User talk:John Reaves/archive1

Created: 06:48, November 19, 2006 Last Update: December 12, 2006

Weasley Discussion

 * How am I being negative? The word 'disreputable' means that they have rather a poor reputation in the wizarding world: partly because of their Bloodtraitor status, partly because of Arthur's plug fetish. I thought that Rowling had very thoroughly made it clear that, yes, they are superficially a nice family (even if they have a tendency to scream in public, bully Neville and other students, ostracise family members that don't agree with an old man who appears to going senile, ostracise friends of the family because they believe Rita Skeeter's trash, spout mysogynistic comments, allow themselves to be bought off with money and presents, behave appallingly towards a new prospective member of the family - and in the process totally ignore the fact that the son has chosen her as his wife, attempt to murder Slytherins in vanishing cabinets merely for attempting to take points, etc, etc, the list does go on), but that they aren't particularly well thought of in wizarding society. How would you define 'disreputable'? Michaelsanders 01:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I would define 'disreputable' as not being respectable in character and having a negative reputation. The Weasley's are only viewed as "bloodtraitor" by a small sect of pure-blood wizards, most of whom dabble in the Dark Arts.  Any reasonable person could deduct from the text of the series that they are portrayed as loyal, courageous, kind, accepting, etc.  I hardly think that the opinion of a sector of wizarding society that essentially lives on the fringes of society is a valid one.  John Reaves 02:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I have looked at the issue and agreed with your first observation that that statement needed to be reworded. Don't take this as some kind of victory on your part though. You have displayed a serious lack of maturity by reverting to get things your way instead of working with other editers to better an article that needs serious work. Edit wars are not tolerated on Wikipedia. You can see the rest of my take on the situation on the Weasley talk page.←Phŋж 2 Âshəs ''   |Đ|©| 03:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * There was an attempt to work with editors, I added templates to draw attention and any attempted to reason with the other editor involved. The other editor is clearly the main problem here, he has a history of reverting to get his way.  Although I do agree the edit war was immature an inappropriate, I should have asked for input earlier, for that I'm sorry. John Reaves 03:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, he is just as much to blame and I applaud your taking responsibility for your actions. I hope to work with you two to better that article.←Phŋж 2 Âshəs ''   |Đ|©| 03:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Chapter Art
There are no licensing tags for chapter art because the art is copyrighted to the artist and publisher. In fact, most of the Harry Potter chapter art images have been deleted with the exception of the young Tom Riddle pic on the Voldemort page (but thats a special case if you read it's licensing)for that very reason. Cover Art is accepted because it is also used for promotional purposes. Chapter art is not considered cannon because it is only included in the American versions of the books, and is only the interpretation of the artist, not the author. You can see previous arguments here and as you can see from the link that I thought chapter art should be included, but the other people had very good points.←Phŋж 2  Âshəs ''   |Đ|©| 15:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks. John Reaves 01:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Minor Harry Potter characters
I recommend that you do not create articles on these characters. Typically minor fictional characters are merged into one of the main articles on the subject. Also, an article with no information except that the subject "is a minor character in the Harry Potter series" will be deleted/redirected. —Centrx→talk &bull; 09:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Please listen to this person's advice. They will all be deleted because they are non-notable. Please save us all some time, and stop. -- T H L CCD 09:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I would wait for the results of the current speedy deletion nominations before making anymore of those articles. -- T H L CCD 09:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I was in process of creating that page when I recieved your first message. When I got back to I thought I was just editing it, so I saved. John Reaves 09:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem. It doesn't appear that you are taking this personally, but I just want to make sure that you know this is nothing personal against you or Harry Potter. I'm just being bold with my interpretation of the rules. Thanks for being so nice. Cheers, -- T H L CCD 09:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure, no problem. Do you understand my reasoning for creation?  If someone searches these names, all they get is a family tree template.  These people are minor characters, and that's why I made it a disambug page. I'd prefer a redirect, buy the people are relavent to two different pages/families. John Reaves 09:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Sort of. What was wrong with the family tree? -- T H L CCD 09:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Nothing really, the main issue is that the user shoul be informed that the person is represented on two different trees. John Reaves 09:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, there is more than one family tree template. I get it now. Sorry about all of this annoyance I've caused. I'll unnominate the pages now. Cheers, -- <font color="Blue">T <font color="Red">H <font color="Green">L <font color="Gray">CCD 09:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks! It's nice to have a cordial experience on Wikipedia every once in a while.  John Reaves 09:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem. I've unnominated all of the pages, feel free to continue with your work. Once again, I apologize. See you around, -- <font color="Blue">T <font color="Red">H <font color="Green">L <font color="Gray">CCD 09:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You had marked all of these pages as 'disambiguation pages', which isn't correct. Disambiguation should be used only if one name or word can refer to multiple items (see WP:D),  I have removed the disamg citations from all four of them.
 * They're OK as is, as some (as you've found out) may want to delete them non-notariety.  They're almost redirect pages, and if someone else tags them, you can probably mark them as redirects and get no complaints.   Drop a line if you need asistance with that.   SkierRMH ,<font color="Purple">10:34, 19 November 2006

(UTC)


 * Sure, thanks for clarification. I didn't expect them to be anything special . John Reaves 10:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Scouting Edit
Why did you mark my edit for scouting vandalizem, the edit I made is a published fact on the BSA website and I stated my sourse as a refrance in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightguy79 (talk • contribs)


 * My Reply John Reaves 07:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Pink Bridge Incident
Someone slapped up an AfD saying it was "per nom". Comments are welcome at Pink Bridge Incident. Thanks,  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 15:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your support! It is well appreciated and noted. Cheers  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 05:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Lowell Tuckerman
Is this really reposted content? Normally there'd be an AfD linking to it, but there doesn't seem to be one in this case. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I've replied on my page to keep the discussion all in one place. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Then where would I vote?
Then where would I vote? (and by the way, you seem to be quite rude in the way you address people, it is your sarcastic tone)

Willow-Love 10:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

ok
I will make the improvments, that seems fair enough, however, it is 6:00am here, and I am extremely tired. I will start working later tonight when I get home from Thanksgiving dinner. I just wanted to let you know that I am going to do it.

Have a good holiday!

JimmySmitts 11:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, glad we could compromise. You have a good one too. John Reaves

Arabic
I'm not sure whether you've got my Talk page watchlisted, but since it's an ephemeral issue I'll reply here as well. Basically, where Arabic (or any other script) is concerned, there are two issues. The first is knowing that this particular shape means that particular sound, and the second is knowing that this combination of sounds means "hand" or "king" or whathaveyou. In the case of Arabic, it's complicated no end by the fact that short vowels aren't marked outside of the Qur'an and kids' books. So what I'm able to do is to look at an Arabic text and say "those letters say 'flsTeen'" or "these letters say 'klm'" and very little beyond that. On a really good day, I might get an educated guess right and say that 'klm' with vowels might expand out to 'kalam' and then I might even remember that that means "theology" (or that 'flsTeen' becomes 'filasTeen' and thus "Palestine"), but I'd be just as likely to get it totally wrong. Saying that I don't have any Arabic skills in the Babel userbox means that I can't use Arabic-language sources for English-language articles, which is quite true. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Bunbury Agreement
Please explain to me how you decided that this article stub was "db-nonsense". If you had waited more than 6 minutes (in this case 9) before placing the template, you would have seen the stub expand. Further you did not bother to inform me on my user page you were doing this, or to ask me why I had created such a stub. If you had, I would have explained that there was method in my madness, I had created a redirect to the page and as such needed to place a short stub there so that the blue link of a redirect actually pointed to something while I expanded the article. --Philip Baird Shearer 13:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

From my talk page:
 * You should have used your sandbox or stayed in the preview mode. What exactly makes you think that you can remove Speedy Deletion templates?    John Reaves 14:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC

(a)The wording of the template. "Administrators, remember to check what links here, the page history (last edit), the page log, and any revisions of CSD before deletion." (b) in my judgement it should never have been placed there in the first place as the initial text read:
 * The Bunbury Agreement of December 23 1642 was drawn up by some of the gentlemen of the county of Cheshire to keep Cheshire neutral during the English Civil War. But because of the strategic importance of Cheshire and the city port of Chester this proved to be futile.

and I do not think it is patent nonsense. Please explain what it is you do no understand in the above two sentences that makes "It is patent nonsense". Note also the reason I gave for putting in a stub while developing a longer article. --Philip Baird Shearer 16:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe not quite "patent nonsense", but the phrasing "was drawn up by some of the gentlemen of the county" at first glance appeared random and unencyclopedic, I was just acting quickly and tagged it.

John Reaves 16:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Agnontas
I've expanded this article you tagged for speedy deletion with some information on the person it was named after. If you still think this deserves deletion, please go through AFD instead. - Mgm|(talk) 11:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment from 24.12.134.255
Moved here from User:John Reaves – Gurch 08:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

John Reaves:

I apologize for contacting you in this manner, but I am unfamiliar with Wikipedia and was not sure how else to reach you. My name is Emerson Spartz, and I am the webmaster of MuggleNet. Many of the claims made in the ND magazine article were out of context, some untrue, some made off the record, and others I simply would prefer not made public. I hope you respect my wishes on this matter and do not put them back up.

"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 quote grossly misrepresents the situation as it played out in the online community, and I have removed it as I feel is disparages my reputation and character. The only other edit I have made is to add this line to my profile:

"Emerson is currently a sophomore studying business at the University of Notre Dame."

I am re-adding this line to my bio, I believe it is a relevant fact.

Please email me at if you have any questions or concerns, and I apologize for "vandalizing" your wall like this.

Emerson

– 24.12.134.255 08:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * John, it's me again. I'm going to just say something real fast. So long as the article about this person follows the guidelines laid out by WP:BLP, you don't have to worry about anything. I don't know if you already know this, so I'm just mentioning it. Cheers, -- <font color="Blue">T <font color="Red">H <font color="Green">L <font color="Gray">CCD 06:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Rubeus Hagrid
The only reason the above article was tagged with the Dogs banner was because there are, right now, two links to it from the List of fictional dogs, specifically Fang (Harry Potter) and Fluffy, both of which link to sections of the article. Honestly, I wasn't too sure what to do there myself, but erred on the side of caution (tagging it), knowing if it was found mistaken it would be changed later. It was an honest mistake I myself was considering dubious. However, please also be advised that, for whatever reason, someone else might see the links in the list and tag it similarly, for probably the same reason. I can think of no way I could prevent that, if it were to happen. Clearly I'm not sure, and I acknowledge that I may be speaking out of turn here as it were, but it might be possible (unless it's already been done and reverted) to have the paragraphs on the animals separated out into a different page. I think the confusion would drop if that were done. In any event, unless for whatever reason I find another link to the page from the dogs categories and forget that I had already placed one on the article and forgotten it later (which is unfortunately possible), I at this point have no conscious intention of retagging the article. Badbilltucker 19:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Redirects
They were created by a user who's listed at WP:LTA which is why I listed them for deletion.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Urban sprawl
''The social system of major cities and out laying towns is changing immensely due do urban sprawl. When the middle class populations decide to move away form the city, lower class urban residents are left behind in city that has less to offer than it once did. According to John Powell form the Institute of Race on Poverty, 60% of the nation’s offices are located in the suburbs, compared to only 25% in 1970 (1). Urban residents are left with less employment opportunities and a declined tax base, which leads to a shortage in affordable housing and poor school systems.''

The middle class of a city could leave for any number of reasons in any number of ways. It just as well may be high-density "smart growth" they leave the city for. This information is better left in suburbanization or white flight.--Loodog 12:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Severus Snape
Hi, I think you placed a tag on the end of the severus snape page suggesting it needs cleanup. I don't really understand what you mean by saying the section is too much like an essay rather than an encyclopedia entry. Aside from length, as far as I recall most encyclopedia entries are essays, and length is not a problem which really concenrs us here. So I don't really understand your objection and will remove it unless you can explain. Sandpiper 19:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I placed that template because the article seemed to have a perssuasive undertone to it. It felt opinionated and I felt as if it was structured so that it would prove a point rather than present factual information in a clear and informative way (as an encyclopedia should).  John Reaves 19:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * ah, thanks. Now, don't know if youre right, but I now know what the issue is. will have a think. Sandpiper 19:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It occurs that one of the difficulties is that the section is indeed reporting a debate about Snape's loyalty. we don't know what it is, and this is deliberately how the character has beeen written by Rowling. I think nothing has been published so far which would definitively put him on one side or the other. So this section is making an argument, in that it seeks to report the important areas where Snapes shows loyalty to one side or the other. Now, I personally think Snape has to be one of the good guys, that is the only way the book will play out sensibly. But Rowling is still at great pains to keep this unclear, (and I think the article needs to leave this open too) although I think consensus view on this is coming down as marking him as a good guy. Sandpiper 19:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it should definitley present what we know about his loyalty and stick to the facts. We need to be sure to keep out speculation and original research. And we definitley shouldn't include any type of Wikipedian consensus on his loyalty in the article.<Br> John Reaves 20:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * As to the last, all articles here are written according to the consensus view of wiki editors, it can hardly be otherwise. But I really meant consensus out there, on websites and the like where these things are endlessly debated. Rowling seems to be fighting a rearguard action to try to maintain an appearance of evil for him. As to facts, I don't disagree, but there is the difficulty of actually finding any counter examples in the text where Snape acts in a cast-iron evil way. But I havn't worked on this article for a while now, and it does look as though the pro-snape side has got at it somewhat. Doesn't even seem to mention the one near-damning argument against him, killing Dumbledore.Sandpiper 20:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I was refering to consensus of opinion (i.e. everybody deciding he's either good or bad), that would be bad. Consensus on what goes in, what stays out, how something is phrased, et cetera; is a good thing. Statements like "it seems he is this..." or "he is probably this" should not be included as they are unencyclopedic. It's tough to mention his murder of Dumbledore and maintain an NPOV about it (whichever side your on). The main point of the article should be that his loyalties remain unknown. John Reaves 20:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * well, the difficulty there is that really his loyalty isn't unclear. A few months ago I had another scan of mugglenet/leaky to see what people are thinking, and have a debate about it. The consensus pretty much is that either Rowling is a lousy writer or he is going to turn out as a hero in the last book. This conclusion is based upon what is known now, mainly from the books but also from rowlings comments. I notice people like putting in spoiler warnings, but my own view is that what needs protection is not bald facts from the books, but this considered view that he is a hero. My view is that the article needs to be pitched to present the most important passages from the book regarding his behaviour, but avoid drawing conclusions. I have now found where it mentions Dumbledores death, but the loyalty section needs some reorganising. And it would be nice to have examples of his behaving in a clearly evil way, but I don't know any...suggestions for any to included for balance? Sandpiper 21:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Though I enjoy Mugglenet, and other sites, they can hardly be used as means of clarifying something that cannot know until book seven. I support spoilers. Can you imagine just finishing the first book and then finding out Dumbledore dies? Yes, I agree, examples of his behaviour, both good and bad, are the best content for this section.  Other than the murder, I can only think of things such as his comments on Hermione's appearance and things like that, not exactly evil.  Although, if an Unbreakable Vow is Dark Magic, than that might be a good example. John Reaves


 * Well here we may disagree. Mugglenet etc are very good sources to see what is widely believed about the books. What is believed about the characters, not what is known. What is known too, but what is believed is in itself valid includeable information. But they also serve as a point where people hunt out important passages and post collections of them. And if you go through that exercise, then it sometimes happens that no assumptions are necessary. If it transpires that an author includes 10 hints that a certain thing was true, and none that it was false, this becomes evidence. Good wiki evidence, too, because it is merely organising information already published in a source.


 * As to spoilers, I can't really imagine reading an article like that on Snape or dumbledore after just reading vol 1 of a 7 book series and expecting that the article would not contain spoilers about the 6 books I havn't read yet. I take the view that no one has any business reading past the introduction unless they want to know something which they do not know already. Dust jackets of novels all have spoiler information on them, info which would get classified here after a warning, but which in normal life people expect to see on the book so they can get a taster of it. Similarly, I think some plot info ought to go before spoiler warnings. I prefer to structure the included information so that someone has a sporting chance of reading non-sensitive info first, then deeper analysis later, so they have a natural chance to stop reading when it gets too heavy. But I make a distinction that people might not expect to come across information about an unpublished book, so deserve fair warning, or a bit of restraint in the writing.Sandpiper 23:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

True about MuggleNet (et al.) but more often than not it's a case of pure or poorly supported speculation. Though I do agree that things such as "Aberforth is the Hogshead barman" should be considered canonical (is that a word?), I also think that things such as "Dumbledore told Snape to kill him, master plan, yada yada yada" should not. The Aberforth "fact" has an almost concrete confirmation fom J.K. Rowling. Spoilers also serve to protect people that have merely heard a name, such as Dumbledore, and decide to look it up. Reading that he has died ruins any possible chance that that person had to fully enjoy the plot of the series or the movies. John Reaves 23:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

To break into this discussion...The Unbreakable Vow, dark or not, is hardly an example of 'evil'. Or rather, use of Dark Magic is hardly an indication that one is evil. After all, one would imagine blood magic to be Dark, yet both Lily and Dumbledore practised it.

As for spoilers, I do think it is important to make sure that readers are fully aware of the step they are about to take, before they read on and spoil the next four books, say. They should not be simply left to wander through the article, and at the end feel vaguely disappointed.

However, I do feel it is always very important, where relevant, to show what is thought about a subject, if it is relevant to where the author stands. So, there is no point discussing what fan forums think of Harry/Draco shipping, because it is somewhere where Rowling will quite obviously never go (regardless of the delusions of a few). But in the matter of Snape's loyalties, Rowling has so obviously left the die spinning, that a summation of what is thought amongst the majority of fans, and a presentation of relevant/conflicting facts (in particular the blatant lie Dumbledore told about the Prophecy leak) needs to be pointed out. Well, that's my unasked for opinion, anyway... Michaelsanders 23:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * For my monies worth, Snape is the most sensitive subject in the book. I was reading some more analysis of the books today and I have to agree with what I was reading, that there is a significant chance the last book will paint Snape as the one true hero throughout the books, and Dumbledore as at least flawed, and the one ultimately responsible for the Potters becoming immediately involved in the war. Perhaps better to discuss that here, even than on the Snape discussion page, since I do regard that as highly sensitive information. This is precisely the sort of conclusion which strictly 'deserves' to be in the 'book 7' article, deserves to be in an honest article doing its very best to inform the reader, but again I really don't want to put it in there, irrespective of any wiki rules about content. I think it better to keep the article as balanced as possible re Snape's loyalty. But I am hampered in this because I also want to included relevant content, and the further into that you go, the more the evidence seems to stack in his favour. I want an article which does not come down absolutely on one side, but at least presents enough information to allow an interested reader to start thinking for themselves. Much like the books, really.


 * Such deep analysis comes with the caveat that Rowling has not made 'mistakes' and all her clues will tie up, and she will continue to write her plots in the same twisting way as previously. In a sense the big unknown is whether she will manage to do this. We have experience of her setting up a vast complicated plot, but she has yet to complete a 'final' volume of such a series. Lets hope its all going well. She could still gloss over things like the prophecy contradiction simply by saying it was just characters chatting, and everyone has been over-analysing red herrings. I dont think that will happen, but it could. It might be that the book all us fanatice want is not the one she was planning. So, fairly, it can't possibly go in as fact, only if it is widely held opinion. I don't know how this article is going to be written in a years time, too. By then we will presumably know the answer, and it would be interesting to include content about how the debate over the series has raged while it was being written. Yet that is very likely to be ephemeral and sourceless despite the huge number of people affected by it.


 * Re spoilers, I agree it is desireable to give chance passers by a warning to get out before discovering important parts of the plot. But I think this should be done as much as possible by front-loading the article with 'background' which informs about the character without revealing essentials. You have to assume that a visitor here wanted to know something.
 * Re dark magic. I agree. The whole point of Snape is he does and knows things carelessly classed as 'evil', yet is going to turn out as a good guy. That is to me one of the more convincing arguments for him being good. If it happens, it fits the lesson Rowling is teaching. Sandpiper 15:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * My opinion regarding the progression of the series (and sorry, John Reaves, for this discussion taking place here)...Rowling has claimed that the series has a point on more than one occasion. I agree - she is not a hack, regardless of what some people think (chiefly those who argued ages ago on the Hermione page that Rowling had no intention of her names being significant - which I also disagree with). And it is, I think, blatantly obvious that one of the major themes of the novels (in parallel with the redemptive theme Snape - we think -represents) is the inevitable loss of innocence. Specifically, Harry's loss of innocence. Both from the unnatural corruption of the child due to the dangers which threaten him and the tragedies which affect him, but also through the natural rite-of-passage becoming-a-man sequence. And one of the major inevitable points in growing up is the realisation that ones parents/mentors/etc are human, flawed. That they cannot protect you, that they are not perfect, that they are human. Harry has already seen this: he got the shock of realising that his father was far from perfect, that Hagrid was a blabbermouth (that was as early as book one), that Sirius had self-destructed (and I think Rowling's otherwise bizarre cauterisation of Harry's grief for Sirius was to both avoid rubbing in the 'loss of flawed parents' theme, and to prevent Harry inevitably realising that Sirius had been extraordinarily flawed), etc. He hasn't realised that Lily was flawed yet (revelation regarding use of Dark Magic, perhaps?). Nor has he realised that Dumbledore was. And that is the big tragedy, what no one would want to happen to them: the realisation that the person you looked upon as a parent, as perfect, who had cared for you the longest and been most to you, was not only deeply flawed, but also treated you as Iphigenia - sacrificed you to the Gods for a fair wind. Compounded by the fact that he'll still know that Dumbledore really did care about him - because if it is hard to comprehend someone betraying you, it is worse to know that someone did care for you, and yet used you. It's a common theme in literature.
 * As for spoilers, I will simply repeat again that every chance must be given to the casual reader to get out - so a reader of GoF (where the reader is supposedly left feeling decidedly positive about Snape) and as yet no further should not be treated to casual references to Snape's loyalties being dubious because of post GoF data. We do have to show respect for those who are only just starting out on the books/films. I would however be very interested in keeping some preservation of the debate on his page - if only so we can look at the various bits of info and think, "How could we be so stupid?" (one way or the other). And, given his importance, even after the revalations of the final book (whatever they are), the ambiguity of his nature will still need to be retained until the end of the article, to avoid spoiling it for those still at the point of 'He killed Dumbledore!!!'. But then, with almost a year to go there (or, we dread, more), it's rather early to start discussing page formuation for then. Michaelsanders 16:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * First off, the discussion here is fine, I much rather it be here than cluttering the Snape page. I think my final stance on spoilers and speculation will be that, until the end, the reader should form his or her own opinion, regardless of anything obvious, on the path of the series and its characters.  That is part of the appeal of reading such a wonderful series. We need to careful so that the articles don't sway a reader's opinion in one diesction or the other.


 * I think that series is laid out to let you down. The letdown being: not everyone is perfect (i.e. Dumbledore and many others).  It's not a letdown that dissapoints though.  The letdown teaches and and makes it a truley complex story. The first books establish innocence and then the series proceeds and strips the innocence away.  While the loss is extreme in the series, it is still a valuable.  By showing the flaws in human nature, Rowling allows us to see that those who strive to be perfect (i.e. Voldemort with immortality) are the ones who lose in the end.  Dumbledore knew he had made mistakes before, but he also knew he tried his best to act in way that would be most beneficial.  I too believe Snape will come out on the side of "good" in the end.


 * As far as what should be in the article, see the guideline WP:IGNORE. It is definitley confimed that Rowling knows where the series is going and that she has outlined the series to the very end. On that note, I think we should stick to what is in the books regarding Snape.  It would be nice to present some sort of write up that summarises the clues we no into "possible outcome". But if that proves to be too WP:OR than we shouldn't worry about it and leave it up to the reader of the books and the article.


 * As far as "dark magic" or "evil things", I think that it is objective as to what is considered so. What classes magic as dark or evil should be the way it is used.  Protecting your only son would be a positive use of "dark magic".  As far as we know, the wards Dumbledore placed around the school could be considered evil, yet I don't think anybody would consider them to be.  "Dark magic" is most likely just ancient magic that is no longer understood.  Conversely, magic like what Voldemort used in the graveyard, is patently evil or dark.
 * John Reaves 21:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * But you can't classify 'Dark Magic' according to how it is used. Anyone can justify their use of it, for the most part. Imperius? Better than hitting someone. Avada Kedavra? Hey, at least it's quick and painless. And many of the other, non-Dark magics, cause harm. It must be painful for a tortoise to get partially turned into a teapot, for example. In the matter of Dark Magic, I go with Red Hen - who argues very convincingly that Dark Magic is primarily chaotic and uncontrollable. That, in effect, it comes from the soul rather than the mind, and requires passion rather than intellect to work it (think of Light Magic as Mozart. And Dark Magic as Bach, or Tchaikovsky). But in any case, that is irrelevant. What is relevant is that, so far, we have seen that Dark Magic can be used for good purposes (and Light Magic for bad). Which simply shows that they are neither good nor evil, but merely a tool - albeit a less willing tool than light magic. Michaelsanders 11:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

But if the user's intentions sre still evil, that is to hit/control or to kill, than that would merely be using different forms of dark magic in an way that seems to, but doesn't, justify it. I've never seen any indication that transfiguration causes pain. John Reaves 20:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * What if you kill in self-defence? What if you believe that a person has brought about their own punishment? All magic, dark and light, is what you make of it. You are not automatically good or bad because you use one or the other. So, Voldemort's ritual. It itself was not evil. It was merely a tool, a function. The use he put it to was - well, certainly repugnant (I hesitate to use the word evil even in the case of Voldemort). As for transfiguration, or charms: you would expect it to hurt. A lot. Lupin's transformation's hurt him, and they are to a large extent a more primeval and uncontrolled feature of transfiguration. Michaelsanders 20:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * To that last, Minerva seems entirely happy changing into a cat. To dark magic, I think this is a label which rather depends upon the view of the person using the word. Hermione argues with Harry about whether some of the spells in the potions book are 'dark'. To Rowlings intentions, She had a detailed scenario for all the books before she started. This may still be her target end point, but that says nothing really about whether she might have added 'embellishments' to the story as she went along which add background or interest, but do not contribute to the final showdown. So it is possible that she is entirely on track, but we are arguing about fine details which unfortunately actually have no implications for the outcome. Let's hope not. So far, I don't see any significant examples of this, but then we wouldn't. All we would see would be our favourite anomalies just remaining anomalies at the end of the last page. There do seem to have been amendments to the timeframe relatively early on, and I think Rowling stated she had a very major readjustment to the plot halfway through, but hopefully she got it straightened out at that point.
 * I'm not sure we have any evidence that Lily is going to disappoint us as a mother figure. Arguably the track record so far is that our view of characters tends to swap from one book to the next, but she may yet escape unscathed. It seems to me that Dumbledore was holding back information in part because it will tarnish his image when Harry finds out (though also because it is TOP secret). Snape can really only go up compared to his public position at the end of HBP.
 * Once upon a time I used to read detective novels, but I'm not really a good judge of them now. This is definitely a detective novel, but I think it is a somewhat novel one as it has managed to combine the detective, the boarding school and the fantasy traditions in one book. In my experience, Pratchett maybe did something similar (in terms of creating a new concept) when he created the diskworld novels, which satirised fantasy (and the real world). I also don't know how Rowling is now widely perceived in literary circles, but I think some of the early pundits who criticised her work may have vastly underestimated her scope and ambition, and with a bit of luck, her accomplishment.
 * Regarding Dumbledore, a point which I know has occurred to people, because I saw Rowling's comment somewhere, though I don't know it has become truly obvious yet, but I can see how she may have become a little uncomfortable of having writtten a book  which gives a state funeral to someone who commits suicide to further the aims of his side in the war, just as the real world is in the middle of a spate of suicide bombings. The greatest current literary hit, childrens book, glorifying a grizly deliberate death in a good cause?  The message is that nothing is black and white. Choices are what matters, in difficult circumstances. (well, she said that, and I agree it is consistent with her work) Sandpiper 23:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I confess myself amazed: I hadn't even thought/read of the idea of Dumbledore's death being a politically incorrect 'suicide for the cause' - or at least, not in the sense of it being comparable to current political tensions (largely because I assumed pretty much from the start - after sheer amazement wore off - that he had 'done a Gandalf', and was set to make an appearance. And am rather sceptical about what will happen to clear everything up without him making an appearance. But then Rowling, like Shakespeare, has to be assumed to be capable of some original ideas). Mind you, Harry playing truant will hardly enthuse the parents.


 * As for book 7: very worried about that. I have read at least one memorable fantasy quest (Assassins Quest, by Robin Hobb), and thought it brilliant. I really am afraid Rowling, who has a different sort of style, is capable of carrying it off (the threat is that it will be a tedious march from place to place. I confess myself terrified of how she will write the time-frame, and how she will liven up the horcrux hunt). Especially since she apparently doesn't like fantasy (a claim I am profoundly sceptical of). Alternatively, though, it may prove to be her 'natural genre' (she's got to end the series well, after all) - or at least, something she is capable enough in writing to give a good ending to the series (rather than a nasty sense of, "I waited ten years for that?"). I am comforted by the fact that she is good at characterisation - so hopefully, if necessary, there'll be enough of that (especially Snape?) to make up for any other defienciencies.


 * As for transformations - probably best to just leave that. She's given us contradictory info, and little enough solid info about Dark Magic (although, I would note that animagi transform voluntarily. So maybe voluntary transformation is less/not painful than involuntary transformation?) to draw any solid conclusions (except for the obvious, that it is dangerous). Michaelsanders 01:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

speedy
To get rid of something like "C. C. Kemble" after you have moved the article, don't bother with RfD - just mark it &#123;{db|unwanted redirect}}. Most admins will action such a request without question. -- RHaworth 09:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Ginny Weasley and Draco Malfoy ratings
I must admit I tend to be more cautious with assessment ratings than most - however I have added some comments to both articles. Let this not discourage you, they are both very good articles. We should always aim for excellence though and the more hurdles articles get over the more quality is likely to be achieved. Keep up the great work! :: Kevinalewis  :  (Talk Page) / (Desk)  10:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Birthdays
Surely we only know Dumbledore's birthyear, not day? I'll probably reorder the dates according to year. Michaelsanders 22:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Do we know if anyone wants them? Michaelsanders 23:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Ratings
Thanks for your help and input with the mergings :). Any chance you can help with the article ratings going on (only about 150/350 left), as part of the assessment department? Lots of the remaining are images that just need to be tagged |class=NA. Thanks, RHB 20:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Yep, head over to. Atm much of the remaining are redirects and Image talk pages. The image talk pages I'm assessing with Class=NA, at least until something better can be found. Thanks, RHB 20:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Response to your message about Talk:Pomona Sprout page
I think you better check the history of the page and the changes made before you go around accusing people of vandalism. If you had, the only thing you would have seen is that I only deleted was my own message. Which is not vandalism! Unless you have a different definition of vandalism, I suggest that you return the talk page to the way it was. (Duane543 17:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC))
 * Sorry about the template, but at the time I was new. (Duane543 17:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC))

Deletion
The birthday list has been put up for deletion. If you have any interest in retaining it, help. Also, please assist in defending my list (students in Harrys year) if you think it valuable. Michaelsanders 18:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Your deletion constitutes vandalism
You deleted a template that had been added for bot cleanup. I have restored it, please do not do this again. You may not delete other users comments on talk pages, this is against wikipedia policy. If yo do this again, I shall report you to an admin. - PocklingtonDan 08:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Ireelevant
That template is worthless and offers no worthwhile advice. It only serves to clutter the talk page and adds no redeeming value. Who or what added it doesn't matter, "Strategic Clean-up Coordination Points", or whatever they're called, aren't official. John Reaves 08:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Whatever your value judgement on an editor's input on a talk page to be worthwhile or not is irrelevant - it is explicitly against wikipedia rules to remove any comments by another user for any reason. Even if that were not the case, others find these templates useful. This isn't up for discussion, this is standard wikipedia policy. You may remove edits in the main article space, you DO NOT remove other users comments from talk pages. - PocklingtonDan 08:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Since when does a bot have the same rights as a user? John Reaves 08:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You might be surprised to learn that this does extend to comments added by bots too, since many bots are manually-assisted and all are operating as an extension of and at the wish of a human editor. Unless there is profanity or similar, there is absolutely no grounds on which wikipedia allows you to delete any other comments on talk pages. I suggest you let this one go and get back to your otherwise excellent work on wikipedia - PocklingtonDan 08:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)