User talk:Ccrashh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello, Ccrashh, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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 Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! 

I'm honestly not sure why I made that edit which you mentioned on my talk page. I probably thought I was trying to revert vandalism. But I have no problem with it being readded as long as it's true. Academic Challenger 22:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


OK. I had a look at the article in full, and I had a look at the others.... you are right. It was perfect already the way it was. I feel like a jerk now. You will get no more interference from me over the Ducks article... besides... who is going to fall for "defending champion" anyway... the year is 2007, so I think my brother should get it. His revelation woke me up. My apologies to you for hashing you on it. I will also erase my discussions on the other things. I hope we all now can live as one happy WikiFamily :) TheWikiVigilante 13:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Hockey totals - Stanley Cups, Conference championships, etc.[edit]

Simply put, individually, these edits are considered minor, but as whole; to unilaterally decide what should go into an infobox template currently being used by some 30-odd articles is pretty significant. Significant changes should be discussed before being made.

As for why they are unnecessary. First off, having a statistic appear with a "pretty much useless list of dates" adds clutter, which can be potentially confusing to a casual reader. Secondly, one can easily arrive at that statistic by simply counting the dates.

Also, these lists of dates are far from being useless without the running totals added. With a quick glance, they tell me exactly what years any given team of the NHL has won a Stanley Cup, a conference championship, and/or a division championship, which is pretty informative on its own merit.

Anyhow, I'm all for statistics, but there's surely a better way of displaying these figures without clogging up a previously accepted table. — Dorvaq (talk) 20:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The infobox is a template that was accepted through consensus. Any substantial edits should be discussed before being made, so I therefore acted appropriately by reverting *without discussion* a substantial edit made by one user.
Ccrashh wrote, "How stupid does someone have to be to be confused by the number after the words "Stanley Cups"?"
Sure the numbers may be self-intuitive to you or I, but unfortunately, not everyone who visits Wikipedia is at your intellectual level, so we can't assume as much.
Lastly, you are right in that the New York Yankees infobox looks great. The numbers are well apart from the dates, which alleviates any potential for confusion while leaving the dates well-aligned. Now if you wish to have these statistics added, then by all means bring the discussion up on the Template talk:NHL_Team page and bring the New York Yankees infobox up as an example. You may also want to leave a note on a few NHL team pages redirecting people to the discussion, as I am unsure if the template is currently being watched. — Dorvaq (talk) 14:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: American vs Canadian English[edit]

I had changed it for consistency, but I've mistakely thought the consistent language was American English. I have undone my edit. — Dorvaq (talk) 14:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

No biggie...was just curious as to the standard. I read that American is used for non-British articles but I read nothing about Canadian if it matters though...I find myself using "color" more and more.Ccrashh 14:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it doesn't really matter what English you use anymore in either American and/or British articles, just as long as the English is consistent throughout the article. Thanks for bringing the matter to my attention, however. — Dorvaq (talk) 15:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Barrie, Ontario[edit]

You asked, "why did you remove the changes (the person had added some media outlets)?"
I removed them because they aren't based in Barrie itself. As I recall, they were all located in Toronto and serve Barrie. If taken to the logical conclusion, we would have to list all TV stations that are available in the market - and presumably every town/city would have to have a long list of TV and radio stations. Thanks for asking! PKT 16:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah. Okay. Good point. That makes sense then. I wondered why.  :) Thanks for the feedback. Ccrashh 17:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Anaheim Ducks[edit]

That extra info, should be in the 'history section'. It was clearly added at he beginning, because of the Ducks recent Cup championship. GoodDay 18:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Reviewed the Devils article, you're correct. Very well add the info back (I won't remove it again). GoodDay 18:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


I'm sure we can't say purportedly, that essentially implies Rowling is lying when she says there will be no more books. I'm sure she will have no financial reasons to write any more, there would be an outrage if there isn't a conclusive ending to this book, and she has been very definite with no suggestion of any more novels. With a bit of genetic engineering, pigs may fly, and I would put the odds of another adventure somewhat higher than that, but really there are no grounds for arguing any further book is in any way likely. Sandpiper 08:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It is always difficult to interpret interview answers like that, and especially difficult if wiki editors are breathing down your neck insisting on precision (I don't mean you, but generally). My opinion is that her answers are the kind of answer you give if someone asks you that sort of question, when you really do not have any plans for further books, but want to give a fair answer. So you would say that you have no plans, but you never know what might happen in the future. If you read her valedictory speech at the end of the article it is pretty clear she thinks she has come to the end of writing about Harry. Now, in 20 years time after she has written some other stuff she might come back to it, but I suspect she probably feels she had a really great idea for a book, seven books even, and it would be difficult to recreate the same level of excitement with a new idea. Harry is actually a pretty unheroic hero, sort of dumped into the middle of a war by unique circumstances, so it not as if he has a track record of finding and disposing of villains. Much of these books is about the mystery and interplay between the characters. It is hard to see how this could carry forward to a new story; you might take on Harry and his A-team, but they would now be older and you would have to create a whole new set of characters for the new story. You could do that, but it would not be a continuation of the story as we have known it, and perhaps an author would prefer to start clean with a new set of characters entirely. Most series I have read have very much a story-by-story feel to them and are not seven volumes making up one book. In that sense she has not written a series, just one very long book. So it is not as if she is exactly in the habit of series writing.
It might be that whatever secret plans she has, she does not want to be endlessly stalked by fans asking when the next book will be out, so wants to firmly deny any possibility. But for the purposes of this article we can't really speculate that she might be lying when on the whole her statements are pretty clear. Sandpiper 16:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
That makes sense. Thanks for the input. It's why I put the line in my edit with question marks. Didn't want to be accused of random or mistaken vandalism :) Ccrashh 16:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

footystar tom[edit]

Yeah i saw those too. I was beaten to both the harry potter correction and the Shrek one You were one second faster then I was on the shrek one. I'm keeping an eye on him and if he does one more I'm reporting him to the adminsAngielaJ 14:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Toronto Maple Leafs[edit]

I use Twinkle. It's very good and popular amongst us anti-vandal fighters. It's going through some development changes right now so there are glitches periodically. Full instructions are on that page. Good luck. ~EnviroboyTalkContribs - 17:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


I'm glad more and more people support the deletion of theories. It will be more convenient to take actions (trust me this has been going on for months now, and nothing except admin intervention can calm down Sandpiper).

Yes there are things we can try, but we have to join with the others we are against Sandpiper, like User:Jac16888 and User:Angielaj, to be effective.

The quickest way would be to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, but we have to be careful as the pages might be blocked to Sandpiper's version.

A request for comment has been attempted for R.A.B. but it didn't give much results. We could try a RfC on Sandpiper himself, and if it fails, a Requests for mediation, but Sandpiper is likely to refuse it, so then there'll be the requests for arbitration.

Hoping we'll see the end of these revert wars...Folken de Fanel 14:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, so do I, and I look forward to a rather more peaceful future in one months time. The current difficulty is that Folken does not accept as sourced and includeable information, anything written about the series unless from Rowling herself. When this issue was taken to arbitration on the french wiki it was determined that authors such as David Langford were valid and legitimate sources for articles about the books. Most of my disagreements with folken have been on precisely this narrow point. I hold that not only are such sources, and indeed the various websites recommended by Rowling herself to fans seeking information, legitimate to be reported, but it is decidedly non-NPOV to fail to mention their existence and views.
I agree the rfc on RAB was rather disappointing, but I'm not entirely surprised. This is a difficult and involved discussion, will resolve itself in a month, and many of the main contributors who know most about this have already jumped ship for the final book launch. We certainly have better things to do than argue with folken about article content which has been present since the last book was published. Sandpiper 16:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
For the rfc see Talk:R.A.B.#Request for Comment, for Folkens views on the RAB article as a whole see here [1], and the french arbitrator here [2] Sandpiper 16:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok. Read through the information in the Talk:R.A.B.#Request for Comment. I'm afraid I have to agree with Folken. No one's theories are relevant to any article in Wiki. We can mention that they exist, and provide links, but to put them in the format they were in on the RAB and Horcrux articles lends them undue weight. We COULD start another article that discusses Fan theories etc, I suppose, since it is FACTUAL that these articles/publications exist, but I don't think they deserve to be part of the main articles. Ccrashh 17:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
An article discussing fan theories is very likely to be deleted, though. I really can't see what more could be done, the debated fansites are already mentioned in the external links section of almost every HP article on Wikipedia, sometimes the speculative pages are directly linked. Folken de Fanel 17:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi folken, I just saw you got banned for a week for the unfair claims of vandalism you keep posting on my page on the french wiki.
crash, If you did start such an article it would rapidly become a mirror of the whole set of articles we have now. The various authors have essentially written books about this. Now, Langford basically claims that this view of the locket/RAb/black family home/ is a widespread view amongst people who read the books. Do you dispute his claim that this is the case, or dispute his authority as an expert, ie the view of someone whose job is writing encyclopedias about fantasy fiction? Are you arguing that eg the times writes a review of 'Deathly Hallows' in a month, but that since it is only the opinion of their literature critic we can not reference it here or include comments from it? There won't be much left in any literature article if you do take that line, or in many others, either. Sandpiper 17:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

My Editing Style[edit]

Hi! This is strictly FYI, but as you expressed some confusion, horror, shock, dismay, etc. over my editing style, I thought this would give you a better understanding of how I work. This is what I wrote for a fellow editor on another Wiki section, and as I mentioned, it is only FYI. Keep up the good work:

I took Technical Writing, and these are a few rules that were literally HAMMERED into me:

1. Use as few words as possible. If you can say it with two words rather than three, do it. That doesn't mean sentences should be short and choppy, but make them economical. Look at every sentence and determine what can be eliminated. For examaple: Rather than the phrase, "determine what can be taken out," I wrote, "determnine what can be elminated." That's one less word!!

2. Create fluid, rhythmic sentences that sound pleasing to the reader's ear. Vary sentence structure. Novices tend to write many sentences in a similar way.

3. Avoid negative sentence structure whenever possible (Do NOT use "not.") This is actually the hardest thing for me to avoid.

4. Avoid prepositional phrases. They weaken sentence structure. My least favorite preposition is "of," and I always do a "search and destroy" mission to eliminate these phrases. These can't always be deleted, but do so whenever possible.


From: After another cart ride, Hagrid removes the only contents of the second vault, a small grubby parcel, without explaining what it is.

Changed to: After another cart ride, Hagrid removes the second vault's only content, a small grubby parcel, without explaining what it is.

5. Avoid any familiar or cliched phrases. If it sounds even remotely familiar, toss it. Avoid phrases like, "due to the fact that" or "in that event." They only add "dead weight" to sentences.

6. Avoid overusing semicolons, colons, em dashes, etc. Use only one or two per article. They are effective literary devices—but only when used sparingly. And the same goes for starting sentences with an article.

7. Avoid overusing adjectives and adverbs.

8. Write in an "active voice" and use action verbs.

9. Avoid repetitive words. A thesaurus is your best friend.

These rules really were drilled into me. I always try to implement them, and I'm my own harshest critic. I never write something once, and then leave it be. I'll edit it numerous times to improve it as much as possible. I hope that provides a better understanding about my writing style.PNW Raven 13:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

No, no. You misunderstood my comment about your editing-style. I meant the way you physically do it with the tools you use seemed to be putting errors in (typos and such) that were gone before. That is, someone fixes an error, you put in an edit that puts the typo back in. That's all. I agree with your points above. Especially, the "active voice" and never end a sentence in a preposition. At the same time, Wiki isn't a technical manual, so an element of floral prose might be more appealing. However, there have been edits, performed in the spirit of technical writing, that have diminished the meaning of phrases, or, and please don't take this the wrong way, caused the invention of new, non-words..."unfooled" for instance (sorry, couldn't resist). I have the same problem with people using "disrespect"...I mean, it appears to be valid now, but was used because people wanted to avoid a prepositional phrase: "lack of respect".
Another for instance: you might want to re-read you edit, if you haven't already, with the phrase "...remaining summer..." (Half-Blood Prince). I think, perhaps, it should be "...remaining summer months..."? Ccrashh 15:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Just to reiterate, the typos were inadvertently put back in, not intentially switched back, because someone else was editing at the same time. (I'm sure you realize that, but I just want to make sure that it's understood.) There will always be disagreements about style, and I don't mind a little floral prose, but many writers take it too far and it gets downright sappy. I will stick to my preferred technical writing style, including using "nonwords" which are words and perfectly acceptable. In the end, the articles seem to work out OK after everyone's had a go at it. Just to clarify, it is acceptable to end sentences with prepositions--that is a stylistic change that is now preferred, and I do it all the time. However, I always try to rework prepositional phrases "within" a sentence or if I can't make it sound right, I place them near the end of a phrase where they have less impact. "Remaining summer months . . . " works fine for me; just not "the rest of the summer . . ."PNW Raven 20:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Though, I looked up "unfooled" and couldn't find a dictionary reference. Ccrashh 20:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

horcrux, threatening users for vandalising a page when they edit against your disputed view of page content[edit]

Why did you threaten an anonymous editor who contributed to horcrux with an anti-vandalism tag?[3]. You know perfectly well that the content he inserted is exactly the same as that I have been arguing should be in the article. It is not vandalism to make good faith edits to a page. Folken has been in the habit of plastering accusations of vandalism against any user who makes an edit contrary to his view of how an article should be structured. He even got banned for doing so repeatedly on my page on the french wiki, but I am glad to see he seems to have given up doing it here. Perhaps you could be rather more careful in what you say to editors who do not agree with your view of a page, particularly when you are in the middle of a dispute, and post an apology on the anon page concerned? Sandpiper 07:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Sandpiper, before trying to give lessons about civility to others, you should first apologize for calling us a "bunch of newbies", for systematically ignoring what we say to you, for constantly revert warring, for making dubious analogies with our opinions and the nazi ideology, etc.Folken de Fanel 10:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
er. no. folken. It seems your grasp of the english language is not quite so good as you believe. Both the examples you posted somewhere claiming I described you as a nazi said nothing of the sort. I also recall our first serious disagreement, where you plainly agreed with a compromise text for 'deathly hallows', then a week later denied agreeing to it at all. In fact, I was not thinking of you when mentioning newbies with surprising competence suddenly appearing and diving straight into content disputes. I can't say why you believe both these description fit yourself. Sandpiper 08:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
No Sandpiper, I don't think so. That content was added once already that day, and it is speculation, pure and simple. Once I reverted it, the second time, I inserted a vandalism warning. Ccrashh 11:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
You took out but speculation suggests that it could have been the un–opeanable locket that was discovered in the Black family house. and It has been speculated by some fans that the locket which no one could open, found during the decontamination of number 12 grimmauld place, in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix is actually the Horcrux.

I had previously inserted the sourced: In Book 5, "a heavy locket that none of them could open" was mentioned in passing by members of the Order of the Phoenix while cleaning the former Black family home at 12, Grimmauld Place. The locket was thrown away along with many other unusual magical objects. One former resident of the Black house was Regulus Black, who is one of the leading candidates for R.A.B., who took Voldemort's horcrux locket. (Rowling was asked on publication day of 'Half-blood Prince' whether RAB was Regulus Black, but only gave an obscure answer [1]). According to Langford et al[2], many readers who have followed the series have concluded that this locket is the real horcrux, even though no mention was made of any specific identifying features (for example, it was not noted as having an 'S' on it). Mundungus Fletcher was seen in Half-blood Prince in possession of items 'liberated' from the Black house, while in Order of the Phoenix the family House Elf, Kreacher, was also attempting to keep souvenirs for himself. Forum posters noted after the release of Harry Potter and the Halfblood Prince that if the Grimmauld Place locket is the Horcrux, then, being an heirloom of Salazar Slytherin, it may require Harry to speak parseltongue to open it[3].

You may argue this is inapprpriate content and revert it, but it is not vandalism. You still owe the anon an apology, and I suggest you post one on that page. Phe, note that the you yourself reinserted exactly the same line. Folken called this a number of things in his next edit but stopped short of claiming it was vandalism. Sandpiper 08:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I see you claim to be accident prone, but unrepentant. I refer you to Wikipedia:Vandalism and in particular Stubbornness

Some users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk to them about an editing issue, and repeatedly make changes opposed by everyone else. This is regrettable—you may wish to see our dispute resolution pages to get help. Repeated deletion or addition of material may violate the three-revert rule, but this is not "vandalism" and should not be dealt with as such. .

In this particular case the Ip seems to have only ever made two edits, the other being to correct a spelling somewhere. There is no way this particular person could even be accused of stubbornness.
You still owe the anon an apology and a wipe clean of his page. Sandpiper 15:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
No, I won't apologise. And it is quite funny to see you, of all people, refer to Stubbornness. Repeated postings of the same crap, with the EXACT same editing comment, is vandalism. Ccrashh 15:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I thought I just made the point that wiki policy on what constitutes vandalism explicitly states that stubbornness in a content dispute is not vandalism. Mis-labelling things as vandalism when they aren't, and this has been clearly pointed out to you, probably is. Sandpiper 15:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, oh wise, never wrong one. I have made thine requested edits as per thine orders. Thus, you who are never wrong and thus never need to apologise for your anonymity-fueled behavior, have won. Now blow off and quit cluttering up my talk page. Ccrashh 15:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

poor crash. i see you've got sucked into folken and sandpipers epic edit war as well. although at least folken is willing to compromise on occasion. i'll be glad when the book comes out and all these arguments become irrelevant--Jac16888 15:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Tell me about it. I really wanted to stay out of it. But man, is this guy for real? Ccrashh 15:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
i know. do you think he actually is langford? cos he sure wants to make sure langfords views about harry potter are known to the world. i only got involved cos i saw it on the recent changes page, one of sandpipers overly long edit descriptions, looked at the section, and straight away thought "thats pov, and or". but will they listen? no he won't.--Jac16888 15:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
get out there and do some reading: it isn't. There are as many theories as people writing them, but some are widespread. Whether we ought to leave it out on spoiler grounds is another matter. But then, it may be wrong, so it wouldn't be a spoiler. In a way the worst bit is when you have finally read enough to convince yourself that all these people are right, because then there isn't anything more to puzzle over. Never mind, only a few weeks to go.
I'm afraid I can be a little stubborn on this issue after duelling with folken all these months. Rule point after relentless rule point each claiming that on some new ground an item has to be deleted. Folken may have got over it, but he was obsessively plastering warning notices, just as you did, on anyone who dared to argue with him. Disagreement is not vandalism: Claiming someone is a vandal simply because you disagree with their edits has been used as a tool to get articles the way someone wants them. This needs to be firmly stamped upon. Sandpiper 17:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Really. Never thought of that. It would make sense (Sandpiper=Langford). From what I understand, neither book actually theorizes, they actually reference OTHER theories from fans. Sad source material. But, Sandpiper wins...except on July 21st, when the book comes out then they are all bye-bye. Ccrashh 16:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
You miss the point that wikipedia is supposed to be made up of what people believe. Especially when someone has been good enough summarising this for us. In a sense, I agree: it is regrettable that wiki follows the herd quite as much as it does. Sandpiper 17:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Shut up! Is it so hard to understand? Bug off. Go away. I don't care. Short of using 4 letter words, I can't think of any other way of putting it....GO AWAY. This is my talk page. Blow off...exnay...ferme ta bouche...whatever... HAVE to be single. No one would put up with you longer than 5 minutes. Yikes buddy, get a life. Ccrashh 17:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
i wish i could just let sandpiper get on with it too, but i can't bring myself to do it, i never can, every time i try and ignore it i just get sucked back in. --Jac16888 16:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

why have you just stuck two totally off-topic paragraphs in the middle of a discussion that have no relevance to the topic at all, or have any meaning at all. and also, are you for real, "wikipedia is supposed to be made up of what people believe" that is quite possibly the most stupid comment i have ever heard. wikipedia is supposed to be made up of FACT.--Jac16888 17:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC) ps.sorry for using your talk page for a rant Ccrashh pps. judging from sandpipers ability to write long paragraphs without saying anything at all, it does seem like he could write a book like langfords seems to be. or be a politician

ROFLMAO. That's okay Jac...enjoy :) Ccrashh 17:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


I didn't want to continue to flood the talk page with more on Horcruxes and the content constantly being removed and added. So, I figured I would ask you here: you added back in the "Theories" with the comment that it was all sourced. So, question: does one source make a reliable "source" for Wikipedia purposes. The whole initial paragraph about the locket is not sourced until the final line, and in fact, mentions "forum posters" before it even links the Granger book. The rest of the disputed content then references only ONE work, which is that self-published book by Granger. I really don't consider this a "reliable source" to be used to promote a theory. Your thoughts? Ccrashh 12:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

First, as you point, the first part get better source than the second. For Granger I consider it as a reliable source. He already wrote non self-published book on HP topics (Tyndale House, 2004) sold up to 50 000 copy. This number is interesting, not as an argument ala "sold a lot means it's true", but given it I doubt self publishing is other books was forced by the lack of traditional editor wanting to publish them, many editors will be very happy with such number of copy sold. Granger gave also some lecture and various interview in HP related fields. So, as stated in Self published source:

Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications

I think, what says Granger in this books is relevant (but I understand the bolded part can cause trouble). Since Folken claims this is original research, I also point Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, especially

Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.

- phe 18:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

HP Character "birth" dates[edit]

I just wanted you to know that I strongly support your decision to remove the "dates of birth" (and deaths) for the fictional Harry Potter characters, at least in terms of the introductory paragraph. Fictional characters are not born, and to introduce character a fictional character as "So-and-So (born 7 July 1981, died 27 June 1997)" is flat out in-universe misleading. Those characters that actually have traceable "birthdates" or at least approximate "birth years" as given by Rowling, either via the books, the Black Family Tree, or the Dates in Harry Potter timeline, and especially those with subsequent "death dates", can have such info placed deeper in the article in the character's background information: "According to Rowling's Black Family Tree, Draco Malfoy was "born" on 5 June 1980", or "According to Rowling in an interview, Dumbledore was "about a hundred and fifty"; this was after Book 3 (or whatever) was released, and that book was staged in approximately 1994-1995, placing Dumbledore's mathematical birth year around 1845". I would have taken on such a task myself, except there are a LOT of characters with birth and death dates posted, and I knew some of the "kids" out there would strongly object. I am convinced that the reason many of the characters had birthdates listed and sustained for so long in the first place is because it produced a bit of a thrill for some of the "kids" who had the same birthdate (and, in the early years, the same birth year as well). Some of that original identification that original kids had with the Potter characters has likely evaporated (after all they would be mid-20's by now), so there should be less nonsense over who share's who's birthday. My recommendation would be to delete birth and death dates from the introductory paragraphs, which should have the form: "So-and-So is a fictional character in J K Rowling's Harry Potter series. In those books, So&So is primarily a ..." (then briefly describe character's relationship to Harry and to the plot line as a whole). This should then become a standard format for all HP characters. Anyway THANKS for being bold, and if this comes up as a RfC somewhere I'll be happy to share my thoughts. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 14:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments and support. These dates always bothered me, and I had some time, so figured "OK..let's see what happens" :) I will definitely contact you if something crops up and people start revert-warring over this. Ccrashh 16:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Re: User:Cambria.Alexis Be careful about blanket reversions. Your recent reversion of Alexis' edits on the Weasley Twin's article reset their Hogwarts attendance dates to "our current" universe (1999-2007), as if the HP Chronology is now based on the movie release times or something. The Chronology of the Harry Potter stories sets those dates, and I set them back. Also content disputes are not to be considered vandalism, so do be careful with letting "TW" identify a content dispute as an act of vandalism. You can certainly engage the other editor in conversations explaining why birth dates in the introductory sentence is inappropriate for fictional characters, and that their fictional "birthdates" are more appropriately discussed in a special section regarding their background and family ties. If an RfC comes up where we need to reach a "final" consensus on how to present HP character birthdates, then again I would be happy to share my views. Perhaps it should be taken up at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Harry Potter page. In the mean time, you should expect some folks to at least initially strongly disagree, especially these days with a double-dose of HP activity (book and movie), but hopefully most will come to understand and understand once engaged in a 1:1 discussion. You should also expect many of the HP pages to be literally crawling with "helpful little newbies" running around like little firetrucks, adding trivial things to articles that they heard somewhere or otherwise think are the MOST IMPORTANT THINGS EVER POSTED; and that any effort to temper that activity will be seen as a heavy-handed conspiracy to cover up important facts or something. Just relax and try enjoy the roller coaster as best as you can. The worst imaginable vandalism can be undone in about 2 seconds. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 13:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Out of universe style[edit]

Hi there, long time no Wiki, but I am happy to help. Well, some very good articles about fictional entities are Superman, Anarky, Captain Marvel (DC Comics), Storm (Marvel Comics). The main thing is to know the creator's motivations behind the character, the development/refinement (see Anarky), and how the character is received in the real world. Hope I could help... Onomatopoeia 09:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Excellent...thanks. I am going to clean up ALL the Harry Potter character articles.  :) Wish me luck. Heh Ccrashh 14:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Pansy looks ok. Potential points for improvement would be
-In-line sources and references, i.e. quoting/referencing the passages properly, e.g. about her outward appearance or her relationship to Draco (how referencing could go, see Lord_Voldemort#References)
-The lead should be merged into one 4-or-5-line text instead of several 1- and 2-liners
-A fair use summary for the image would be better, see here
Hope I could help Onomatopoeia 08:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Sirius Black Edits[edit]

I reverted your revert. The statement: "said, "I don't think we have ever had such a pair of troublemakers." Template:POA" is not appropriate for Wikipedia for three reasons. First, the statement is uncited/unreferenced. Secondly, the use of quotes is more appropriate when that quote is invaluable, and where paraphrasing for brevity will not do. Lastly, the broken template at the end of the statement is not acceptable for inclusion. I noted in my edit summary for the revert that if you wshed to discuss the matter, we should do so int he Discussion page fro the article. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

re regular vandalism on your user page[edit]

i noticed that you have now been vandalised by the following ips


all within the last few days,and they all seem very familiar. is it possible to get some kind of blanket ban over them, as they only seem to vandalise, one did my pages too, and another user who reverted your page --Jac16888 18:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. I wondered that too. They all seem to be from AOL (no surprise there). Don't know why this person seems to have an issue with us. Ccrashh 18:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
i think they only attacked me and the other editor, caltas i think it was, for reverting what they'd done to your page, but they really seem to have it in for you--Jac16888 18:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Allegedly usage[edit]

See Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#So-called.2C_soi-disant.2C_supposed.2C_alleged.2C_purported - namely, "there is no neutrality problem with using them". Girolamo Savonarola 17:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

However, as per the applicable section: Alleged (along with allegedly) and purported (along with purportedly) are different from the foregoing in that they are generally used by those who genuinely have no predisposition as to whether the statement being cited is true or not. Newspapers, for instance, almost universally refer to any indicted but unconvicted criminal as an alleged criminal. Therefore, there is no neutrality problem with using them. However, there may be a problem of ambiguity — they should only be used where the identity of the alleger is clear <--- in this case the person making the allegations (i.e. the identity of the person who posted the spoiler is unclear). Therefore, it is an invalid use. Ccrashh 18:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
The article itself does not use the word allegedly. I would like to implore you to revert your edit - these are reliable sources reporting on a leak and a subpeona related to it. There is no mention of the contents of the leak, nor the location of it. Even if there were the use of allegedly, the identity of the source is clear - the reference, namely, the paper. Girolamo Savonarola 18:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
But you still do not know if the leak is valid or just some bogus hoax. Not sure if we want to go down the slippery slope of release every supposed leak for every article about a book or movie we have in Wikipedia. Especially by giving the supposed "leak" prominence by adding it to the lead section. Perhaps a very carefully worded citation in the reference section would suffice. And the articles do use the words allegedly and in no way do they identify the person who had the spoiler. Ccrashh 19:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Z Machine - typo[edit]

re: Your message:

In the article on the Z Machine, you modified an edit. Someone changed "shot" to "shoot", which you then reverted. Is "shot" the right word here? From a grammatical perspective it seems not, but it might be a technical use of the word "shot" of which I am unfamiliar:

Ccrashh (talk) 20:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

My error, now corrected (I reverted since the first of two edits was in error and appeared to be a test) - Leonard G. (talk) 23:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Ottawa Cash or Pizza line[edit]

I have lots of cites for both Cash and/or Pizza line. Please stop your edits. The 3 players were nominated together for the all-star game this past season. They almost always play together on the power play and they played together in the final playoff game last week. So it is recent. As for your comments about Garrioch, I kind of agree, but he does use the nickname. See my article User:Alaney2k/sandbox/CASH_line. Alaney2k (talk) 19:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is the summary for last week's game: [4]. The goal by Ruttu was scored with ottawa's 6, 11, 15, 19, 29 and 55 on the ice. Alaney2k (talk) 19:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Geez man, go to the library. You might find a Hockey News there. :-) If you wish, I can add other cites, but newspapers are considered reliable sources. Alaney2k (talk) 19:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Really? So answer my question about the French Connection. Show me a recent article, in context, that refers to them as the Pizza Line. I believe the article you are referring to is out-of-context for this season. By the way, it would be good to use a reference that is contextually verifiable. But to each his own. Ccrashh (talk) 19:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I think this topic is cleared up. Alaney2k (talk) 19:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

My Screen shots[edit]

I get that I was doing something wrong so I used the Buckbeak screen shot (Buckbeak) as a guideline for how to do the Non-free / fair use media rationale and the copyright thing. Could you please tell me how my images were different from this Buckbeak image? I would really appreciate this because as you mentioned I did re-upload these, but this time I thought I did everything right (I read up on fair-use before you told me to) Hoffy (talk) 20:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense. But the difference between the ones that you deleted and what the bots deleted were that the ones you deleted had the the copyright statement added. So I'm going to re-add them because I think I did everything right this time. Hoffy (talk) 17:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Ginny Weasley[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Ccrashh. You have new messages at Lord Opeth's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re:Megan Fox - Jonah Hex image[edit]

I tried moving that image too. Is there anyway we can move it so it doesn't overlap the following section (Public Image)? Or is that overlap ok? Ccrashh (talk) 13:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

No, there isn't. I've changed the anchoring so that this does not happen but so that the article still has the left-to-right image set-up. See what you think. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 14:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I like that better. Ccrashh (talk) 14:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Okay good. What remains is to reword and clean up the rest of the article. At the moment, the prose leaves a little to be desired from a GA. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 19:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree. I've been periodically going through removing the incessant quotes and trying to remove some of the more frivolous crap, but I think it's like trying to use a sponge to stop a flood :) Ccrashh (talk) 20:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Chamber of Secrets[edit]

I've transferred our discussion to Talk:Harry_Potter_and_the_Chamber_of_Secrets#Lead. --Philcha (talk) 15:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Lyrical Rydar and Stephen Harper article[edit]

Hi, Steve. Do you have rollbacker permission? --Rrburke(talk) 15:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow. No I don't. Is that something new? I am sure I used to have those permissions, because I did have the option to "Rollback". Ccrashh (talk) 15:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok, now that you have rollback enabled, go get a copy of Huggle. Before using it, please have a really good look at the links JamieS93 included below on when (and when not) to use rollback. Huggle edits are rollbacks, so you really need to make sure you understand when it can be used. If you need any help, let me know. Happy editing! --Rrburke(talk) 15:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


Wikipedia Rollback.svg

I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback correctly, and for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. JamieS93 15:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I will do my best to stay within the guidelines. Thank you and thanks to User:Rrburke. Ccrashh (talk) 15:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Steve. Concerning the revert at Rihanna: Content issues practically almost warrant an edit summary, even if you only repeat previous edit summaries, or are going to comment on talk page or user talk page anyway. It helps the editor in question, and other editors if they can see with a glance why you undid something. Rollback in particular is considered somewhat special, and should only be used to undo with blatantly unconstructive edits. More on this at Wikipedia:Rollback feature, as Jamie said.
You'll notice that I've been explicitly verbose when removing claims of the new album, in particular since it's mostly new or casual editors introducing those news. Undoing them without a clear hint as to why will typically only prompt them to repeat the edit.
Cheers, Amalthea 14:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

It's strange. I clicked on the Rollback and it didn't give me the option of entering a description. Either I have an addon that is conflicting or something else is wrong. Twice now I've clicked the just re-appeared "Rollback" and it simply...well...rolls back. It tells me it's complete and that's it. Ccrashh (talk) 14:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Yep, that's what rollback does, and why it's only supposed to be used for reverts that are self-explanatory (i.e. vandalism, mostly). It's comparable to Twinkle's vandalism rollback, which doesn't ask for a summary either. Amalthea 14:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah. I am reading up on that now. But I could have sworn that I had a rollback button that did pop up a dialog asking for reason. Not there anymore. Will have to get used to using "undo" in those situations. Ccrashh (talk) 14:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Depends on where you're looking. Watchlists only show the MediaWiki rollback links. Diffs show Undo, MediaWiki rollback, and Twinkle rollback. Other editor's contribution pages show Twinkle rollback and MediaWiki rollback. Amalthea 14:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for the heads up. I agree completely. Lawyer2b (talk) 16:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Death of Regulus Black[edit]

Hi, I left a message on the Death Eater's talk page. It's about your recent edit on it about Regulus Black. I am interesting in your opinion, please comment on the talk page. --Stroppolo (talk) 21:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


You said: "...perhaps you would also like to add in the reasons why Scholastic wanted to change the name [from Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone to Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone]? "Because they felt Americans would be too ignorant of what a Philosopher's Stone is/was. That they are so clueless about mythology and literature that even American adults would get all confused." Would that work? The fact that it has a different title, in one country, is, even from an academic standard, irrelevent."

You are a prize jerk, my friend, typical of the British bias that I am so tired of hearing and reading. Get your head out, think things through at least now and then... and don't you come back calling me offensive. (talk) 19:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

boo hoo. The fact is, my comments are correct. That is indeed why Scholastic asked for a name change - though perhaps they worded it a little less condescendingly. Reality is a tough pill for you to swallow, I am sure. I never called you offensive, and I could care less if you are. And I am not British. If you were serious about your "argument" you would create an account and stop hiding befind an IP Address. Ccrashh (talk) 21:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Harry Potter Chronology[edit]

Ah, that explains it. I couldn't quite figure out when it went away or why (but then again, I confess I didn't search very much); I just noticed that it was gone and problems with links from many pages. Thanks. Magidin (talk) 15:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: Dolph Ziggler[edit]

Are we looking at the same source? Reference named WWEbio: I quote: "Weight: 221 pounds" (from the box that is entitled 'Stats' are appears on the image, as a sort-of pop-up. Not entirely sure where you're getting 223 pounds from, but I can assure you I am going by the source. Would you care to elaborate? NiciVampireHeart 18:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes. At I see "Height: 6 foot

Weight: 221 pounds From: Hollywood, FL Career Highlights: Intercontinental Champion". Odd. I've never come across this before. Hmmm, I wonder if it's to do with continental differences? Your user page says you're from Ottawa, while I'm from Ireland. It's a bit bizzare to have two differet things show ip for two different people on the exact same link.

Oh, he didn't get blocked purely for that. He has a history of changing sourced information on wrestling bios without any explanation. A history going back several months I might add. NiciVampireHeart 18:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
I've requested a second opinion from another of the main editors, User:ThinkBlue. If she sees 223 as well, then I'll go with majority opinion. It's not a problem. Always better to be safe than sorry. Have a good holiday season! :) NiciVampireHeart 18:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Now I'm extra confused. I'll wait and hear from 'Blue and go from there. Thanks for all your help. NiciVampireHeart 18:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Altered speedy deletion rationale: Glenmore Park (stadium)[edit]

Hello Ccrashh. I am just letting you know that I deleted Glenmore Park (stadium), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided, which doesn't fit the page in question. Thank you. GedUK  20:46, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Ccrashh. You have new messages at Malcolmxl5's talk page.
Message added 02:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Ccrashh. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ Mugglenet/TLC interview with JK Rowling, Half Blood Prince book Launch, Edinburgh
  2. ^ Langford, David. The End of Harry Potter?, p.126. Golancz. ISBN 057507875 Check |isbn= value: length (help). 
  3. ^ Granger, John, Who Killed Albus Dumbledore?, p.92