Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:27, 13 January 2007

Welcome!

Hello, Renamed user abcedarium, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Bhadani 13:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

The Hogwarts Founders, original reasearch

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

Civility

Please refrain from personal attack edit summaries. Telling someone to get over themselves is unhelpful to the[REDACTED] 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,[REDACTED] is no place for personal crusades. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 23:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Rumplestiltskin

The prurient "reading" attributed to the Opies has been commented out until you can provide at least the name of the Opie publication where this appears. Thank you. --Wetman 03:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

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, Misplaced Pages 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 . 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 00:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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.

Black Family Tree

Seeing your talk page, you have a history of breaking the Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages's policies, but I do not know for sure. If you still think that I am in the wrong about you breaking the Misplaced Pages:Verifiability or Misplaced Pages:No original research policies, please feel free to write to an Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages articles. Doing so violates Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

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.

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Re: Test

Hello.

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

Hogwarts

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

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)

Reply

Hi! I've replied to your post on Talk:Severus Snape. CattleGirl 06:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

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))

slug club

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

book 7, continuation of debate with John Reaves

Our discussion had got very off my original post to Reaves, so I thought it better to post reply here. I can't remember now where I saw the comment which I alluded to, about Rowling writing Dumbledore as a suicide bomber. So I can't be certain why I took the comment that way, or whether I am right. She said something like 'it is far far too late to change things now', and I think the conversation was why I took it that way. Plus the fact that it is essentially what is going on, and that actually heroes dying for a cause is a traditional literary theme. 'It is a far, far, better thing I do now than I have ever done before', (er, famous quote by I'm not sure where from ! tale of two cities, set in revolutionary France?) It is perhaps ironical that suicide bombers are currently demonised, yet volunteers leading raids to almost certain death in WW1 got medals. Rather a matter of perspective. But I suspect Rowling is a bit sensitive about Dumbledore's hero's sendoff because of the recent London bombing.

As to Rowling and book 7. I am not pessimistic. She has been criticised for erratic plotting, yet I do not see any major inconsistencies. There is a traditional approach in some books for the perspective in a book to jump about, maybe a few chapters about one set of heroes, then some about a different lot. Here she had 7 books, and although people have tried to draw out similarities between them, I suspect she tried to vary the plot as much as possible between each. Basic plot is always the same, Harry clobbers Voldemort AGAIN, but she has done a very much better job of making each book distinct than have quite a few authors I have read. It may be people are worrying because she seems to take up a theme then completely drops it in the next book, but this may be deliberate. So far (...) I don't see anything to suggest her plotting is anything other than brilliant. But that judgement will depend on the degree of minute plot detail she can seamlessly wrap up in the last book. She did comment on TV that it was going well, but she was amazed how many details there were to include. I think she meant exactly this. It could also have implied that there exists an essentially complete version of the book, but with lots of work needed to insert little detail. Might even have people checking it by now. Who knows.

She may not like fantasy, but she seems to have an excellent grasp of traditional myths, and studied it at university. I think it possible that her starting point was the tale of Beowulf, who I am sure lent his name to Dumbledore. I think her famous train journey where this supposedly began was her idling away the time seeing if she could think of a modernised version of Beowulf, which she had had to study. She actually won an award for HP where someone else won an award for a new translation of Beowulf. People asked her how she thought of her book compared to the other winner. Whether the book started with Beowulf or not, there is too much of that story in HP for her not to have included it deliberately, (but she meant us to know that, she used the name, almost all HP names are significant, so she must have been dead pleased). Now, I would love to get that into an article, but she won't say anything about it until after the last book, if she ever does.

I expect the last book will be much more like the others than people think, as far as its 'feel' goes. It will probably go outside of school, and sounds as though Voldemort will actually get to do some battle fighting on stage. Her prose reads ok to me, but it is perhaps what has been most criticised. I imagine she gets better with practice, so I don't imagine it will be worse than what we have so far, which is perfectly fine. She has always been writing 'popular' books, not ones where you need a dictionary to check the meaning of words. Dumbledore will no doubt make an appearance somehow, but if her claim than dead means dead,dead,dead, is really justifed, probably he will not be taking a very active part. But then, actually, he often has not. He has always been working behind the scenes, and i can easily see how Rowling would be able to introduce 'plans' he has already made and told people about. I think Snape is due for a total character turn around by the end of the book, and despite her protestations that she does not lie when she answers questions, I think she will be seen to have made some very constructive answers to certain past questions. Sandpiper 19:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

Wirral Grammar School for Boys and its History

Could you tell me anything you know about former German & French teacher Dr F P Gopsill at Wirral Grammar. Also, at your time in the school, what languages could be learnt?, and what other things do you know about the history of Classics and Languages teaching and the subjects taught in the school's history, since 1931? I would really like it if you could respond. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aconnell1993 (talk • contribs) 21:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

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 Misplaced Pages projects, so I wouldn't worry too much about that. I've cut back on my Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

French royals

That's very good work you're doing on pages concerning French royalty. Keep it up! :-) Marialadouce | parlami 21:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. This kind of minor wikifying, putting in order, adding links, etc, really does add up. It's not usually what catches other editors' attention, but it's important work because otherwise Misplaced Pages starts to look a bit frayed around the edges. I'd help you myself, but I'm far away from home and my books and local library at the moment. Happy editing! Marialadouce | parlami 21:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 06:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

License tagging for Image:Bal des ardents.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Bal des ardents.jpg. Misplaced Pages gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Misplaced Pages, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Misplaced Pages:Image use policy
• Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. 18:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Queen Mary article

Thank you for your reasoned response to Rhode Islander. If I had seen his reply before yours I don't know how I would have responded. (I honestly did think it was a minor issue!) Tocharianne 20:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

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 summary on Harry Potter (character)

Please avoid using abusive edit summaries as per Misplaced Pages:Civility and Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages. - 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Michaelsanders reported by User:Milo H Minderbinder (Result:) --Milo H Minderbinder 16:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

Editing other Users' comments

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

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[REDACTED] (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[REDACTED] 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[REDACTED] 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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages: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)

Hello, Michael

I am an admin on Misplaced Pages. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 wuestion 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)