course it'll be the best way for WP itself. Please, Michaelsanders.Folken de Fanel 16:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no negociation, it's not a question of "if you do this I do that". We have to stop somewhere and we have reached the point. As I said, it's not the time for negociations - we'll be able to do it when both of us will have reflected on our respective behavior, if there is any need to negociate, because currently we're all both being blinded by our own personal issues, which prevent us (that means you and me) to act in a reasonable way. This "mutual ignorance" is there to give us time to think about what we did. It's not a kind of submission (from either one of us). It's just a "time out", we both go to our respective corners, we enjoy our lives, we edit WP without worrying about this, to be able to have a clear picture of the whole affair.

It's not THE resolution (which, in any case, will not be "Folken de Fanel is entirely guilty and he has to atone for his sins, and then I'll forgive him"). It's the first step towards a resolution. Folken de Fanel 17:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Since "Any user can behave in a way befitting an administrator", that's exactly what I'm doing, warning you not to spread lies, provoke fights etc. And I won't drop it, because when you do something you're not supposed to do (ie threatening me, harassing me, vandalising my talk page, personally attacking me) you have to be warned. You can't do whatever you want on Wikipedia, you have to respect the rules. Folken de Fanel 18:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

And what made you think you were not concerned by the rules ? You have to respect the rules, mr "2 times blocked for 3RR".

Oh yes I 'can accuse people of threats, harassment, vandalism, personal attack, because that's what you did.

Do you realise that rules also protect me ? That you can't attack me without being warned ?

All your argumentation is in fact based on the assertions that rules do not concern you and that you can violate them whenever you want...We'll, you've just discovered that you can't break those rules and attack people without paying the price for it.

You say "behave", but in fact you're saying "do not oppose me and let me insult you whenever I want and just shut up when I tell you". Well, in your dreams. I'll never let you insult me, harass me and threaten me.

You are not superior to me, you can't give me order, and you'll never impress me. I've seen countless other little tyrants like you, who thought themselves above the rules, but in time they all discovered is was not the case and they fell. Folken de Fanel 19:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bad faith

Messages were originally posted at User talk:PeaceNT

Instead of accusing me all the time as if it was a matter of life or death, you should calm down, you should try to concider the situation with detachment. You should try to stop continually fueling this dispute, and after a week without talking to me or making reference to it, you'll probably be back to normal and you'll be able to make good contributions to Wikipedia.

You know that there is no "attitude problem", the only problem here is your rivality against me about an article content. You're trying to much to avenge yourself, so please, be reasonable before,it backfires at you...

I also remind you that you're absolutely not a part of Wikipedia's administration, so it's not yours to say what should be "tolerated" or not. That you absolutely hate me is one thing. That you make a personal crusade against me is another. If you hate me so much, the solution is simply to stop talking to me, instead of continuously challenging me...Folken de Fanel 12:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

→ WP:DR my favourite page ... Seriously, both of you need to compose yourself. PeaceNT 05:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem is not the dispute, though. The problem is that he is unable to behave appropriately. As evidenced by his screed on the Incident Page (where I am apparently lying and following him around spreading lies, and where the citations of his own inability to behave properly are ignored). He has a history of hypocrisy, of POV pushing, and of unstable behaviour in wikipedia. If he is going to continue to hang around here, something needs to be done to make him behave properly. Michaelsanders 11:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

But I have always behaved appropriately. I remind you that not having the same opinion as you is not a crime, or a violations of WP rules. If you can't convince me by arguments, it's useless to try to have me banned from Wikipedia just out of spite...As I said, this is a dangerous technique that can only backfire at you...

Yes you are following me around, it's you who are talking all around wikipedia about me, not the other way around. You have started your little rant on the incident notice board. Yes, you're following me around. Yes, you are spreading lies (you're claiming I threatened, which is not the case and I proved it) which I have rectified, the citations you have provided about my "own unability to behave properly" will not fool anyone since you have merely distorted, exagerated, manipulated and altered my words, and thus can only be ignored.

"Hypocrisy" is again a personal judgement of yours that no one has asked you to express, and moreover it's just an unsubstanciated claim motivated only out of spite, with no proof at all. That you want to see my words in a certain way because you hate me is not enough.

"POV pushing" is again an alteration of my words, merely a POVed fabrication, fueled only by your spite. And again, I don't think anyone having been blocked 2 times for violating the 3RR rule has any credibility when accusing someone of "pov pushing".

"unstable behavior" is, well...a completely ridiculous and delirious statement, that again is purely gratuitous and totally unsubstanciated. That's why you should calm done for a few days, Michaelsanders, you're drowning in your own hatred, it's devoring you and seriously altering your perception of reality.

Yes, I'm going "to continue to hang around here", because I have the absolute right to do so, and because not having the same opinion as Michaelsanders is not a "crime", of which I should be "ashamed of", or whatever...And, what are you going to do ? Is that a threat ?

"something must be done", wow, indeed, that's an open threat, which is enough to earn you your 3rd blocking on Wikipedia...Since no one is going to do anything just because you scream all over Wikipedia with unsubstanciated and delusional claims, I ask you a question, what are you going to do, really ?

Again you know that I "behave properly". The only thing that infuriates you is that I was not convinced by your arguments about HP, and know you're threatening me of forcing me to adopt your point of view. But you see, WP is not yours, and you're no one around here. You have no credibility or anything, and just spreading lies won't help you. Folken de Fanel 12:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

In reply to your comments on my talk-page - the issue here (which de Fanel persistently refuses to accept) is that this is not about the dispute. I don't like his attitude there, nor his twisting of the rules, but at least it is a valid POV. And I think that will be best solved by separating the two issues (merit of sourced speculations, and admissability of sites such as the Lexicon). I have raised the latter on the project page, where everyone can discuss it without inevitably attaching their opinions of speculation to the far greater issue (however, no-one has bothered to answer, or discuss...).

I have never twisted the rules. You have.Folken de Fanel 13:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The issue here is that Folken de Fanel appears incapable of maintaining a presence in wikipedia that is not based upon aggression, arrogance and hostility. He has been behaving like that since he turned up on wikipedia last year. His entire attitude is based upon his own ego and his belief that the rules do not apply to him.

Again, it's all fabrications and lies. You hate me, that's obvious, and you want me to pay for having contradicted you.Folken de Fanel 13:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

"All these insults just because I was right about "Plan..." ! You must be very lonely in real life so as to take Wikipedia so seriously that it's a matter of life or death for you to be right.

But that's your problem, not mine. Your child tantrum won't change the nature of "Plan...". You've lost, admit it.

And know stop trolling here, this is the talk page for the Tullece article. If you want to insult me, that's on my talk page. Folken de Fanel 11:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)" [2]

POV and opinion pushing: "No, it's clear that you want the final say. But you won't have it because you're wrong. My "theory" HAS solid base. Is your IQ below 100 ? That would explain how you can be so stubborn. I've already explained many times that Saga and Shun, when possessed by an external entity, have their hair changed to jet black. And in the Hades chapter (which you have apparently never read), it's confirmed that Shun's hair turn to jet-black because he is being fully possessed by Hades, whose real body has jet-black hair. So it's implied that hair tuning jet-black means possession by Hades. Then, it is absolutely nomal to link Saga's possession to Hades. Even when Shun's transformation occurs, Ikki noted that the exact same thing happened to Saga (but of course you can't know, since you've never read saint Seiya). So really, this is no coincidence here, that Hades was speculated to be involved in Saga's case. Because contrary to what you say, it has very solid and undisputable proof. And it's not by negating what is shown in the manga that you'll achieve anything, except proving that you're a complete ignorant. Otherwise, you're stupid ares theory, this time, has no solid base. It's just based on a stupid mistranslation and complete misunderstanding of the japanese language. I even told you exactly why Saga was called Arles in the anime : it has been proven that this name was completely unrelated to "Ares". But of course, you couldn't know that. Because you don't know the Jump Gold. You don't know what they are. because you simply doesn't know a signle thing about Saint Seiya, you've neither read or watched it. The fact is I knew saint Seiya even before you were born. You're just a fake...And anyway, linking to identical phenomenon is not a "crime". I'm thus perfectly right. "then who are you to reject other people's theory that it could also be Ares' spirit based on the sounding of Japanese word Arles to Ares?" : because contrary to you, I know Saint Seiya and I know japanese, and I know Arles hasn't anything to do with Ares. I explained it all to you. But it seems you are still fearing to admit the truth. And also, because your claim isn't based on anything. Plus, you dared to delete the perfectly valid theory about hades. Who are you to do that ? You're nothing. You don't even know saint Seiya ! "I could care less if you edit people's input or adding your own theory with any bit of speculation" : I'm adding the right speculation based on existing facts. I'm supressing dumb theories based on nothing but the deranged minds of their "authors" like you. "but to only enforce the rules on others and not yourself, that's hyporcritic!" : There's nothing hypocritic because I respect every rule, which isn't the case. What I've added was indisputably proved, contrary to you. If you don't like Wikipedia rules, don't come here. Above all if you're going to rant every time someone modifies your eroneous edits. Now, case closed. Don't bother me anymore with your child tantrums. Folken de Fanel 10:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC) " [3]

Don't talk about things you don't understand and don't want to understand. There is no POv pushing here, mr "I have been blocked 2 times for 3RR violation", only explanations of a point of view.

Arrogance: "Please don't act as a jalous kid. You aren't the best Saint Seiya fan, and you don't know much about Saint Seiya. Admit it and stop making trantrums. If you write bullshit about Saint Seiya here, it will get rectified, because we are on a free encyclopedia, which you don't own. You're not the only one "authorised" to write here. So please stop. The thing is that, it's you who can't handle people finding the truth before you. Folken de Fanel 11:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC) " [4]

I can see no arrogance here.Folken de Fanel 13:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Blatant hypocrisy, incendiary claims of racial abuse: "She went as far as make false claims, that I "attacked anyone" which is false, that I "make assumptions about people's lives outside of Wikipedia" which is false (it was her who did this). She also claimed that because I was French I "couldn't understand her and "eroneously" took some comments from her as personal attacks". However I master english pretty well, given the fact I'm an 18 year old French boy. Thus I can only understand her comments as she really intended them. The fact that she tried to hide being racial comments in order not to admit she had attacked me personally, is an even bigger insult. Then I answered her, in the other user's talk page, that I simply didn't do anything that she was accusing me to have done. Which triggered an even more violent answer from her. She claimed that I had a "grotesque lack of personal skills", and an "overabundance of arrogance and self-justification for wrong-doings". Yes she did say "wrong doing" while I have never done anything like this. And, strangely, she accused me of "throwing in my little snide comments", forgetting that, had she not "thrown her own comments" about me in the beginning, there would not have been any fight. I answered her, and the actual debate, ending with my last contribution (which was all afterward moved to her talk page by the other user), can be seen here : [5]. Original discussion on [[User:TTN]'s talk page here: [6] Daishokaioshin immediately removed all the debate from her talk page, including my comments, writing in her edit summary : "Revert vandalism, and lies. You can believe what you want, but you forget that I was part of that conversation as well, and I remember EXACTLY what you said and did". So my answer to her, which had been moved by another user, was qualified as "vandalism", which it is NOT. It was qualified of "lies", even though she didn't bother to explain WHY and to JUSTIFY the use of this term. She simply adressed me in her summary edit. So I couldn't let her provoke me in her summary edits and I wrote an answer to this on her talk page. Which was immediately erased and summarised as : "blah blah. I told you to take it to my talk page so I could delete and ignore it. And I never addressed you. You started talking to ME". She was accusing me a second time. I had to answer her, because it was really her who started it all. I answered, got deleted another time, with the comment : "I'm not even reading what you're putting in, so just stop posting your bullshit on my talk page, or I'll report you. I don't want to talk to you and never did" She became even more violent, qualifying what I wrote as "bullshit" (even if she doesn't like me, Wikipedia:No personal attacks prevents her of saying such things.) She again said she "didn't want to talk to me", which is false, since she provoked me and talked to me in her summaries. Also, for the first time, she was threatening me. She said she would report me. For what ? I couldn't let her threaten me. I answered, she deleted saying "Revert vandalism. You're going to be reported now". Another abusive use of the word "vandalism". Each time I said to her she only had to stop saying I was a "vandal", and simply stop talking to me in her edit summaries. Still she wouldn't understand and she continued. And finally she "reported" me, saying, as you saw, that I was a "vandal" (?), a "spammer" (?) that I "insulted" her (?), etc. She simply lied. And I can't let her lie. It's a fact that her current behavior is enough to earn her a permanent blocking. However it's not my intend to go to such extremities. I just want her to stop making false accusations about me, to stop insulting me, to stop refering to me in offending terms in other user's talk page. And to finally apologize for the racial insults she used long ago. That's all. I swear that when all of this is finished, I will never talk to her anymore, because I really do not want to have anything to do with such a disrespectful person. However through her harassment she's forced me to react.Folken de Fanel 01:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC) " [7]

Again, you're talking about things you do not know and with which you should not meddle. There is no blatant hypocrisis, and I was indeed racially insulted. Folken de Fanel 13:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

"Whatever you have against the Geocities web host, you can't simply erase every mention of it, without even checking the content of the website. It happens that the references you deleted contained an extremely precise translation of Hideo Kojima's commentaries concerning MGS3, published in various sources like deluxe edition books, etc. Wikipedia needs sources. We can't delete anything just because we think a certain host might be "inapropriate" (and you'll have to justify this statement, because I've yet to find anything against Geocities in the rules of Wikipedia)..." [8] - a scant 5 days before he insisted that the sources in the DH article were "inappropriate".

Again you do not seem to know anything about what you're quoting and your just inventing you won comments about soemthing you can't understand. You have altered the truth. Folken de Fanel 13:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Unacceptable behaviour: "Please erase all agressive comments from Daishokaioshin on your talk archive. I will not permit that any insults, as violent as Daishokaioshin committed (she went as far as racial insults) remain on a public archive.

If they remain, it will only force me to react to them here.

You have not moved a full discussion. You've forgotten the message from Daishokaioshin which triggered it all. Without it, the discussion you have moved didn't make any sense, and you're letting very offensive comments remain to the view of anyone, without the possibility of rectifying the lies of Daishokaioshin. I'm deeply offensed, and we must all respect each other (we are forced by the rules). Please delete these horrible comments. Folken de Fanel 12:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)" [9]

There is no "unacceptable behavior" here. Again, you're only gratiutiously making harmful comments against me.Folken de Fanel 13:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

He's also been interfering with other people's user-and-talk-pages, trying to remove comments offensive to him ([10])

That's a perfect lie and fabrication. I have merely moved the comments to the own user's talk page, a process which the first user had himself begun. Again, you're talking about things you don't know. Folken de Fanel 13:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The rest can be seen by using the cited diffs on the incident page.

There's is no rest. Folken de Fanel 13:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to clutter up your talk page like this (and feel welcome to delete it all once you've read it). But something needs to be done about him. There is a long-running theme of accusing anyone who doesn't agree with him of 'lies', 'harassment', 'threats', and 'abuse'. Not to mention hypocrisy (which you may or may not know is one of my pet dislikes, although I indulge in it far too much for my own tastes) - compare "Don't use the word "bullshit", first it's a personal agression, second it shows your lack of argumentation, third it's a lie since there's no bullshit but only deserved answers to your continuous verbal agressions" and "qualifying what I wrote as "bullshit" (even if she doesn't like me, Wikipedia:No personal attacks prevents her of saying such things.)" with "If you write bullshit about Saint Seiya here...". Consider also his frankly disturbing fundamentalist remarks: "Your insulting comments have been deleted because they poluted my talk page", "You must be very lonely in real life so as to take Wikipedia so seriously that it's a matter of life or death for you to be right", "Plus, you dared to delete the perfectly valid theory about hades. Who are you to do that ? You're nothing. You don't even know saint Seiya !", "The fact is I knew saint Seiya even before you were born", "Now like I said, stop harassing me, accept your utter defeat and do not come back here again". He does not appear able to behave in a manner suitable for wikipedia. He is a serious problem. He needs to clean up his act, and he needs to be told to do so by an admin. And if he cannot drop this serious attitude problem, he needs to be made to do so, or removed from wikipedia. Behaviour like that should not be tolerated here.

Nothing will be done against me. Because there is absolutely no justification for it. That you hate me is not enough. That I "dared" to contradict you on the DH article is not enough. You are lying, harassing me, threatening me.

Please don't use words like "fundamentalist" when you don't know their meaning.

I behave in a manner perfectly suitable for wikipedia.

I have no problem (please keep you psycho-analyses for yourself, you are not authorised to judge).

My acts are perfect and do not need "clean up", contrary to yours.

No one will ever told me anything, just because you're ranting about me because you have not convinced me about HP.

I have no serious attitude problem, you have.

You are not authorised to say who should be removed or not from wikipedia, or what should be "tolerated" or not. You are twisting the rules. If you hate me so much, leave, because I'll stay and no one will do anything against me. Folken de Fanel 13:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

As for my run-ins with other editors, I think the word sensitive, when applied to me, is thoroughly inappropriate. Insensitive is more apt - I have a tendency to ignore the tone, fail to read situations adequately, and give little regard for the feelings of others. Which, of course is hardly helpful. Add to that a streak of sarcasm, an over-the-top willingness to argue a point, an exasperation when people defy fact, and a bloody-minded unwillingness to back down, and the result tends to be a lot of disputes (I would also note that the disputes you refer to tend to involve parties with similar natures).

On the other hand, my behaviour is nothing like de Fanel's. He simply doesn't bother to behave well. He violates rules and then complains that others are breaking them. He is unceasingly rude, superior, and seems to delight in sowing disruption. That cannot be allowed. Nor can his damaging accusations of 'threats' and 'vandalism' and 'abuse'. Wikipedia takes these seriously. Those who cast them like chaff on the wind are not looked upon kindly.

I have never ever violated a single rule. You have however displayed an openly violent and agressive behavior. i behave absolutely well. I have never ever been rude, contrary to you.

Only you delight in sowing disruption.

You're not the one saying what is allowed or not on WP.

My accusations against you are perfectly correct.

"Those who cast them like chaff on the wind are not looked upon kindly" are you threatening me of violence ?Folken de Fanel 13:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, sorry I wasted your time... Michaelsanders 12:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

You have indeed, and if you're sorry, don't do it again. Folken de Fanel 13:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Whoa. The responses were lengthier than I could have expected. I have some editing to do right now. Promise to pore over all of this soon. There's gotta be a way to work out some solutions. For the meantime, please stay cool, both of you.PeaceNT 15:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, as I have said, I really have nothing against Michaelsanders, I am not at all upset if we couldn't both agree on a common opinion about HP (that's part of the game, we may or may not convince each other, nothing personal here, at least for me), and I'm certainly not desperate to see him blocked from Wikipedia just because he doesn't share my views.
If we can't get on well, that's too bad, but if that's the case, we should simply try to ignore each other, or at least, stay away of each other for a while, until things calm down, otherwise it would inevitably create unnecessary conflicts.
Yet, what saddens me is that despite not liking me, Michaelsanders is obviously continually challenging me. The logic, when 2 people can't get along with each other, would be that they don't talk to each other, however Michaelsanders has shown insistence in challenging me, even in places where I usually don't go.

What I have proposed since the beginning is that we should mutually ignore one another, for the good of Wikipedia (and in the prospect of not filling every corner of WP with pointless fights). However Michaelsanders seems desperate to get rid of me and he has turned the matter into something personal, and this combative attitude is not helping WP in anyway, and the things certainly won't calm down in this way.

I'm not however requesting anything against him. It would be mere retaliation, and it would not change anything, nor make the situation "better", punishment is only encouraging hatred. The best way is that both him and me can agree to settle this matter in a polite and gentle way, that is, (temporal ?) mutual ignorance until things calm down (and the release of HP 7 will certainly bring answers to the issues that have divided us). We're both adults, and we're both perfectly able to settle the matter without having to "kill" one another (and contrary to the prophecy from HP5, we both can live on Wikipedia while the other is there also).

I'm sure that after a week or two without talking to each other, things will get clearer, the 2 parties will become more aware of their own mistakes and things will become more peaceful. However, we first have to both make a step towards the other one: Michealsanders, I propose that we shake hands and that we temporarily put aside our disputes, for we both have something to win in this, and of course it'll be the best way for WP itself. Please, Michaelsanders. Folken de Fanel 16:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Not until you learn how to behave. You are getting there - that last post was fairly rational, abstaining from shrieks of 'lies, vandalism, threats', which are NOT the way to behave. However, you still fail to see the issue that your behaviour - rather than your views - is the main issue, and you still fail to accept that you have not been behaving properly. My problem with you is that you think accusing others of lying, vandalism and abuse, indulging in hypocrisy and rudeness, and casually violating the rules - whilst consistently denying that you have done wrong in any way - is appropriate for wikipedia. It isn't. If you can't even show willing to reform your behaviour and obey the rules, I don't see how this will end well for you (to quote you: "If you don't like Wikipedia rules, don't come here. Above all if you're going to rant every time someone modifies your eroneous edits.") I also suggest you explain how I continually challenge you, "even in places where I usually don't go." And how you interpret this as personal. You do, I note, have a distressing habit of failing to back up your claims with evidence.

So yes. If you show some willingness to behave yourself, I will stop asking that you be made to behave yourself. Until then, I really don't see what you expect to happen. Michaelsanders 16:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

As I have said on your talk page, it's not an occasion for both of us to try to lay full blame on the other one. It's just that we have to stop and think about our respective behaviors. "My behavior" is NOT the issue. The issue is "us" (which includes your behavior, something that PeaceNT also pointed out).

You are not in position to impose any condition here, as you're not an admin or anything. You do not have any right to judge me or to say anything about me.

There is no condition here, and there is no "folken is the only one guilty here" because you know it's false. Don't try to accuse me.

There is no conditions in letting me alone, refusing by imposing unacceptable conditions will only prove your bad faith.

I'm showing great patience now, a lot more than you really deserve. I've deliberately chosen to ignore all the false accusations and lies you just made in your last post, for now. So don't waist your chance, because you might not have another one, as you're last message adressed to me is enough insidious, deceitful, self-righteous, hypocrit, insulting, violent, hateful, unsubstanciated to earn you a 100 years blocking.

You let me alone now. Because it's simply not yours, and not the time, to judge me (and also because I'm not the only one to be judged here, you are as responsible as I am for this situation).

It's unconditional. You stop talking to me and about me. Because in talking to me in such an agressive and bestial way, you're merely provoking a fight, which is disobedience to Wikipedia's rules. As you said to me, "obey or leave". Period. Folken de Fanel 17:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

"You are not in position to impose any condition here, as you're not an admin or anything. You do not have any right to judge me or to say anything about me." Actually, if you read [11], you will see: "In the very early days of Wikipedia, all users functioned as administrators, and in principle they still should. Any user can behave in a way befitting an administrator (provided they do not falsely claim to be one), even if they have not been given the extra administrative functions."

"I've deliberately chosen to ignore all the false accusations and lies you just made in your last post, for now. So don't waist your chance, because you might not have another one, as you're last message adressed to me is enough insidious, deceitful, self-righteous, hypocrit, insulting, violent, hateful, unsubstanciated to earn you a 100 years blocking." That attitude is exactly the problem. You need to drop it. It is not wanted in wikipedia. Michaelsanders 17:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

To warn users like you when they behave badly, going as far as threatening and harassings other contributors like me, is thus perfectly endorsed by Wikipedia. Folken de Fanel 18:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you really think that behaviour will make anyone think better of you? Wikipedia does not tolerate careless claims of threats and harassment. Whilst you continue to behave like that, I will continue to tell you to clean up your act. Michaelsanders 18:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no attitude. I behave properly: I warn users like you who violate the rules. I do accuse people of abuses and vandalism, since you did that. I never broke the rules, you did. I am not "ridiculously juvenile", you are, in thinking you can violate the rules in order to make me leave (which will never happen). You have violated the rules (you broke the OR, RS, talk page vandalism, personal attacks, 3RR rules).

There is no "if", you are nothing: you DO NOT threaten me of things that are beyod your reach. You are not an admin or anything, you have no power, you have nothing to say, you're just being delusional. I will never ever get blocked, however you have, and and you have done enough to earn yourself more blocking.

You are not Wikipedia, thus you do not say what wikipedia tolerates or not. You do not rewrite the rules. You were warned because you violated them.

you stop making ridiculous claims, because you're the only one making them.

You have to obey the rules, because you're the only one breaking them.

I'll never leave. You'll never force me to leave. I don't care if your life revolves only in your edits in HP articles, you'll never make me leave.

You have no choice: stop talking to me. Continuing is a violation of the rules: you're provoking fights. Folken de Fanel 22:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] your user page

I like your user page text. And that you don't have userboxes or pictures. I like it. Just wanted to let you know. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 07:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Half-blood Prince

Point by point... (overlaid by your response, as otherwise its impossibleSandpiper 23:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC))

"well, we meet again. Rather than argue in the edit tags, I thought we might do it here.

"I'm willing to go as far as mystery is solved, but not truth is revealed. As I said, the one truth we can be sure of, is that any truth revealed at the end of HBP is likely to be wrong. So it is not accurate to claim here that a truth has been revealed. We wait to se what will happen."

'The mystery is solved' seems thoroughly inappropriate. It implies a Marple-esque neat solving and wrapping up of the solution by the detective. Which isn't what happened. The 'truth', as it stands at the end of HBP, was revealed by the criminal. The only 'solving of a mystery' was Hermione's confirmation that, yes, Snape's parents were a witch and a muggle, so he must have been the HBP. Suggest a better phrase, perhaps, but 'the mystery is solved' is just...wrong.

I think marple-esque is a good description. That is exactly what is going on, and almost certainly why we are fed this great big red herring at the end of the book..which is really only only halfway through the last book. Hence I objerct to 'true'.

"I'm not hugeley exercised in arguing over Slughorn loans Harry and Ron a pair of the spare Advanced Potion-Making textbooks kept in the Potions storeroom.. but I note that now you have left out Libacious Borage."

I'll put him back.

"Ill gotten. How is Harry's achievement ill-gotten? He only used the book Slughorn gave him."

Ill-gotten - to Hermione - because he didn't get his success legitimately. He cheated. That's why Hermione got so angry (unlike his trouncing of her in DADA, where she asks him to teach her).

So Hermione thinks it is ill gotten. Harry doesn't. I don't.

"What is the issue with explaining the anagram properly? If you don't give the full name and full anagram translation then it sounds bad and is misleading, whereas it is a precise anagram. In that respect it is quite different to translating Severus Snape as HBP. Not in any sense an anagram."

???

??? Tom Marvolo Riddle=I am lord voldemort. Severus Snape=/=half blood prince. I put in 'tom marvolo riddle', which is an anagram of 'i am lord voldemort'. Why do you want to take it out?

"half blood is an insult, why use the euphemism and highbrow 'offensive connotations'?"

Prince isn't an insult, as such, it has thoroughly muggle connotations (since 'there are no wizarding Princes'; there are - or were - wizarding lords, given the Peverills, Bloody Baron, and Sir Nicholas); half-bloods, to purebloods, are better than muggle-borns. So the name has poor associations, but isn't necessarily an outright insult.

Hmm. I understand now what you are saying, but I didn't get that from the article. Needs expanding.

"For Harry, it means "the boy who had been so clever, who had helped him so much", and whom he refused to think badly of, is, in fact, his bitter enemy.

"This is not at all obvious to me, but an interpretation of the book. What I read was that Harry was in shock, and frankly hadn't had time to decide what he thought. Thus I object to claiming he had a settled view."

"It's just that I was sort of right about the Half-Blood Prince business, she said tentatively. D'you have to rub it in, Hermione? How d'you think I feel about that now?" "murderer, Harry spat." "Hermione had just inadvertantly reminded him, he, Harry, had been taken in...the boy who had helped him so much...helped him...it was an almost unendurable thought now..." "I had proof Snape was [evil] too" "His animosity was all for Snape" "And if I meet Severus Snape along the way, so much the better for me, so much the worse for him." I think it's pretty clear what Harry thinks regarding both Snape and the Prince. Yes, maybe he'll change his mind, but he certainly isn't showing any intention of doing so.

"How this sickening revelation will affect Harry's quest to destroy Voldemort and avenge Dumbledore's murder remains to be seen.

"Maybe Harry did find this revelation sickening, but that is not what the article says. The article says that an average reader would find the revelation sickening. Well, I didn't, nor did those those I have spoken to personally. Interesting, exciting, amusing, audience gripping... If you want to say Harry found it sickening, then I am open to suggestions (been a while since I read it, mind), but as I said on the point above, I'm still not convinced Harry really had time to think much at all about this."

I'll change that to make it clearer, but as I said above, Harry's making his feels on the matter abundantly clear.

well, my guess is he will carry on feeling this for a bit, then it will wear off. My greatest concern is to make it clear that this is what he feels now. It will change, so we should not be giving the impression it is certain to continue for the rest of the book.

"I didn't change it, but I also thought para 3 Slughorn loans read better when it explains at the start that the book had potions tips, jinxes and the nickname. This is for reasons of collecting together information; place all sentences explaining the books content together. Still no problem then in the next para talking about the difference between potions and jinxes. I felt this also gave the last sentence of the Slughorn para more punch: Enthused by his unprecedented success... reads better if you do not have to stick in the sentence immediately before explaining how the prince comes into it, because I dealt with that at the para start. Sandpiper 23:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)"

Perhaps.

hardly ever use them, but just want an emoticon to post here. yes tis.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Michaelsanders"

Michaelsanders 23:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Otter Detail

Rowling's favorite animal being the otter is mentioned twice in the Hermione article. I removed the one under the plot summary since I feel it is not relevent to the plot. Is it really necessary to have it twice? Respectfully JayEsJay 01:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)