User talk:T-dot/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 7

Horcruxes

The concept is NOT introduced until book 6. Please point out where Horcruxes are introduced prior to book 6. In a bit of retcon it is revealed that certain objects introduced prior to book 6 were Horcruxes, but the concept of Horcruxes are not mentioned until book 6. - Vedexent (talk) - 12:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Please take up disagreements and discussions of this sort on the discussion page of the subject article - not on the participant's user page. This user page is not a private chat room for you to carry on with arguments. Thanks. --T-dot 14:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Given that the edit in question is yours, putting a message about it on your user discussion page seems perfectly legitimate. If you disagree, maybe you should put a notice about your rather unorthadox user talk page policies at the head of your page, rather than trying to "verbally spank" people for using your user talk page like 99% of everyone else's? Just a thought - Vedexent (talk) - 15:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

All I did was remove the spoiler information, and clarify that the first Horcrux was introduced conceptually if not specifically by name (Riddle/Voldemort's "memory ... preserved in a diary for fifty years", with which Riddle was able to "pour a little of my (Voldemort's) soul back into her (Ginny)..." and that the visible manifestation of Riddle disintegrated when the diary was destroyed by the basilisk fang). The elements of the "concept" of the Horcrux are there if one knows where and how to look, and if one understands the meaning of the word "concept". But I shall not argue the point further - it is not worthy of my time. --T-dot 14:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Again with the beans...

Sorry, but User:RadioKirk beat you to the comeback about my zeal.

Thanks.

trezjr 23:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
For many contributions with limited reward (especially your work with car related pages), I present you with this Original Barnstar. Sharkface217 01:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Regulus Arcturus Black

I've redirected this to Regulus Black. I seem to remember his middle name was mentioned in the Black Family tapestry drawn by J.K. Rowling on http://www.hp-lexicon.org . - Mgm|(talk) 11:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

NO!!! "Seem to remember" does NOT qualify as verifiable from a Reliable Source. Rowling has NEVER publicly stated Regulus Black's middle name, nor has she said that it even begins with an "A". This is a crucial plot element in the Harry Potter universe, and constitutes either false speculation or a spoiler! There were indeed other characters on the Black Family tapestry with the name "Arcturus" and other "A" names, but NOT REGULUS. You have bought into an urban legend without checking the source. If Rowling has publicly stated that Regulus is R.A.B., then provide indisputable PROOF and we can redirect and so forth. Nobody has been able to do so yet, because it is not a fact. This is what is required for the Wikipedia! Please undo the redirect, and speedily delete the Regulus Arcturus Black article as requested. It is NOT encyclopedic under verifiability and reliable source rules, and constitutes speculation and original research. Thanks. --T-dot 13:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Even if his name is Regulus Arcturus Black, it doesn't prove he's RAB, but that's not what I was saying. I think it makes a good search query, but you're right. His middle name wasn't mentioned on the tapestry after all. - Mgm|(talk) 17:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't matter. The mere existence of an article by the name of Regulus Arcturus Black in an encyclopedia like this implies that such a name really exists and that it is verifiable by a reliable source. We cannot say this, and thus the article CANNOT STAND. The article was inappropriately created by a known internet troll vandal who has an agenda of "proving" that R.A.B. = Regulus Black. This claim is NOT permitted in either of those articles. It is discussed as a possibility, but not a proven fact. It is one of the most important aspects of the unpublished 7th novel in the series, and a terrific plot spoiler if it is true, and pure undocumented speculation and original research if it is not true. Either way it cannot remain in the wikipedia. --T-dot 21:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • By the way, it is confirmed by the initials used in translated versions of the book. - Mgm|(talk) 18:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
This is discussed as a POSSIBILITY in the R.A.B. article, but is NOT conclusive proof. The fact that the Black family name and the "B" in R.A.B. are consistent in various translations lends credence to the THEORY that the B in R.A.B. stands for Black. Beyond that we cannot say, since we do NOT know Regulus' middle name, or the initial, or even if he has one. There is another theory mentioned in the article that suggests R.A.B. could be "R. Andromeda Black", the mother of Tonks. Please study the articles before you make these rash and incorrect statements! --T-dot 21:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • That deletion was me. = Mgm|(talk) 22:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. Seriously - THANK YOU! --T-dot 00:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Why do you care so much anyway? It sounds like you don't want it to be true. - Mgm|(talk) 22:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I am astounded by that. Is this a trick question from an Administrator Test? It does not matter in the least what I "want to be true". Personally I happen believe that R.A.B. is Regulus Black. But what I and some others may believe has nothing at all to do with the purpose and content of the Wikipedia. The reason I care is because we stewards in the HP Project - and all Wikipedians - MUST preserve the integrity of the Wikipedia. We cannot give in to personal beliefs and biases, and contaminate the Wikipedia with speculation and original research that cannot be verified with reliable sources. Pretty basic Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines are at stake here. We "insiders" on the HP Project also cannot go around spoiling plot lines for existing and future novels and other works of fiction, that stuff belongs on fan web sites and forums - not in an encyclopedia. We also need to resist the efforts of the less mature users, vandals, and trolls, who have no regard for or understanding of the rules. Additionally, Wikipedians in the HP Project should have the decency to respect J. K. Rowlings wishes and efforts. Rowling's wish is to keep to herself certain secrets about the HP plot storyline and certain revelations about her next novel, which is due out in about 9 months tentatively. If and when Rowling choses to reveal certain information about her creation - the world of Harry Potter and her next novel - then we Wikipedians are free to make that information available on the Wikipedia in a formal, proper, and respectful manner. And isn't this what being an Administrator is all about? Preserving integrity? I've been editing on the Wikipedia for over a year now, and have made no attempt to pursue an RFA, because I am not sure I am up to the task yet. But at least I have these basic concepts down - that verifiability with reliable sources always trumps the "truth" and certainly "beliefs". At least that is what I thought we were supposed to be all about... --T-dot 00:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The Weasley Family - Assistance

This is something I have never done before...

Please could you attempt to mediate in the Weasley family article. As you may o may not know, I have been engaged in a rather pointless battle with another editor there for the past two or so days - he was attempting to make what I felt were needless and slightly dangerous semantic changes to the Bloodtraitor section, and had initially set out in a mission to alter the tone of the article, since he felt it read 'like a slam against the Weasleys' (this being the solid facts he felt to be negative). I, as you might guess, refused to back down, and suggested that since he had stuck up attention grabbing notices and asked for mediation, we leave the article as it was until such mediation emerged. This he agreed to. He then went back on that agreement. He also engaged in maybe-sock puppeting, attempting to edit the article whilst not logged in, which I believe was an attempt to suggest that he had support. This continued until last night, when I suggested that since we were in deadlock, we leave the issue for a third, unbiased party to sort out. He refused. I suggested it again. At his point, the user ←Phŋж'2Âshəs |Đ|©| got involved, claiming to be a third party mediator, and proclaimed that, as I had suggested, he would edit the offending section himself, and that if either myself or the objectionable Mr Reaves (John Reaves) edited the alterations, we would be barred.

However, the alterations are if anything worse. There is now clear and obvious bias in favour of the Weasleys, loss of vital detail, and definite Original Research (for a start, PhnxAhses claims that most Purebloods do not label the family as bloodtraitors - an interesting idea, but complete speculation).

We have both talked before, I know, most notably in the case of the Black Family Tree, where I obviously did not behave well, but where you were extremely helpful, sober, and influential in giving stability and a chance for constructive talk. Therefore, I am asking you to please intervene in the Weasley article and apply the same qualities. I can promise you here that I will accept your judgements, and not argue with you; but at the same time, I am not going to back down to the rest of them, which you will agree is hardly helpful to Wikipedia. I ask you, then, to please help.

Thank you for your time. Michael Sanders. Michaelsanders 10:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks like we both had the same idea. T-dot, I would also like for you to get involved with the article in question.←Phŋж2Âshəs |Đ|©| 17:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I'll look into the issue this week. Sorry for the delay - busy times are afoot. I know you guys are anxious to get to an end of the war and form a consensus, but sometimes it is good just to take couple of days to cool off and think about the long term. What would we want Readers to know about the topic, say, five years from now when the HP universe is "closed" (following the release of the DVDs of the special extended edition versions of all the movies, and the later "special editions" of the books, when Rowling finally corrects all the errors and inconsistencies she introduced in the originals, which has led to more fanatical heated debates on the Wiki and fan sites than any other topic known to man since chicken/egg). The article and the Wikipedia is going to be around for a long time: there is no need to rush into a bad solution. The Wikipedia should avoid being overly temporal - with news changing every time a new movie trailer comes out. I am already bracing for the inevitable attacks that certain lines and scenes shown in the newly-released OOtP Trailer do not happen in the books, and so are "not canonical". Geez.
Anyway my view is we are all here to try to improve the quality of the information in articles. We should not be pressing for the publication of our personal agendas and beliefs - biased or not. Our job is to try to present the Weasleys (and other HP families and characters) exactly as Rowling intended them to be presented, and to avoid "bashing" or speculation on judging their motives or whatever. We can discuss obvious parallels between the HP-universe Wizard "purebloodedness" and real world biases based on race/ethnicity (as Rowling did on her site), and we can certainly discuss the "exclusive" attitude of certain pureblood families (Black, Malfoy, etc.) and contrast that with the more "inclusive" attitude of other purebloods (Weasley, etc.), and the non-pureblood family members and muggles and muggle-borns (Potter, Granger, etc.). But I think we should avoid judging, laying guilt, attributing motives, and overly categorizing HP characters beyond: what would (or did) JKR say - both what she wrote, and what she intended to write (correcting for things like date inconsistencies, etc.). --T-dot 13:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Cuban Cigar Brands?

Hi, I saw that you created a subsection on the Cigar page listing a whole bunch of Cuban cigar brands. I am concerned that this might lead to other subsections listing dozens of non-Cuban cigar brands, many of which are just as famous as their Cuban cousins. To prevent this from happening and to keep the Cigar page from just repeating the list on the cigar brands page, wouldn't it make sense to just mention a few notable brands in paragraph form on the Cigar page with a link to the cigar brands page for a complete list? TabacAttack 19:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the history, you'll see that someone else made the "list" in paragraph form. I simply converted it into list form and corrected some redlinks, as per the Manual of Style on presenting Lists. Either a list belongs, or it does not. If it does, then it ought to conform to the standard Wiki style. If a list is neither needed nor helpful or otherwise desireable, then delete it. I don't have a horse in that race. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 20:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

HP7

Thanks for finding the reference on the book seven article. 0L1 Talk Contribs 19:11 3/12/2006 (UTC)

An outside opinion

On the Slug Club page, Michaelsanders and I got into a debate on if Lucius Malfoy and Harry Potter are members of the Slug Club. I think that Michael and me can agree that this debate hinges on what the Club is by nature. Basically, I believe it is a informal name for Slughorn's favorite students. Michael opinion is "... the Club is an informal but quite real gathering around Slughorn of those who are willing to accept his patronage (thus, not Harry, who refused to join)" (from the Sandpiper talk page). If you could give your opinion, it would be greatly appreciated. (Duane543 18:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC))

Being asked to comment on this raging argument ... ... I think there is fair cause to believe Lucius was indeed a member of the Slug Club. Slug naturally gravitated towards (and attracted to himself) the ambitious, famous, rich, and talented students who would later achieve higher levels of success (with Slug's assistance - whatever that was). Lucius would be the exact type of student that Slug would go after. I personally do not believe Lucius could have been a Slytherin under Slug, and also "one of Slug's favorites", and then gone on to great success after Hogwarts, without also being in the Slug Club from the beginning. If he had not been in the Slug Club, then I can hardly believe he would have told Draco that he was one of Slug's favorites, and Draco would not have been so keen to get himself invited as well. The odds are overwhelmingly in favor of Lucius being a member, I see no clear evidence to indicate he was denied membership while being a "favorite" of Slug's. However, all this reasoning constitutes Original Research which is essentially forbidden in the Wiki-world, since Rowling has not, to my knowledge, committed to it as a fact in canon (HP books, HP movies, JKR interview quotes, JKR website). The arguments against membership are: she didn't say, and it isn't conclusive. At best I would propose that we consider a compromise: I think we could legitimately make a new heading in the main article, for Unconfirmed former members or Suspected former members or something on those lines, with the explanation that these alledged members are listed here based on the strength of text references and reasonings discussed here, but that Rowling never directly came out and confirmed or denied it as a fact in the books, movies, interviews, or her web site. There's about two cents worth of T-dot's opinion on the matter... --T-dot 00:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Assistance

Look at Students in Harry Potter's Year, Harry Potter characters birthday list, and the project page. Take a look at the issue, and contribute. Whether you disagree or disagree, it is vital that these issues are decided by editors who are familiar with Harry Potter and who are capable of deciding upon the worth of the articles, rather than editors who clearly have deep contempt for it and no real understanding of the subject. Please intervene. Michaelsanders 22:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Michael - I do appreciate your efforts in the HP Project and elsewhere in the Wiki. You are getting a lot of work done. In the future - when you create a new article, or are renovating an old one, you might want to try using the "this site is under construction" template - {{under construction}} - to avoid the immediate wrath of those users and administrators who have assigned themselves the task of stamping out new (and in particular the non-notable) articles that are constantly springing up. Some newbies (and Internet Trolls) love to create cute little articles about their girlfriends, boyfriends, buddies, ex-friends, schools, gangs, teams, artworks, car projects, and on and on. The cleanup crew kills those articles as quickly as they can. But when someone like you creates a debatably useful article with hardly any text (at least initially), then that article immediately catches the attention of the "hall monitors", and once they get a scent on your creation, and latch their jaws on it, they are difficult to shake off. Their view, after the initial stamping out ceremony of the articles they consider unworthy, is to maintain a minimalistic wiki - and any redundancy between articles must also be shut down as quickly as possible, and they do mergings and AFD's and speedy deletes and everything else at their disposal to accomplish their missions. Anyway as long as your new articles can maintain a clear and important difference from existing ones, and it makes sense to have them - then I don't have a problem with them existing. I prefer articles that are directly accessible - that is their title subjects are something that someone would type in naturally in the search window if they wanted to learn more about it. Otherwise they may never find it. I doubt many people in the HP project even know these articles exist. --T-dot 21:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Concordia Newsletter

Concordiabig.svg NEWSLETTER

Concordia is currently trying to relaunch. I, and all the members of the ex-council, wish to welcome new members to the group. We are a group who aim to promote remaining civil, in an environment where messages can easily be interpretated wrongly.

Help out now!

  • Try and help people remain civil! Talk to them, and help them in any way possible. Do not be afraid to use the talk page.
  • Give people the Civility Barnstar.
  • Make and spread some Wikitokens so people know there are people to help if they want assistance.
  • Add banners or logos to your userpage to show your support.
  • Suggest some ideas! Add 'em to the talk page.

We are a community, so can only work though community contributions and support. It's the helping that counts.

Decision Making

The council expired one month ago, but due to the current position of the group the current council will remain until the position of the group can be assessed, and whether it would be sensible to keep Concordia going. For most decisions, however, it will be decided by all who choose to partake in discussions. I am trying to relaunch because of the vast amounts of new members we have received, demonstrating that the aims are supported.

If you wish to opt of of further talk-page communications, just let us know here.

- Ian¹³/t 20:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC). Kindly delivered by MiszaBot.

Cullen Finnerty additions

Hey, T-dot. Thanks for the adds on the Cullen Finnerty article. I was kinda adding some more to it and we were both editing at the same time. Yours was a far more concise version than mine. (Writer's fault, used to getting paid by the word.:) ) Thanks for the help. If you watched the game, this guy is amazing, deserves his 15 minutes more than most.

Peace,

JT --JT 21:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

PLEASE ADD MORE - I am in the middle of fighting a "speedy delete" on Cullen's article - please add everything you can - I agree that Cullen is a hot NFL prospect and deserves a page. I did not mean to overwrite you or anything. Please add more!!! --T-dot 21:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletion tags

You must not remove speedy deletion tags, as the template clearly states. Given that the article that you created read (in whole) "Cullen Finnerty, football player." it should have been deleted without pause. If you want to avoid articles being deleted, make sure that they're sufficiently substantial from the beginning.

I've added a notability request, as it's not clear that Cullen Finnerty is sufficiently notable; to the untutored eye, at least, he looks like a student sportsman, and thus not terribly notable. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

As I stated in apology to the user that originally applied the spedy delete tag:
I inadvertently deleted the "speedy delete" / "db-bio", while editing the article which was started by another user, instead of adding a proper "hangon", to Cullen Finnerty's article. We are working on fleshing out the article on this likely NFL prospect, who just lead his college team to a national championship, setting many all-time NCAA records in the process. If you really feel the "speedy delete" is still necessary, while we try to rapidly construct the article, then please feel free. I added reference links on Cullen in the mean time in the External Links section. Just wanted you to know that I wan not trying to be a troll or something working on a non-notable article. --T-dot 21:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
It's definitely not a speedy delete as it stands. Sorry for misreading the History; I could have sworn that you'd started the article. As I know nothing about American Football, or what is or isn't notable in the sport, I'll leave it for others to decide on that. Good luck with it anyway. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not a speedy now. For reference, from my talk page, T-dot's posting and my reply:

I inadvertently deleted the "speedy delete" / "db-bio", while editing the article which was started by another user, instead of adding a proper "hangon", to Cullen Finnerty's article. We are working on fleshing out the article on this likely NFL prospect, who just lead his college team to a national championship, setting many all-time NCAA records in the process. If you really feel the "speedy delete" is still necessary, while we try to rapidly construct the article, then please feel free. I added reference links on Cullen in the mean time in the External Links section. Just wanted you to know that I wan not trying to be a troll or something working on a non-notable article. --T-dot 21:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for the note. I didn't consider you a troll, that takes much more effort and many more edits! There is a simple way to avoid speedy deletes like that. You need to assert proper notability in the article, even if it is a stub. If you had written that into the stub, I wouldn't have tagged it. Hu 22:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

You guys are INTO the whole Wiki world and the rules, etc. Please allow that some of us aren't hip to all that, nor do we have the time/gumption, etc, to become that much of a Wikihaulic. That doesn't mean Wiki. doesn't want our contributions, so please, guys, a little less hasty on the Delete key. There are lots of things sitting around that deserve it. This was just a matter of timing. I started it originally as a one-liner so that nobody else would duplicate the efforts, then added the talk about fleshing it out, etc. It hadn't been in existence for more than about 5 minutes when somebody got all itchy to delete it. :( --JT 22:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Cullen Finnerty pictures

Hey... I only find a few online pics of him. Dunno if they're considered PD. Wiki and I have very different understandings about pictures, so I'd rather leave it to you than anger the demi-gods.

I've found a freshman and senior yearbook pic of him, and one in uniform (which isn't destinguishable.)

Maybe mention the #16 jersey? <shrug>

Tryin' to lay back form it, so we aren't walking all over each other. You're a lot better at the Wiki-codification/format than I am, too.

THANKS, T-dot!

--JT 22:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject Automobiles Notification

Hi T-dot, you were on the list of members at WikiProject Automobiles and we are introducing a new way of listing members, as the old list was becoming too long. Our new method involves having all of our members in a category.

To add yourself to the category just add the userbox to your user page by putting {{Wiki Auto Project}} where you want the userbox. Alternatively if you don't like the userbox you can add [[Category:WikiProject Automobiles members|T-dot]] to your userpage.

If you no longer wish to be a member of the project, simply don't add the userbox or category, there's no pressure. Thanks for your time, James086Talk | Contribs 04:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Snape: not fictional traitor

You misunderstand. I don't tell you it will definitely happen. My premise may be true or false, still, it's just an example. My point is that: if there's still a possibility Snape is not a traitor, then it's wrong to say he is. Also, what do you mean by the betrayal article, I had a look at it and find no connection with what Snape has done. Arhugefan 07:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The betrayal article states and I quote: Betrayal, as a form of deception or dismissal of prior presumptions, is the breaking or violation of a presumptive social contract (trust, or confidence) that produces moral and psychological conflict within a relationship amongst individuals, between organizations or between individuals and organizations. Often betrayal is the act of supporting a rival group, or it is a complete break from previously decided upon or presumed norms by one party from the others. Now Snape was trusted, both by Dumbledore, and the Order of the Phoenix, and also by rival group Voldemort and the Death Eaters. According to Rowling's story line, Snape clearly used deception, and dismissed prior presumptions, and broke or violated a presumptive social contract, violating the trust or confidence for either rival group 1) Dumbledore and the Order of the Phoenix, or rival group 2) Voldemort and the Death Eaters. Snape produced moral and psycological conflict in his relationships with individuals (eg: Harry, Dumbledore, etc; or Voldemort, Bellatrix Lestrange, Mrs. Malfoy, etc.), and organizations (Hogwarts, Teachers, Students, Dumbledores Army, Order of the Phoenix etc.; or the Death Eaters). He supported a rival group, and possibly made a complete break from previous decided upon or presumed norms by one party from the others, by abandoning either Voldemort and the Death Eaters in the first place to join up with Dumbledore and the Order of the Phoenix, or by apparently abandoning Dumbledore and the Order of the Phoenix to rejoin Voldemort and the Death Eaters. Either way, your firm claim that Snape could not be guilty of betrayal and could not be a traitor because he betrayed nobody - because he was "only a spy doing his duties" is simply a false and invalid argument. You will have to do better than that, since Snape did virtually everything that the Betrayal definition specified. Frankly I could not care less whether Snape is listed as a "fictional traitor". I totally ignore those categories unless I am looking for other examples of the article being categorized. I am simply stating that your argument that Snape was "only a spy" and therefore "could not have betrayed anyone" is a false and misleading argument. --T-dot 13:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Harry Potter

Hello, T-dot/Archive 3. Over at WikiProject Harry Potter we're trying to compile a list of active participants. Your name, along with all other project participants, has been placed on the inactive list. If you'd like to get involved again, please place your name back on the active list, and take a look at the project talk page for the latest happenings.

RHB(AWB) 23:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC), on behalf of WPHarry Potter

Reply

The 'blind' part of the remark was, I have to admit, wrong. It was offensive. My point was that when I reverted to remove an edit that I felt did nothing and which actually included the (to my eyes) wrong spelling 'defense', Reaves responded by totally ignoring the obvious reason for that (despite the fact that 'defense' was obvious in the 'wizardone' changes) and claiming 'Americanism' was POV. I reacted by going to the tedious task of ferreting out and correcting the spelling in the article itself - summarising it with the rude 'blind American idiot(s)', targeted at Reaves, since I believed he would see the change, and understand. Apparently, however, he does not bother to observe any changes...thereby creating that whole mess. To further clarify: I have no problems with Americans (though I think I'll stay quiet on your President...and my Prime Minister); but it does really get on my nerves when every day, people are earnestly 'correcting' the article with American spellings, creating an infuriating body of articles to check. Therefore, when an editor who should really know better tries to keep an American spelling, albeit accidentally, unobservant American idiot seems rude, but appropriate. Blind American idiot, however, was a step too far.

Also, I, and my mother's family, are rarely cool tempered. My gran blames her Portugeuese ancestry. Since her mother's family, the De Silva's, once tried to kick a man to death with steel capped dockers boots, I feel I have come off rather lightly... Michaelsanders 14:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Re:Release date

Ah! Cool, I've just noticed that – PeaceNT 12:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Pettigrew-Potter Life Debt

Thanks T-dot, I appreciate the clarification. Yeah I self-deleted it immediately because I remembered that perhaps it might actually make sense afterall, so I wanted to go confirm my suspicions before making myself look ridiculous. Seems I was only moderately successful, heh. I thank you for making it all so much easier to remember, as I hadn't quite gotten around to scrambling for the answer yet. It makes sense to have it on the Hallows page now, I'll agree.

I do think that a reference/citation to the third book should be attached to it though, just to make it look less tacked on. It's the only point on the list that has nothing which guides the readers to where they can inform themselselves about the Pettigrew-Potter Life Debt. Some of them, like me, just forgot about that quote in the third book, so it would be good to have a little superscript number there to let us know where to look.

I do prefer "Unresolved plot elements" over "Continuing storylines from previous books" actually. It's a far more appropriate and better description considering how some elements (such as the Life Debt) aren't really storylines at all. I believe there should be a push for it. Mention it on the discussion page and I'll show up there to give my support to the title change. Hopefully we'll have a majority agreement.

Anyway, thanks again for the message, it was quite helpful. Sage of Ice 04:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)