Talk:MuggleNet

Inaccurate and sensitive information about leaving Mugglenet Interactive
Before I added the history section, most of the MNI section was obviously written by an irked user trying to glamorous the events of my departure. The main reason I left was because of general disintegration of staff relations (between just about everyone), rather than 'getting upset over galleons' (although indeed part of the annoyance was that staff members were taking an imaginary currency system far too seriously). Neither did I 'hack' into the site. On a privacy note, I also don't like being mentioned by my full name, considering that it was an event that happened years ago. Please let me change this to "The site's former webmaster and creator Jamie left after disputes with the staff." - which would be far more accurate. This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, so really any details on this are not relevant! —Preceding unsigned comment added by JimJamJammin (talk • contribs)


 * Feel free to do it yourself, remember WP:BOLD John Reaves 18:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Emerson lives in LaPorte, Indiana
On MuggleNet, Emerson says he lives in Indiana, near Chicago. This newspaper article, more specifically say that he lives in LaPorte, Indiana. However, Emerson currently lives in South Bend (Indiana) as he is studying at the University of Notre Dame.

Recognition by JKR
I recall reading one of the JKR interviews (possibly the emmerson one) where she recounts a story about how she posted on a website, but was immediately ridiculed by others for not knowing about the books. so it would not be true that she never posts. Sandpiper 22:50, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that she said on her website (or somewhere at least) that she doesn't comment anymore, partly because of the reason above and also because she is very busy. But I'm certain that she has said she doesn't post. - Jamandell (d69)

-

J.K. Rowling said in her interview with Emerson Spartz and Melissa Anelli that she had once used the MuggleNet chat room:

"ES: How much time do you go on the fan sites?

''JKR: It really varies. When my site is quiet, it is genuinely because I'm working really hard or I'm busy with the kids or something. When I update a few times in a row, I've obviously been on the net. So the FAQs and that kind of stuff is just compiled by hard copy post that I get here and fan sites. I go looking to see what people want answered. It's fantastic, it's sometimes frustrating, but I do want to make clear, I do not post in comments, because I know that's been cropping up. You've both been really responsible about that, but that slightly worries me. I did go in the MuggleNet chatroom, it was hysterical. That was the first time I ever Googled Harry Potter. I was just falling into these things and Leaky — actually Leaky I already knew about, but '''I discovered MuggleNet that first-ever afternoon and I went in the chatroom, and it was so funny. I was treated with outright contempt.' [Laughter.] It was funny, I can't tell you.

ES: I’d like to apologize for, uh -

JKR: No, no no no, not in a horrible way, but, "Yeah, yeah, shut up, you're not a regular, you don't know a thing." You can imagine!" ---From the MuggleNet and The Leaky Cauldron interview with Joanne Kathleen Rowling: http://www.mugglenet.com/jkrinterview2.shtml -OneofThem

I added this text: "Mugglenet has also received criticism, because of its shipping preferences and opinions of the other shippers. Webmaster Spartz is a passionate anti-Harry/Hermione shipper, and has expressed his opinions clearly. Mugglenet is probably one of the reasons for the ever-continuing shipping wars, and it has done very little in creating peace between the shippers." to make the article more neutral and unbiased.

Cleanup
I've removed a lot of content from this page which would serve no purpose in informing an outsider about this website - it is extremely common for a website to have a variety of skins, etc, and it is not necessary to list them all here! The section on Emerson was more like an article within an article, so apart from the essential information I've removed that part too: he is not notable enough to merit his own article. Lastly, I tinkered with the phrasing of various sections to achieve a more NPOV. --Kwekubo 00:58, 27 August 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, but would this severe shortening of the article make it more weakened to being voted for deletion again? That's why I think it was made so long in the first place, to try and make it as a long article that therefore wouldn't lead to it being voted for deletion again.


 * If the topic of MuggleNet really is worthy of being included in the Wikipedia, why would you be afraid of the article being deleted? That's what VFD is there for - Wikipedia is not a collection of links where any website is allowed to add an article on itself, but an encyclopaedia whose topics should be in some way noteable. See the deletion policy for more. --Kwekubo 22:02, 27 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay. I'm not a proper...Wikier yet, I'm learning, but thankyou anyway! - Jamandell (d69)


 * Not a problem - willing Wikipedians are always welcome! Might I suggest that you register a username so that you can sign your comments and have your contributions attributed to you? The NTL internet connection you are using means that many computers use the same IP address as you, so people can't leave you messages on your user page. Also, see WikiProject Harry Potter. Thanks for contributing! --Kwekubo 16:15, 28 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Done! Thanks very much Kwekubo! :) --Jamandell (d69) 22:24, 28 August 2005 (BST)

Hmm, the article for The Leaky Cauldron website is VERY similar to the old version of the MuggleNet article. It's very large. (Jamandell (d69) 15:14, 29 August 2005 (UTC))

I removed the following sections:


 * [Mugglenet] is widely acknowledged by Harry Potter fans worldwide as being the Number 1 Harry Potter fansite. It is believed to be among the top 1000 websites on the entire Internet.

This is POV. Alexa lists the site outside of the top 2,000.


 * The fourth episode is now available from the website and also from iTunes and various other sources. With its weekly discussions about the latest news and happenings in the Harry Potter world and the informative conversations about the latest Harry Potter theories, MuggleCast proves that MuggleNet is the most up-to-date source of Harry Potter news and the prime place for Harry Potter-related discussions.

POV & advertising. --Kwekubo 14:28, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

"The site is so popular, in fact, that it is ranked among the Top 1,000 Internet sites – not just related to Harry Potter, but on the entire Web – according to Alexa, a prominent on-line tracking company."

Alexa did say it is one of the top 1000 sites in July. Check the graph here: http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?&compare_sites=&y=t&q=&url=www.mugglenet.com

The source where I got the info from was written in July probably due to the summer holidays.

I pulled the Alexis chart and the highest ranked number I saw was 2,032, so that is not even within the top 2,000. Nonetheless, the purpose of a Wikipedia entry is not to drive traffic to a particular site. Detailing a page's ranking where that is not newsworthy is hyping the site at the expense of objectivity. Hype's not the purpose of Wikipedia, as noted by the link above. Also, this sort of thing tends to bite one in the rear. As Snape might say: "Think!" If the rank drops under 3,000 (and it will) and you have to change this, doesn't it look as though the site may be dropping in quality? Many casual readers would think so and you will end up driving readers away from the site.

Saying Yahoo.com is and has been the the most visited domain on the web is probably a newsworthy item. If another site is in the top ten, that's slightly significant, but I don't believe it would bear mentioning in an entry (but I wouldn't complain either). However, anything below that top ten is not worthy of noting.Jtmichcock 12:28, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Useless and Common points edited
This article boasts about many qualities and features that are most common in any Harry Potter site. This can also be viewed as a means of advertising its content. Since this does not comply with the Wiki rules, I edited them out. Also, JKR's official site mentions it clearly that she doesn't post to such sites anymore. Topic closed. --Raj Dumbledore 15:25, 05 October 2005 (GMT+5.5)
 * The article has been reverted but the AfD is still in place as I really feel that you have some sort of axe tto grind here. CambridgeBayWeather 12:32, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean by that sir? I say again I have nothing against MuggleNet!!! -- Raj Dumbledore
 * Could have fooled me. Jtmichcock 17:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Well said Jtmichcock! (Jamandell (d69) 22:08, 8 October 2005 (UTC))


 * did you have a bad experience with Mugglenet or something? I can't believe you voted for deletion too, it's THE most famous Harry Potter Fan site, what if someone heard about Mugglenet from someone and searched it up on wiki and found nothing? quit being biased and anti-fansite. Zhanster 12:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Staff List
It's really not appropriate to put things like the staff list in this form on wikipedia. You are identifying people only by their first names or online nicknames. Besides, we're trying to keep the article to a reasonable length and that is outside the scope of this article. Thanks. Cmouse 07:08, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok got that, what I got got full names for the mugglecast hosts? Zhanster 21:47, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Nope. Still not notable enough. Or at least that's my opinion. Cmouse 01:56, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Mugglenet staff changes monthly, if not weekly. It's insane to have an encyclopedia entry that has to be checked daily for accuracy.  If someone wants to know who the staff people are, they can visit the website.  Jtmichcock 02:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok, Good idea. Zhanster 06:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I just created a staff list section just now, and I just found this here on the discussion page. I think though that we should keep the staff list; it gives recognition to those who created MuggleNet and the contributions they have made to that site. I think it would be dishonorable not to mention their names on wikipedia. Just my point of view. Of course, I understand the length we have to keep, so rather then list all the names, I simply gave the link to the staff profiles instead. CrispinOfOrion 04:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

AfD
I know there is a point of contention as to whether there have been two or three AfD's here but there is no saved arguments beyond the two mentioned, so trying to link to pull this up is pointless. DO NOT insert an AfD header unless you want to nominate the article for deletion again. Please. I just hope that Wikipedia won't pick up on whoever it was that inserted ANOTHER AfD into the text. Jtmichcock 02:52, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The one above which is listed as the first AFD is in fact the second, I don't know why the first disappeared. Trust me I know.  But ok, whatever you say. (Jamandell (d69) 13:39, 31 October 2005 (UTC))


 * The person who edited posted a new AfD on the top of the page, presumably to "pick up" the lost thread from the initial deletion. But it doesn't work that way.  Instead, the bots go around looking for these listings and add it to the articles to be deleted.  I believe I pulled it in time so that there should be no listing.  As to the "lost thread," well -- two failed deletion efforts are not much less than three.  We'll all live.

"Shipping"
There's a persistent adding and re-adding of comments on how Mugglenet attacks some people's "shipping" preferences. If you click on shipping link there, you will see an article start off "Shipping is the transport of cargo between seaports by ships. . ." I don't think that's what was meant. However, it does point to how unimportant the topic is in the broad scheme of things.

This is a five paragraph article. I don't see any particular reason why one paragraph should be inserted over an extremely minor controversy that has been rendered moot following the publication of the most recent Harry Potter book. Needless to say, being treated rudely by comments posted on a website over a minor issue is not encyclopedic. It would be kind of like an entry on Adolph Hitler because he and Himmler disagreed over whether the Gestapo should wear black or navy blue uniforms. Anyone else want to jump in? Jtmichcock 21:54, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

But it's good to know that Mugglenet has also received criticism, isn't it? Now it seems that people are only writing about how could site Mugglenet is. And when you click shipping it shows a link to a site where is the definition of shipping inside a fandom. I actually think this whole article is somewhat useless, but it is good to add something to make it a bit more neutral. -Someaymuse (unregistered)


 * I don't see this insertion as being a neutral. It doesn't address how the "critics" are completely overboard on the topic and invite scorn over their obsessiveness.  After all, these are fictional characters who can be written however the author wishes.  Even so, the characters are teenagers, who are likely to go through many dating relationships.  This was a minor episode over the summer, 2005 that has ended.  It's my position that for these reasons, among the others listed above, means that the paragraph at issue should be removed.  Jtmichcock 11:02, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * If you reread the section you will see that I removed the worst parts of it. The whole "Mugglenet is probably one of the reasons for the ever-continuing ship wars, and it has done very little in creating peace between the shippers." sentence is gone. I tried to include a quick explantion for non-fans to uderstand (besides the link) as to what shipping is. If the whole shipping thing did take place and did cause criticism then it should be included. I also think that the article should be here and that's how I voted on the last AfD. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 17:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd like to say that I think that there should be no reference to shipping or how MuggleNet has played a part in it, I consider it irrelevant and bordering on obsessiveness by some people. The fact that Emerson Spartz believed that Ron and Hermione would get together is not relevant, and I recommend that the mentions of "shipping" should be removed. (Jamandell (d69) 21:23, 8 November 2005 (UTC))


 * I'm wondering if it is inaccurate to say, as the article does, that "Spartz is an anti-Harry/Hermione shipper." It would be more accurate to state that he believed that the author was pointing toward Hermione and Ron being a couple. That's as valid a position as any to take.  But, moreover, the author can do what she wants in terms of who dates who.  The post-book seven world could involve a whole variety of characters (some not even seen) being married, divorced and married to someone else.  If JK Rowling wrote that Ron married Hermione, divorced, and then Hermione married Harry, that would be what it is.  It's difficult to believe that anyone could get so into the characters so as to place their eggs in one basket.  To highlight something like this in an article about Mugglenet seems a bit of a risk.  Many people will believe that the editor is way the heck too much into Harry Potter.  Jtmichcock 23:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Anybody being "way the heck too much into Harry Potter"? Never! H e rmione1980 23:25, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I disagree that calling Mr. Spartz an "anti-Harry/Hermione shipper" is inaccurate. His comments and site have continually been insulting to those in the Harry Potter Fandom that "ship" that particular couple.  He does not appear to behave thusly towards other ships, like Draco/Harry and so forth.JCgirlandlegal


 * I don't think it matters at all really, I find the whole issue ridiculous, and it shouldn't be noted in the article. Jamandell (d69) 22:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Mentioning the Emerson Fansite?
Is it necessary to mention Emersonspartz.net in the external links? If that's the case, than shouldn't we also mention geocites.com/emersonfans as well? The geocities site is wellknown too. Mamatha Challa 01:58, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I've never edited a Wiki Talk page, but I am thinking that emersonspartz.net is his official fan site, since he directly corresponds to the webmaster and contributes much of the content on the site. The webmaster also got his permission for the project before buying his domain name. It also seems more official than a free geocities site. -Megan
 * I deleted the link to the site in question since it is not related to the MuggleNet website. I note that there has been a proliferation of websites and fan pages related to the staff people of the website.  None of these sites pertains to MuggleNet and the prolifieration of these links detracts from the encyclopedic nature of the site.  Jtmichcock 03:25, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
 * That's what I was thinking. :) Mamatha Challa 04:55, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
 * There's also the Andrew Sims fansite. If this should be used, it should probably be on the MuggleCast section. (Although Ben Schoen have a website, it is run by him-it is his blog. (Jamandell (d69) 17:44, 26 November 2005 (UTC))

It also seems that the MuggleNet fan site could go since it focuses more on the boys of MuggleNet and there is nary a mention about the site itself.


 * Please note on another portion of the Talk page the Emerson Spartz article was merged with this page. So this is the appropriate article for a listing of links on him (but not an anyone else).  Also, given that this article has been nominated for deletion four times in the last six months, and the keep votes were overwhelming, any additional nomination would likely be regarded as vandalism and be treated accordingly.  Jtmichcock 15:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Here here, I'm fed up of those constant Deletion votes (Jamandell (d69) 14:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC))

Merge from Emerson Spartz
Following this AfD debate: Articles for deletion/Emerson Spartz, content from Emerson Spartz was merged here. I did a little cleaning, but it will need more work. --bainer (talk) 04:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Work done for the most part. Jtmichcock 04:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

69.168.46.55
This user is constantly vandalising the article, I ask you to please stop as it IS vandalism, the article was perfectly acceptable before your constant edits. (Jamandell (d69) 13:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC))

Is he Irish?
I'm not sure about this, but I do believe Emerson is Irish. Does anyone knows if this is true? If yes, we might need to add it to the article --Jort227 10:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid not. Such an e-mailed question would be original research, and would not be acceptable for Wikipedia unless a reliable corroborating source can be provided too. --Kwekubo 22:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

On LeakyMug 11, Live in Las Vegas, John Noe introduced Emerson using these exact words: "Kiss him because he's Irish, he's Emerson Spartz!" This confirms that Emerson is indeed Irish.--Turtlemakurtle 01:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The MNI Section
Though I appreciate many of the edits in this section, I had to take away some info added because some of it was unneeded, like naming some of the forums of MNI. We don't need to mention each forum the site offers, just what they are used for. If the section becomes any bigger, it may be considered as an individual article and be deleted from the section. Just a warning. Also, be careful of the structuring of this section and sentence uses. There were alot of run-ons. :) 22:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering if the new logo could be on display now that it has changed... 22:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.167.180.129 (talk)

Kat Delacour: Please Stop Messing with MNI
Please stop, you are adding way too much on the MNI section. Where it is at right now should be fine. If you would like to add something, please discuss it here first. Thank you.

I don't vote delete, but PotterCast is merged with The Leaky Cauldron; there is no reason this either shouldn't be merged, or PotterCast shouldn't have its own page.

Removal of sensitive financial information
First off, I want to apologize for continuing to edit without regard to protocol... I am relatively unfamiliar with Wikipedia's policies for editing.

I am very bothered by several parts of the article, including this one:


 * The site generates a six-figure income through advertisements every year [4], most of which goes into Spartz's pocket to finance his college education. This has resulted in some controversyamong Spartz's fans, as Spartz built his community entirely out of Rowling's work and ideas and yet is making a large profit for himself, which he considers as "investment capital." [5] Spartz has admitted that he is "not quite the [Harry Potter] fan he used to be," [6], but to keep his site running, he has to keep up with the book's latest installments and updates. Most of the site's management and updating is no longer done by Spartz himself--according to a Washington Post interview, Spartz sees his role as "more of an administrator." [7]

Most of the information printed in this particularle article was either given to the reporter off the record, or taken out of context (for one, it does not mention $120,000 in server expenses). It is sensitive financial information that is no longer correct, and does not belong in MuggleNet's wikipedia.

-- I agree in part with Spartz here. At a minimum there is a NPOV issue with the paragraph as formerly written. Spartz publicly admits on his own personal webpage at Notre Dame that he considers income from this site to be investment capital (http://www.nd.edu/~espartz/career.html, 2nd sentence). There shouldn't be anything controversial, offensive, or "non-neutral" with that. That he is able to manage the site this well, is a testament to his accomplishment and a measure of praise for scope of the site. If Spartz considers this sensitive information, then why does he publicly state it? I don't see a problem here. Johnpannell 04:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I am also very bothered by this quote:


 * "Despite the large audience for the interview, Spartz was widely criticized and even ridiculed for his questions about Harry/Hermione shippers, whom he described as delusional."

This line grossly misrepresents the situation and I find it offensive. I won't deny that I can be a polarizing figure, but this portrays me as an idiot kid who can't keep his mouth shut. In fact, the comment was made in jest, and the vast majority of the fandom agreed with me. To say I was "widely criticized and even ridiculed" only paints a small portion of the picture - it doesn't consider the vast numbers of emails I received in support of my comments, in contrast to the small number I received in protest. It is a biased, spiteful comment and I would like it removed.

The only other change I would like is to add a line to my profile, saying: "Emerson is currently a sophomore studying business at the University of Notre Dame." It is a relevant "real life" fact.

If you would like to confirm my identity or have any questions or concerns, please email me at espartz@nd.edu.

Thank you.

Emerson Spartz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.134.255 (talk • contribs) 18:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It would seem to me that the site is for profit, so that should be included. As far exact numbers, those can be included with a verifiable source. On not sure how "on" or "off the record" works, but it should be sourced. Perhaps you could rephrase with current figures.  The "shippers" text was justly deleted though, it was POV, and irrelevant.  For the official policy, see WP:BLP   John Reaves 06:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought this was pertinent information form the guidelines:


 * ==Remove unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material==
 * Editors should remove any controversial material about living persons that is either unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Reliable sources, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source. In cases where the information is derogatory and poorly sourced or unsourced, this kind of edit is an exception to the three-revert rule. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages. Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked. See the blocking policy and Libel.


 * Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and controversial in tone, where there is no NPOV version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion (see WP:CSD criterion G10 for more details).

Jimmy Wales has said:


 * "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."

He considers "no" information to be better than "speculative" information and reemphasizes the need for sensitivity:


 * "Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia."

—Preceding unsigned comment added by John Reaves (talk • contribs) 06:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Why is information that is sourced through three separate reputable institutions (perhaps, perhaps, the student paper can be questioned, but the Indy Star and WPost, both of them clearly using Spartz himself as a source, just happened to BOTH quote out of context and use off the record info? Not to mention the student paper, which really isn't disreputable, it being Notre Dame and all, is wrong as well? Where would they have thought to make that up? So, the three-times-sourced financial information isn't relevant - but the line about Emerson Spartz being a sophomore in college IS? That's simply funny. Why is he spotlighted in tihs article again? Is every owner of every Web site, even ones as popular as his, spotlighted in this way, and their schooling important? Until that happens I don't see how these standards are accurate or even. It's not libellous to source three separate publications who are reporting info that Spartz himself told them; it's not relevant to talk about his schooling as though he were more important than these financial facts. Wikipedia rules do state that it's the onus of the editor to prove himself - so, Emerson made the edit that these THREE reputable institutions were wrong - OK, then surely he has proof and surely we will graciously accept that information being taken down, then. So, where is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JanamaPZ (talk • contribs) 23:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The fact that the amount of advertising has quintupled since 5-6 months ago (check archive.org for comparisons) fully reinforces that MN is a for-profit website. It has not only increased in terms of the number of banners, but as of late, at least one news post on the front page has been a self-serving ad for one of MuggleNet's new products, be it wands, T-shirts, or the staff predictions book. MN is a great site, Mr. Spartz, and that you're profiting off it is more a question of ethics than a legal one, as shown by the debates on the fan appreciation and Chamber of Secrets boards. Regardless, Wikipedia must accurately represent commercial websites as commercial. Also, I might add that an 18/19 year old webmaster is (or was at one point) making in excess of $100,000 a year is hardly insignificant info (along with the site's popularity and traffic which got it featured on WP in the first place) -- definitely much more noteworthy than U of Notre Dame attendance.

Another thing I'd like to know is how on earth the site would require $120,000/year in server costs. How many servers are there? Sure, there's a media gallery, but a large portion of the content is text-based. I've been running websites for 10 years, and I'm not completely clueless when it comes to these matters. Wikipedian06 04:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It is not Wikipedia's place to decide if the information was off the record or not. It was published by a reputable source and thus deserves to belong here. Note that we cannot include the alleged $120,000 costs unless that, too, has been published by a source. Hbdragon88 09:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

No More Merchandise
I was wondering if a section should be added regarding the fact that there is no more MuggleNet and MuggleCast t-shirts, and if there should be an article about the book they wrote.--&#91;&#91;User:Yossi842&#124; Yossi842 19:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Tone
This whole article seems to be written in a tone that is more directed towards users of MuggleNet. Many of the "facts" in this article are hardly relevant, and it seems like the whole article is only of value to users of the website in question. Perhaps we should nominate the article for deletion again, or revise it's tone? P3net 23:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Second that. This whole comprehensive analysis on such a thing is meaningless. Wished people would pay more attention to articles that really need work, such as the complexes and syndromes.  darynthe 11:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Revised its tone a lot. It was unduly self-serving and in-universe-ish. I am hesitant to remove more, as my last edit was reverted (I was on vacation at the time). It's also unsourced. Were MuggleNet's forums really hacked in 2004? Is there some kind of news report on this, an announcement at least? Hbdragon88 06:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

MuggleNet's book
Now that their book has been selected as a NYT Editors' Choice, I'd certainly encourage frequent editors of this page to insert a section on it. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 03:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't we just make a section on "Merchandise History"? It would include the t-shirts and other things that WB prohibited selling. Anyone with me?--&#91;&#91;User:Yossi842&#124; Yossi842]] 13:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That sounds fine. By "section" I just meant that it should be mentioned. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 16:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I've made a relatively small edit to the book section, removing the suggestion that the content was collected and paraphrased from the site's forums. I wrote the majority of the book and can confirm that I didn't consult the forums at all during the process: it's all original analysis, even if other people have independently come to similar conclusions and posted their views in various places. Bobby Skank 11:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The book spent at least 21 weeks on the New York Times Children's Paperback Bestseller List, and reached the #2 spot... this seems noteworthy for an analysis book? http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/15/books/bestseller/0715bestchildren.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.74.116.69 (talk) 07:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

hmm
I've changed this line:


 * "J.K. Rowling denied permission to release the actual recording; however, Spartz has posted the transcript of the interview on Mugglenet."

The 'however' made it sound a bit iffy; as though posting the transcript was something not meant to be done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whamilton42 (talk • contribs) 5:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I thought that it meant that it couldn't be done, period, a blanket phrase. Did she actually say "no audio at all"? Hbdragon88 00:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

MuggleNet on the Road
Ben and Emerson have recently been very actively touring the U.S. speaking and promoting their book. Should any extent of this be mentioned. I am planning on going- should I gather information about the format and subjects about which they talk about? --Thanks, Yossi842 02:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

BLP Violations
I removed certain sections that called into question the ethics of an individual involved with the website. Please note that under WP:BLP any claim made about a living individual has to be sourced to a reliable outside source. Claiming that there is a "controversy" and then citing to a webpage that makes no mention of any controversy is completely inappropriate. 67.149.103.119 22:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Except there is actually controversy. If you read the topic that was used as a source (taken from the "Emerson Spartz Appreciation Forums," there is a heated discussion about whether or not it's immoral to make a commercial site based entirely off of another person's intellectual property and milk it for every cent it's worth, especially when the webmaster has stated in multiple interviews that "he's no longer the HP fan he used to be," implying that he was running the site primarily for profit. Wikipedian06 08:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Home Page picture
Do we REALLY need that long picture showing the home page of Mugglenet? It's really long, and serves no point in the article. Anakinjmt 18:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Reference book?
"On August 9, 2005, it launched a podcast, dubbed "MuggleCast", as well as its own line of clothing, toy wands, other merchandise, and a best-selling reference book on Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, the final book in the series."

Can we really call their book a reference book? I'd call it more of an analysis-prediction book. Reference seems to indicate the book is something other than what it really is. Anakinjmt 02:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect Quote Removed
"I plan to use the significant amount of money I have earned through my e-business, MuggleNet.com, as investment capital, as both an entrepreneur and an investor."

The quote is incorrect. I have never referred to MuggleNet as being an e-business. The quote is nowhere on the page listed as the source, which, incidentally, is NOT the Official Emerson Spartz Website. I also clarified an out of context quote about not being "quite the fan" I used to be.

-Emerson Spartz (email me at the account on MuggleNet if you need verification) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.74.109.86 (talk) 08:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm. Well, the IP definitely comes from Notre Dame. However, I hope you'll forgive me for being hesitant of assuming you are THE Emerson Spartz. Now, saying something on MuggleCast would definitely give you credit. If you are Emerson, or someone else from MuggleNet, I would suggest not making any more edits to MuggleNet related articles, so as not to risk breaking WP:NPOV. Anakinjmt (talk) 23:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That's unfair to say that someone can't comment asking for fallacious information to be removed from Wikipedia. It's one thing to do it without commenting, but he is asking for a discussion. We're not here to be jerks. --LN3000 (talk) 08:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The quote is correct; the source isn't. THIS is Emerson Spartz's official website: Given that it's hosted on Notre Dame's website, and under Mr. Spartz's directory, I have little doubt it's accurate and comes from Mr. Spartz himself. Therefore, I've restored the quote to the article. Wikipedian06 (talk) 22:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

How rediculous
This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a forum for you to all argue on. 72.161.65.238 (talk) 08:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)melpotter101

Cease and desist order
The statement that WB issued a cease and desist order re:merchandise needs a verifiable source, otherwise it must be removed. 23skidoo (talk) 20:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Since the site is down this is the only working link I found, this is where Mugglenet stated they had to stop selling the merchandise. Not sure if it counts as a cease and desist order though...

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:T4UqWynHYdQJ:www.mugglenet.com/app/news/show/500&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us

Stepshep (talk) 23:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Hacked
Wikipedia is not the place to list every single little detail about the incident. The way it is now is enough. We don't even need to list what works or what not. Mugglenet is down, with one page up at the moment, that's enough information for the article. --LN3000 (talk) 02:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Advertising
Several parts of the article, in particular the Podcast and MNI sections, read like advertisements. For example, passages like

''MuggleCast has listeners all over the world. Listeners from any country can write in and everyone's responses are accepted on the show. Some countries have landlines that can be called to leave voicemails and anyone can call in for live shows over Skype.''

''It has lots of other activities and members as young as 7 or 8 are constantly posting in the MNI-ian threads. Other members, say, 20 or older, can join the "Old Fogeys" club, which is a teasing name for the club for elder members.''

really serve little purpose but to promote the site.

That's just one issue, though; there's a lot of trivia that fails to meet the notability requirements for inclusion on Wikipedia. For example, is the laundry list of guest hosts really needed here? Information about every April Fool's joke? Details about a hacking whose effects only lasted for a few hours?

- Wikipedian06 (talk) 11:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I've killed some of it. We are here to provide an overview, after all, not a detailed history log of each and every action of the site (more pertinent now because it's been merged).  If we sweep out the April Fool's on the podcast, we should also do the same for the site as a whole.  Anyone feeling the BOLD to do that?  Also reassesed as Start due to being not vey complete at all. hbdragon88 (talk) 22:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Minister of Magic Elections
This information is not encyclopedic and has been removed. Daily updates about a site's current events can be found by visiting the site itself. It would make just as much sense to put "Today's Caption Contest photo is ____." JenWSU (talk) 16:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Podcast
What are peoples' views on the podcast being a new article, it's getting quite big now.. TheUnfortunate (talk) 17:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Instead of making a separate article, it would be better to reduce the podcast section. JenWSU (talk) 21:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I think there is certainly enough content to make an entirely new page about MuggleCast.--Katie310117 (talk) 00:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Why on earth reduce it - it's one of the world's most popular podcasts, often featuring number 1 on iTunes... TheUnfortunate (talk) 10:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, Mugglecast is extremely popular. By creating a separate article more sections and more information about the podcast could be provided to people. Cdg18 (talk) 06:22, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

If you want to separate it, find some notability. Find sourcing (third party, can't use the site's history pages) and reception. As it stands now, it makes no such assertions, so it's merged into this article right now. hbdragon88 (talk) 05:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Hbdragon - I don't quite get you? I'll add a note about it at the section, though. TheUnfortunate (talk) 22:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Hbdragon, Wikipedia puts songs that were number 1 on iTunes for a week into their own article, this podcast had well over 10,000 weekly listeners, and before the 7th Book almost couldn't be removed from the number 1 spot for podcasts, that and the fact that it has won numerous awards is a pretty good example of its reception. Just because you haven't heard of it isn't an excuse to be ignorant about its popularity —Preceding unsigned comment added by Husk3rfan9287 (talk • contribs) 03:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Some sourcing for MuggleCast's notability, mostly third-party, in support of the above comments:
 * Its high ranking on Podcast Alley is already quoted in the article.
 * Mentioned in several articles, including ("MuggleCast has 70,000 listeners", 2005),  ("leading entertainment podcast", 2006),
 * It won several podcast awards, including 2009 Podcast Awards: Best Entertainment Podcast.
 * Current download count around 50,000 per episode: - I think, we have to rely on their own account in this case, since download statistics are not public on iTunes (correct me if I'm wrong).
 * Was on top of iTunes' podcast list
 * Usually one of iTunes' Top 100 podcasts (following requires iTunes, instructions here)
 * I'm sure the list can be extended. Separating the article sounds reasonsable to me, reducing the paragraph certainly doesn't. --Mushushu (talk) 13:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

New Picture
Do you think we should put a new picture of the site header at the top of this article? Its out-of-date and is frankly quite boring. TheUnfortunate (talk) 16:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Emerson's Engagement
Someone edited the text saying that Emerson and Gaby have broken up and that Gaby turned down the proposal. Neither claim is true. They are still happily engaged and they are planning on living together next year in south bend.

Loss of domain name?
At the moment, mugglenet.com shows as a directnic.com domain parking page.

One wonders..... Ronstew (talk) 04:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I see it correctly. There is a post about the resent down of the site :
 * If you're seeing this news post, you're back on MuggleNet successfully. ALL areas of the site (MuggleNet Fan Fiction, MuggleNet Interactive, MuggleCast, etc) are returning. Everything should be 100% in 24-48 hours.
 * We sincerely apologize for the downtime over the past few days. If we had any idea what was going to transpire we would've done things a lot differently.
 * MuggleNet 2.0 will be coming in a few weeks. We wanted to get everything back up and running so you all could enjoy the site again. We'll be sharing a preview of MuggleNet 2.0 soon!
 * Also, while we do not hope for it, there is a chance MuggleNet will be down again in the coming days as we finalize our server set up. We will give you all fair warning if this happens. We can promise that the downtime will not be as long as our downtime over the past week.
 * Thanks so much for your patience, support, and loyalty!
 * -- Stroppolo talk 05:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Stroppolo. At the moment it is down again, but the message you posted indicates that this is not unexpected. Ronstew (talk) 19:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on MuggleNet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061206023706/http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/fansite_view.cfm?id=15 to http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/fansite_view.cfm?id=15

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:46, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on MuggleNet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090706015208/http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/news_view.cfm?id=63 to http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/news_view.cfm?id=63
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131030025638/http://www.mugglenet.com/mugglecast/about.php to http://www.mugglenet.com/mugglecast/about.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121022064652/http://www.mugglenet.com/academia/index.shtml to http://www.mugglenet.com/academia/index.shtml
 * Added tag to http://live.mugglenet.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:42, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

"MuggleNet Chat" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect MuggleNet Chat. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 18 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:35, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

"Mikey Bouchereau" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Mikey Bouchereau. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 18 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:43, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

"Elysa Montfort" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Elysa Montfort. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 18 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:45, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Emerson Spartz support for Rowling
As the creator of this site, his opinion and support of Rowling against transphobic accusations levied at her is fundamentally important. It doesn't matter if he's no longer apart of the site. The fact that he's supported Rowling is important and noteworthy. Trying to keep it out is just agenda based censorship and not neutral or in line with wikipedia's main role of providing Unbiased information. Hpdh4 00:12, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Emerson Spartz
Emerson Spartz support for Rowling ==

As the creator of this site, his opinion and support of Rowling against transphobic accusations levied at her is fundamentally important.

It doesn't matter if he's no longer apart of the site. The fact that he's supported Rowling is important and noteworthy.

Trying to keep it out is just agenda based censorship and not neutral or in line with wikipedia's main role of providing Unbiased information. Hpdh4 00:16, 20 September 2020 (UTC)