Talk:Severus Snape/Archive 7

1716: 1747:

using the Edit beta functionality, and of course there is no indication of this "hidden text", so no way for a good faith editor to see the messages. A similar hidden warning occurs to ask editors not to replace "Philosopher" in the title of the first book with "Sorcerer". I just wanted to point out that the new functionality (which is likely to be used more and more as we move forward, in lieu of editing the source) does not seem to support these hidden messages.

949:

Stone" is incorrect. In the past both titles were listed, but that decision got reversed. I think we should list both titles simply because there's enough vandalism on this page to monitor and repair without having to constantly revert to the "proper" title, too. I'm going to put in a parenthetical and hope that this solves the problem. Please discuss here before reverting back to the UK title. This is a reasonable decision, I think. Thanks.--

31: 654:"it is believed" need to go regardless, and the conjecture/opinion attributed). I would say that, right now, the source provided is insufficient; half-bloodprince.org is probably not a "reliable source" within the meaning of Knowledge (XXG). If it is merely conjecture (even from Nettleship himself) and cannot be backed up by reliable sources, then it has to go. As far as Rowling, her statement that Snape (or any character) is 226:, since he remains so until the very end. Basically, this is my point: Snape does many evil things throughout the series which lead us to believe that he is a villain, but it turns out he was working for Dumbledore the whole time, which essentially makes him an anti-hero, which Rowling herself said. If being nasty to Harry makes him one of the first book's villains, then it makes him one of the series' main villains. 109:. I didn't made the modification since those two new source are from fansite. What to do? This source is important as it reveals a lot of things that are not in the books and it is used a lot in the article. Should we use the fansite link anyway, or simply add it as a second link to the source? Or... leave it like it is at the moment, since it already states that the page was retreived in 2007? -- 525:. Yeah, that's not complicated at all. So the origin of the text was probably that it was transcribed from a recording by someone whose first language is French. Both the Leaky article and the Gazette article use the "-ize" spelling, but I'm guessing that considering it was a British author speaking in Ireland, if you had asked her to spell what she had just said, she would have said "-ise". 1668: 1585: 1353: 1267: 1179: 1792:, which requires the assistance of an administrator to add it to articles. It could handle all kinds of warnings, and would pop up in the Visual Editor as a warning before editing. But frankly, even with the best of precautions, we're still going to get edits like this. So I question the need to bring out all our artillery on this. Sometimes it's best to just keep reverting reactively. 434:

a hero but not a villain either. Javert happens to be a classic example of an antagonist who is not a villain, an example of a complex character with great depth; exactly what Snape was. But you'd rather stick to misunderstandings and superficiality, and "rest your case." If someone else comes and opines on the issue, what then? You'll still "rest your case"?

1637: 1400: 1229: 1314: 272:

which would make him, in your words, one of the series' main antagonists (not villain). I think it'd be better to say that "he is built up to be the primary villain of the first book" or "he serves as an antagonist towards Harry throughout the series", not naming him as a main antagonist of the first book if he's the same in the seven books.

329:

Snape is no different. Since he wasn't a villain, it's useless to to name him as an antagonist, because it still sounds very similar. It may be different in the dictionary, but most people consider "villain" and "antagonist" the same, because we can't call a good character an antagonist just because he/she dislikes the main character.

1432:

minute, and 3 minutes. The last one took a bit longer because there were two consecutive instances, the second was reverted within a minute by a Bot, and the editor who turned up the protection (Fastily, within 5 minutes) missed the prior instance, which was reverted 25 minutes later. Alas, it happens.

1746:

A good faith edit was just (correctly) reverted, in which the editor changed "skilful" to "skillful"; the reverting editor noted that the hidden text in the source notes that "skilful" is the correct british spelling, which is used in the page. However, I wanted to note that I just made an experiment

1095:

I think everyone's agreed that not using the title at all, but saying "the first book" is the most trouble-free solution. Protecting the page is, I've been told, a temporary solution, so let's stick to this and see how it goes. Since we're on a HP page, is it appropriate to say that I'd do just about

752:

I went looking for possible quotes, googling "lockhart site:jkrowling.com" because I knew she would mention Lockhart in the quote. She has said the same thing multiple times, but slightly different. The following three versions are all from Rowling's official website. First quote (from Edinburgh Book

404:

page as well in short order? You'll note the word "villain" doesn't occur there. Guess they don't know that "antagonist" means "villain", and that you can't call someone a villain just because he dislikes the main character, so you better go there and educate them as well, teach them not to fuss over

361:

antagonists and villains. Just because two things often occur together does not mean that the two words mean the same, your beliefs and knowledge about the English language notwithstanding. The words are not synonyms, and never have been. In case you haven't noticed, for instance, Knowledge (XXG) has

328:

Been a few days now. No one's opined or reverted the article. I guess that's a sign of no one agreeing with you on your definition of "antagonist" and "villain". Face it, Magidin, there are COUNTLESS articles about fictional villains which use "antagonist" and "villain" in the same light, and Severus

271:

Most of the time, "villain" and "primary antagonist" are the same. But still, to say that Snape is "one of the primary antagonists" of the first book is still wrong, in my opinion, because you are referring to what he does in the first book, and this is technically what he does throughout the series,

433:

Your objections ("insult to Rowling") rested on your confusion about the meaning of the word "antagonist". Your claim that calling him an antagonist is a "joke" is, in point of fact, an slight on the author. You are claiming, in essence, that it is impossible to make a complex character that is not

125:

In the section about the portrayal of Snape by Rickman, it says he was Rowlings personal choice. Yet somewhere later, there is this stand-alone sentence saying "Before Alan Rickman was offered the role as Severus Snape, the role was originally offered to Tim Roth." This is sounds a bit in opposition

1005:

I agree that "in the first novel" is more appropriate in this instance. However I don't think this is a case of compromise. The novel is titled "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone". The fact that it was released under a different name in a particular country is irrelevant in the vast majority

191:

an antagonist, and one of the main ones, in that he is antagonistic towards Harry and remains so throughout the series: there seems to be the misconception on the part of the anonymous editor that "antagonist" means "main villain"; according to the American Heritage College Dictionary, 3rd edition,

1762:

Valid point, and I apologise to the editor in that respect - for the assumption, not the reversion. There are a few things that can be done to mititgate such a limitation - the first of which being raising this as an issue to those who are bugzilling the new edit functionality. Don't know who or

216:

Knowledge (XXG) itself. This is my opinion: Snape is hinted many times throughout the first book to be plotting to steal the Philosopher's Stone, and it is even him who Harry expects to see in the last room, therefore making no mention whatsoever of Voldemort's spirit until the final moment. Also,

186:

My objections to the new version are: (i) The primary antagonist is Voldemort's spirit, not Snape, even within the novel, even in the early chapters. (ii) The phrasing "built up to be the primary antagonist until the final chapter" is, of course, a nod towards Rowling's misdirections that lead the

1029:

and you'll find that the articles are in English, with their English titles, with the original titles in parentheses, which is one idea to do here. It really shouldn't be that contentious an idea--a compromise doesn't detract from the Englishness of the originals. The Harry Potter series seems to

966:

I feel this is preferable because it deals with the problem you raised above, of people changing the title, but doesn't put undue emphasis on the first book when that's not the topic of the lead. I'm going to go ahead and change this, but I'm open to further discussion if you or others don't like

528:

All that to say: I'm fine with it if you want to switch the quotation back to the British spelling. I've just been bugged in the past when people changed things willy-nilly in quotations, without considering that they should be treated differently from other text. It certainly appears that you've

370:

and the role he plays. The role he plays in the first book is not comparable to the roles he plays in later books: while he looms large in the first book, he does not in later ones, so the claim that he cannot be an antagonist in the first book if he isn't in the latter ones completely misses the

1766:

The second thing would be to add the {{Use British English|date=September 2013}} tag to the article, but this then shows up as an alert - and we are dependent on the editor reading such notices. I took that one from the Harry Potter page - it shows up as an alert, along with the page protection

1559:

In short: the fact that you may consider that information a "spoiler" has no impact on whether the information should or should not be in the article or in the lead. If the only reason that makes you object to that information being on the lead is that it is a "spoiler", then that is not a valid

1553:

It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot. Such concerns must not interfere with neutral point of view, encyclopedic tone, completeness, or any other element of article quality (for example, the lead section). When including spoilers, editors

1069:

You're quite right, my example was a bad one. But I think the usual answer to solving the "practical problem of constantly having to change the title back" is page protection - especially when the majority of people here (I think?) seem to agree that it is impractical to state both titles of the

1020:

You may be right, but we're trying to solve a practical problem of constantly having to change the title back. We all know that the books belong to England, etc., etc. But there's an especial problem due to the film also having the Sorcerer's Stone title, and those of us who monitor the page for

1431:

It's called vandalism; it happens, unfortunately, but editors tend to be rather quick at fixing it. There were way more than usual today (I count about 11 instances); all but the last were reverted very quickly: 5 minutes, 1 minute, 1 minute, 3 minutes, 1 minute, 1 minute, 1 minute, 1 minute, 1

948:

For some reason this page seems particularly vulnerable to vandalism of all sorts, but one thing that isn't strictly vandalism is the constant changing of the title of the 1st book to "The Sorcerer's Stone." While it seems incredible, there are obviously people who think that "The Philosopher's

880:

Seems silly to me. Why list categories that we know will never be filled? Snape has no spouse, for example, and as the series is finished, is unlikely to acquire one. It just encourages people to do things like fill in "Lily" for his Significant Other (which I removed). I would support removing

221:

Harry's life. Also, Snape appears to be trying to threaten Quirrell into telling him how to get past the three-headed dog, and complains about the bite marks to Filch while he's being bandaged, yet at the end, it turns out to be Quirrell trying to steal the stone and Snape was doing all that on

753:

Festival interview): "The only character who is deliberately based on a real person is Gilderoy Lockhart. Other people have contributed the odd characteristic, such as a nose, to a character, but the only character who I sat down and thought that I would base on someone is Gilderoy Lockhart."

356:

don't know the difference, then nobody knows the difference. Gotcha. There goes the English language. Or more accurately, you like the character (you label him "good", though even Rowling does not go that far), and you chafe at the notion of having the label "antagonist" put to him. There are

196:

antagonistic towards Harry or that he is one of the main antagonists in the first book (and later in the series); this is not merely a matter of Rowling's misdirection, as the anonymous editor seems to believe. In any case, lest we get into a 3-revert war, I am opening this up for discussion.

295:

name him the "main antagonist", but only "one of the main antagonists". Look back to "Philosopher's Stone": the antagonists are to a lesser extent the Dursleys, and Draco, Snape, and Voldemort. It seems to me that you are basically trying to retcon his role in the first book in light of the

628:(who, incidentally, has recently died). Not only did JKR's mother work as an assistant under Nettleship at the school when JKR was a pupil there, there is considerable circumstantial evidence, fully accepted by Nettleship himself, that he was a major influence on the character. Not the 959:

I agree that this is an issue, although I also suspect that there are as many or more people who change "Philosopher's" to "Sorcerer's" specifically because the hidden text says not to as opposed to people who are honestly confused even though the changed title is explained in multiple

759:

And third version (from "Extra Stuff" entry about the Weasleys): "I have only once set out to faithfully depict a real human being (see Gilderoy Lockhart); everywhere else, though I might have borrowed the occasional real person's characteristic, they are at least 90%

192:

that is the secondary meaning of the word, but the primary meaning is "One who contends against another; an adversary", and antagonism means "Hostility that results in active resistance, opposition, or contentiousness." I think there is simply no argument that Snape

217:

Snape appears to be attempting to kill Harry during the Quidditch match, also reinforcing the fact that he is the book's main villain (again, with not even a single rumour of Voldemort's spirit lingering about), yet it transpires at the end that Snape was, in fact,

1142:

While it may lessen them, I predict it won't stop them; there are three instances of "Philosopher's stone" in the article (including one in the infobox). The edit comment after the first "instalment" doesn't seem to prevent changes to "installment" elsewhere...

483:/British English. The word is within a quotation, so normally it should remain in its original form. However, I changed it based on the fact that it was quoting Rowling who, had she written it herself, would have used the British version of the word. 290:

in the rest of the series is much reduced compared to his role in the first book, even though his actions are similar. He looms large in "Philosopher's Stone", he is much more incidental in the remaining books. Note also that the old phrasing did

825:

While the article mentions his half blood status is rare for a death eater shouldn't it also be included that Voldemort trusted Snape above the other death eaters, because he was a half-blood just like him? As I recall Dumbledore reveals that to

899:

I'm sorry, but it's getting ridiculous. Now we have a "Relatives" entry? Six relatives listed for Voldemort in the infobox? The box is not supposed to be exhaustive, and I really think these additions should be removed across the HP pages.

1006:

of cases. When a film is released under several names in different countries, we don't list every name in every situation. The American title should only be used in Knowledge (XXG) articles that specifically use an American English MoS.

1485:

For some time there was much speculation going around the net about Snape being a vampire. Though never confirmed or even mentioned in the books shouldn't this speculation be mentioned? Just like the speculation of his alignment.

1131:

Once again, the title change is keeping all of us busy, sometimes more than once a day. I'm going to parenthetically add an aka to try to stop the vandalism or good faith edits. This is a serious waste of time on a easily remedied

244:

Please see the difference between "antagonist" and "villain" which I explained in my previous comment. Your very last sentence shows that you are conflating the two. This quite simply not so. Labeling someone an antagonist is

1047:(Topic drift) It's not only nationalism - although I agree with you there - but also the fact that Rowling herself dislikes the "Sorcerer" title, and has said many times that she wished she could have kept "Philosopher". 748:

I'm a little late to this discussion, but I just wanted to say that this is exactly what I hoped would happen when I reverted the unexplained deletion for being unexplained, as it has now led to an improvement in the

1380:

At the end of the first paragraph of the page there is a vulgar and inappropriate sentence. Sure under different circumstances it might be found amusing but it is untrue and in much distaste. Please get rid of it?

529:

thought this through and have a good reason for changing the spelling (and are indeed aware that you're changing a quotation, which I wasn't sure from your original edit), so I would aprove of the spelling change.

981:

I'd agree with "in the first novel" as a compromise. I suspect we'll see a lot of increased (unintentional) vandalism on all HP pages over the next week or so, what with the release of Deathly Hallows Part II.

1021:

vandalism want to try to prevent as much of it as possible. There is little point to putting one's foot down in this case--we need a solution that works. Your film example is a poor one, by the way. Type in

362:

them in separate pages (could there be a reason for that?). For myself, I'll wait; a couple of days is hardly the eternity it might seem to those with short attention spans and the inability to find out

126:

to what is mentioned earlier. Did Rowling chose Rickman, yet the studio first went to propose the role to Roth, or how did it pan out. If someone knows, a rewrite of this section might be appropriate.

756:

Second version (from "Extra Stuff" entry about Lockhart): "I have only once set out to depict somebody I have met and, unlikely though it might seem, the result was Gilderoy Lockhart."

596:

based on any of Rowling's teacher, and saying so could offend the listed teacher (who is compared to Snape, later described in the article as "a bully" and "a horrible teacher").

490:

interview text (not aggregated/changed for US audiences etc.)? If it is, then I'll just have to grit my teeth and accept 'realize', with lack of any other opposers :P Thanks. ⚡

963:

My suggestion: remove the title from the lead, just saying "in the first novel". After all, five of the novels are currently not mentioned in the lead, so what's one more?

178:

We've had the same addition to the opening paragraph added three times now by an anonymous editor; I've reverted it twice. The original, long-standing sentence read:

222:

Dumbledore's orders. Lastly, to say that Snape is an antagonist towards Harry makes him one of the antagonists of the book makes him one of the antagonists of the

249:

the same as calling him a villain. That's the whole point. And, yes, Snape is in fact antagonistic towards Harry and his friends throughout the entire series.

1818:

made changes thanks to the hidden notices, after all). Mainly, I wanted to point it out so we can all (myself included) try to be aware of this going forward.

650:. If there are verifiable reliable sources that state Nettleship may have been/likely was/was an inspiration, then it can stay with suitable attributions (the 734:

PS: I'm no expert on Rowling - can someone find the quote from her about her characters not being based on real individuals, and add it as Magidin suggests?

314:

synonyms. Perhaps, instead of side-swiping at people who actually know the meaning of the words, you might consider looking them up and educating yourself.

1723: 763:

I'm going to take a shot at incorporating Rowling's comments into the article, but I'm not really attached to my version so feel free to change it up.

865:

pages. Is this part of a revamp of the Infobox across the Harry Potter project, or should they be reverted as good faith, but overly detailed, edits?

1096:

anything for an anti-vandalism spell on the whole bloody site? You should put the Yoko Ono page on your watchlist if you really want to go nuts.--

187:

reader to think that Snape is the teacher helping Voldemort, but I think this is not something to be included in the first paragraph. (iii) Snape

366:

the meaning of words. Again: Snape is not an "antagonist" "just because he dislikes the main character." He's an antagonist because of what he

1458:

You are presumably referring to the US editions of the books, however, the UK spelling - defence - is what is used in the articles, based on

658:

based on any person should, of course, be placed in contrast to those (putative) reliable/verifiable opinions, but should not pre-empt them.

584:

Under the category "Character development," it says that Rowling based Snape on a childhood teacher, John Nettleship. However, on Rowling's

1384: 1297: 685: 612: 513:

Looking at the page cited for the quote, it cites the Leaky Cauldron (which seems to be an American website although at least one of its

1544:

to put "spoilers" on the first paragraph. However, neither should we avoid them simply because some people think they are spoilers. The

1526: 1213: 1157:

Does this nonsense happen on every HP character page? I wonder if the real solution is for me to take this damn page off my watchlist!--

827: 681: 142: 1700: 420: 1621: 159: 1814:

I confess that I'm not sure what can or should be done, or whether it is worth it (we have no way of knowing how many people have

1613: 84: 72: 67: 59: 1416: 1331: 1245: 506: 38: 1674: 1591: 1359: 1273: 1185: 791:

Thanks, everyone. It's a fantastic page for a fantastic character, I just want to make sure it stays that way :D

522: 212:

I think labelling Snape as an antagonist at all is an insult to J. K. Rowling and makes a joke out of the series

972: 768: 537: 1388: 1301: 796: 608: 102: 1530: 1217: 1207: 831: 592:

Harry Potter characters are based on people she's ever met (except for Gilderoy Lockhart). Severus Snape was

1775: 1648: 1525:

Really, does "He ultimately becomes Headmaster of Hogwarts in the final novel." need to be in paragraph one?

424: 419:

As I said, I rest my case. The article's fine as it is now, and I couldn't care less about this Javert guy.

138: 1789: 600: 130: 1704: 1491: 518: 792: 604: 1625: 1467: 1117: 1052: 1022: 987: 163: 134: 1502: 1487: 1545: 1797: 1731: 968: 764: 533: 1459: 651: 557: 492: 1771: 1644: 1158: 1133: 1097: 1031: 997: 950: 891: 882: 782: 739: 725: 693: 637: 47: 17: 757: 1616:, since its well-known that Snape was an informant and/or spied on the Death Eaters, and was a 1823: 1752: 1565: 1510: 1437: 1148: 905: 870: 711: 663: 569: 504: 439: 410: 376: 319: 301: 254: 202: 480: 158:

Whoever changed goatee to goatse is a vandal and needs to remember children view this page. (

1463: 1113: 1048: 983: 930: 453: 391: 334: 277: 231: 98: 1454:

Spelling should be "Defense" as used in HP books, not defence. through-out entire article.

754: 479:]: I changed some wording in the article so that 'realize' was changed to 'realise' as per 184:"In the first novel, he is built up to be the primary antagonist until the final chapters." 1412: 1327: 1241: 926: 890:

I have to say, though, that it is funny to see "Significant Other" listed for Voldemort!--

625: 286:

The reason he is not one of the main antagonists in the rest of the series is because his

296:

revelations of the final book. And now, I'll shut up and see if anybody else chimes in.

1793: 1727: 1075: 1011: 110: 647: 778: 735: 721: 689: 633: 777:

Thanks - it looks OK to me. I've added a quote to the Nettleship article as well.

106: 1827: 1819: 1801: 1779: 1756: 1748: 1735: 1708: 1652: 1629: 1617: 1569: 1561: 1534: 1514: 1506: 1495: 1471: 1441: 1433: 1422: 1392: 1337: 1305: 1251: 1221: 1161: 1152: 1144: 1136: 1121: 1100: 1079: 1070:

original novel/film on the page of any article related to the Harry Potter series.

1056: 1034: 1015: 1000: 991: 976: 953: 937: 909: 901: 894: 885: 874: 866: 835: 800: 786: 772: 743: 729: 715: 707: 697: 667: 659: 641: 616: 571: 546:

And people say the content posted on Knowledge (XXG) isn't scrutinised enough... :P

541: 457: 443: 435: 428: 414: 406: 395: 380: 372: 338: 323: 315: 305: 297: 281: 258: 250: 235: 206: 198: 167: 146: 115: 514: 1643:

Seems reasonable. Perhaps not in the James Bond sense, but a spy nevertheless.

449: 387: 330: 273: 227: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

677: 1408: 1323: 1237: 921: 920:

Totally support purging infobox-cruft like this from the character articles.

632:

influence - no-one has remotely suggested that - but one of the major ones.

1071: 1026: 1007: 1208:

http://www.funnyjunk.com/funny_pictures/2511051/Snape+Snape+Severus+Snape/

1699:

NOT philosopher's stone. Whoever put that in needs to get off the drugs!

849:

a bunch of new items to the Character Infobox (and also done so in the

706:

as sources, and contrast it the (suitably sourced) quote from Rowling.

401: 996:

Whatever might have the best chance of working is fine with me. --

676:

person - not quite the same thing. The best sources are probably

672:

I believe she said that none of the characters were based on any

532:

Wow, this was a lot of text to spend on a one-letter change. :-)

702:

Fine, those are certainly better than half-bloodprince.org. Use

1505:

that mentions the speculation? If not, then it doesn't belong.

521:, which provides an English translation, about an event at the 1662: 1579: 1554:

should make sure that an encyclopedic purpose is being served.

1347: 1261: 1173: 25: 1742:

New editing functionality and hidden text in the source code

1770:

And of course the third thing is to just keep reverting.

1206:

The article seems to been vandalized. See the screenshot

180:"In the first novel he is one of the main antagonists." 862: 858: 854: 850: 846: 174:"Main antagonist" vs. "built up to be the main villain" 1763:

where this is happening, but I'm guessing that it is.

1294:

Last sentence, first paragraph. Reason is obvious.

1521:

Do you HAVE to put spoilers in the first paragraph?

1767:warning and the Philosophers vs Sorcerers warning. 1030:bring out a bit of nationalism, for some reason.-- 1344:Edit request from 72.193.129.219, 20 August 2011 1258:Edit request from 70.123.128.139, 20 August 2011 580:misquoting Rowling - misrepresenting her teacher 1170:Edit request from 83.100.174.66, 20 August 2011 486:Just wondering if anyone knows if this is the 8: 310:Sigh. Again: "villain" and "antagonist" are 182:The version the anonymous editor favors is: 1614:category:Fictional secret agents and spies 357:COUNTLESS of literary characters who are 1724:Harry_Potter_and_the_Philosopher's_Stone 1546:policy of Knowledge (XXG) on the subject 101:, is dead. I found an other transcript 99:Transcript of webchat with J.K. Rowling 352:In short, your argument is that since 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 555:I'll make the change live for now. ⚡ 517:is in the UK) but is actually from a 7: 24: 477:Just a small addition - Re: Edit 1714: 1666: 1635: 1583: 1398: 1351: 1312: 1265: 1227: 1210:. Request for it to be removed. 1177: 400:I guess you'll go and "fix" the 29: 1828:21:18, 11 September 2013 (UTC) 1802:20:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC) 1780:20:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC) 1757:15:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC) 1: 1570:03:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC) 1535:01:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC) 1515:02:34, 11 November 2012 (UTC) 1496:01:55, 11 November 2012 (UTC) 1472:12:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC) 458:17:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC) 324:15:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC) 306:22:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC) 282:22:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC) 259:21:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC) 236:18:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC) 207:22:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC) 168:01:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC) 147:14:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC) 1659:Edit request on 29 July 2013 448:Third time. I rest my case. 444:15:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC) 429:13:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC) 415:20:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC) 396:20:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC) 381:20:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC) 339:19:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC) 1788:We can also make use of an 1689:to reactivate your request. 1677:has been answered. Set the 1606:to reactivate your request. 1594:has been answered. Set the 1442:03:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC) 1423:03:18, 20 August 2011 (UTC) 1393:03:09, 20 August 2011 (UTC) 1374:to reactivate your request. 1362:has been answered. Set the 1338:03:04, 20 August 2011 (UTC) 1306:03:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC) 1288:to reactivate your request. 1276:has been answered. Set the 1252:03:00, 20 August 2011 (UTC) 1222:02:50, 20 August 2011 (UTC) 1200:to reactivate your request. 1188:has been answered. Set the 116:03:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC) 1848: 1620:working for Dumbledore. -- 1162:07:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC) 1153:06:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC) 1137:00:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC) 836:16:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC) 787:08:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC) 773:02:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC) 744:18:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC) 730:18:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC) 716:18:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC) 698:18:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC) 668:18:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC) 642:14:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC) 617:13:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC) 572:15:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC) 542:05:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC) 508:02:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC) 1736:00:45, 29 July 2013 (UTC) 1709:00:25, 29 July 2013 (UTC) 1653:11:29, 27 June 2013 (UTC) 1630:07:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC) 1503:reliable secondary source 1122:09:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC) 1101:21:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC) 1080:10:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC) 1057:09:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC) 1035:03:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC) 1016:00:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC) 1001:21:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC) 992:08:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC) 977:06:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC) 954:06:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC) 938:22:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC) 910:14:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC) 895:05:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC) 886:05:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC) 881:superfluous categories.-- 875:16:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC) 801:23:17, 2 April 2011 (UTC) 588:website she states that 523:University College Dublin 507:_Realise_with_Quote": --> 821:Characterization /Family 646:Again, we come down to 1556: 1695:harry potter and the 1551: 1023:The Story of Adele H. 42:of past discussions. 1111:Protectus Vandalus? 648:verifiable vs. true 624:I suggest you read 93:Dead link to source 473:Realise with Quote 97:Actual source #2, 18:Talk:Severus Snape 1693: 1692: 1610: 1609: 1378: 1377: 1292: 1291: 1204: 1203: 944:First book titles 841:Infobox additions 620: 603:comment added by 565: 500: 150: 133:comment added by 90: 89: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 1839: 1718: 1717: 1697:sorcerer's stone 1684: 1680: 1670: 1669: 1663: 1642: 1639: 1638: 1601: 1597: 1587: 1586: 1580: 1421: 1420: 1406:has been fixed. 1405: 1402: 1401: 1369: 1365: 1355: 1354: 1348: 1336: 1335: 1320: 1316: 1315: 1283: 1279: 1269: 1268: 1262: 1250: 1249: 1235:has been fixed. 1234: 1231: 1230: 1195: 1191: 1181: 1180: 1174: 936: 933: 859:Albus Dumbledore 619: 597: 564: 561: 558: 499: 496: 493: 386:I rest my case. 149: 127: 113: 81: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 1847: 1846: 1842: 1841: 1840: 1838: 1837: 1836: 1744: 1715: 1682: 1678: 1667: 1661: 1640: 1636: 1599: 1595: 1584: 1578: 1576:Fictional agent 1548:is quite clear: 1523: 1483: 1452: 1411: 1407: 1403: 1399: 1367: 1363: 1352: 1346: 1326: 1322: 1313: 1311: 1281: 1277: 1266: 1260: 1240: 1236: 1232: 1228: 1193: 1189: 1178: 1172: 967:this solution. 946: 931: 924: 843: 823: 626:John Nettleship 598: 582: 562: 559: 497: 494: 475: 176: 156: 128: 123: 121:Rickman vs Roth 111: 95: 77: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 1845: 1843: 1835: 1834: 1833: 1832: 1831: 1830: 1807: 1806: 1805: 1804: 1783: 1782: 1768: 1764: 1743: 1740: 1739: 1738: 1691: 1690: 1671: 1660: 1657: 1656: 1655: 1608: 1607: 1588: 1577: 1574: 1573: 1572: 1550: 1549: 1522: 1519: 1518: 1517: 1501:Do you have a 1482: 1479: 1477: 1475: 1474: 1451: 1448: 1447: 1446: 1445: 1444: 1426: 1425: 1413:(send a signal 1385:72.193.129.219 1376: 1375: 1356: 1345: 1342: 1341: 1340: 1328:(send a signal 1298:70.123.128.139 1290: 1289: 1270: 1259: 1256: 1255: 1254: 1242:(send a signal 1202: 1201: 1182: 1171: 1168: 1167: 1166: 1165: 1164: 1129: 1128: 1127: 1126: 1125: 1124: 1093: 1092: 1091: 1090: 1089: 1088: 1087: 1086: 1085: 1084: 1083: 1082: 1045: 1044: 1043: 1042: 1041: 1040: 1039: 1038: 1037: 969:Princess Lirin 964: 961: 945: 942: 941: 940: 917: 916: 915: 914: 913: 912: 863:Lord Voldemort 842: 839: 822: 819: 818: 817: 816: 815: 814: 813: 812: 811: 810: 809: 808: 807: 806: 805: 804: 803: 793:Shfargleyargle 765:Princess Lirin 761: 750: 732: 720:OK, will do. 605:Shfargleyargle 581: 578: 577: 576: 575: 574: 550: 549: 548: 547: 534:Princess Lirin 530: 526: 519:French article 474: 472:Realize -: --> 470: 469: 468: 467: 466: 465: 464: 463: 462: 461: 460: 350: 349: 348: 347: 346: 345: 344: 343: 342: 341: 308: 264: 263: 262: 261: 239: 238: 175: 172: 155: 152: 122: 119: 94: 91: 88: 87: 82: 75: 70: 65: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 1844: 1829: 1825: 1821: 1817: 1813: 1812: 1811: 1810: 1809: 1808: 1803: 1799: 1795: 1791: 1790:WP:Editnotice 1787: 1786: 1785: 1784: 1781: 1777: 1773: 1772:Chaheel Riens 1769: 1765: 1761: 1760: 1759: 1758: 1754: 1750: 1741: 1737: 1733: 1729: 1725: 1721: 1713: 1712: 1711: 1710: 1706: 1702: 1698: 1688: 1685:parameter to 1676: 1672: 1665: 1664: 1658: 1654: 1650: 1646: 1645:Chaheel Riens 1634: 1633: 1632: 1631: 1627: 1623: 1619: 1615: 1605: 1602:parameter to 1593: 1589: 1582: 1581: 1575: 1571: 1567: 1563: 1558: 1557: 1555: 1547: 1543: 1540:No, we don't 1539: 1538: 1537: 1536: 1532: 1528: 1527:66.68.185.101 1520: 1516: 1512: 1508: 1504: 1500: 1499: 1498: 1497: 1493: 1489: 1480: 1478: 1473: 1469: 1465: 1461: 1457: 1456: 1455: 1449: 1443: 1439: 1435: 1430: 1429: 1428: 1427: 1424: 1418: 1417:watch the sky 1414: 1410: 1397: 1396: 1395: 1394: 1390: 1386: 1382: 1373: 1370:parameter to 1361: 1357: 1350: 1349: 1343: 1339: 1333: 1332:watch the sky 1329: 1325: 1319: 1310: 1309: 1308: 1307: 1303: 1299: 1295: 1287: 1284:parameter to 1275: 1271: 1264: 1263: 1257: 1253: 1247: 1246:watch the sky 1243: 1239: 1226: 1225: 1224: 1223: 1219: 1215: 1214:83.100.174.66 1211: 1209: 1199: 1196:parameter to 1187: 1183: 1176: 1175: 1169: 1163: 1160: 1156: 1155: 1154: 1150: 1146: 1141: 1140: 1139: 1138: 1135: 1123: 1119: 1115: 1112: 1109: 1108: 1107: 1106: 1105: 1104: 1103: 1102: 1099: 1081: 1077: 1073: 1068: 1067: 1066: 1065: 1064: 1063: 1062: 1061: 1060: 1059: 1058: 1054: 1050: 1046: 1036: 1033: 1028: 1024: 1019: 1018: 1017: 1013: 1009: 1004: 1003: 1002: 999: 995: 994: 993: 989: 985: 980: 979: 978: 974: 970: 965: 962: 958: 957: 956: 955: 952: 943: 939: 934: 928: 923: 919: 918: 911: 907: 903: 898: 897: 896: 893: 889: 888: 887: 884: 879: 878: 877: 876: 872: 868: 864: 860: 856: 852: 848: 840: 838: 837: 833: 829: 828:74.131.90.156 820: 802: 798: 794: 790: 789: 788: 784: 780: 776: 775: 774: 770: 766: 762: 758: 755: 751: 747: 746: 745: 741: 737: 733: 731: 727: 723: 719: 718: 717: 713: 709: 705: 701: 700: 699: 695: 691: 687: 683: 679: 675: 671: 670: 669: 665: 661: 657: 653: 649: 645: 644: 643: 639: 635: 631: 627: 623: 622: 621: 618: 614: 610: 606: 602: 595: 591: 587: 579: 573: 570: 567: 566: 554: 553: 552: 551: 545: 544: 543: 539: 535: 531: 527: 524: 520: 516: 512: 511: 510: 509: 505: 502: 501: 489: 484: 482: 478: 471: 459: 455: 451: 447: 446: 445: 441: 437: 432: 431: 430: 426: 422: 418: 417: 416: 412: 408: 403: 399: 398: 397: 393: 389: 385: 384: 383: 382: 378: 374: 369: 365: 360: 355: 340: 336: 332: 327: 326: 325: 321: 317: 313: 309: 307: 303: 299: 294: 289: 285: 284: 283: 279: 275: 270: 269: 268: 267: 266: 265: 260: 256: 252: 248: 243: 242: 241: 240: 237: 233: 229: 225: 224:entire series 220: 215: 211: 210: 209: 208: 204: 200: 195: 190: 185: 181: 173: 171: 169: 165: 161: 153: 151: 148: 144: 140: 136: 135:Mister Denial 132: 120: 118: 117: 114: 108: 104: 100: 92: 86: 83: 80: 76: 74: 71: 69: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 1815: 1745: 1719: 1701:75.138.6.144 1696: 1694: 1686: 1675:edit request 1618:double agent 1611: 1603: 1592:edit request 1552: 1541: 1524: 1484: 1476: 1453: 1383: 1379: 1371: 1360:edit request 1317: 1296: 1293: 1285: 1274:edit request 1212: 1205: 1197: 1186:edit request 1130: 1110: 1094: 947: 851:Harry Potter 844: 824: 703: 673: 655: 652:weasel words 629: 599:— Preceding 593: 589: 585: 583: 556: 491: 487: 485: 476: 421:88.16.225.78 367: 363: 358: 353: 351: 311: 292: 287: 246: 223: 218: 213: 193: 188: 183: 179: 177: 157: 124: 96: 78: 43: 37: 1622:72.67.93.68 1612:Please add 1560:objection. 1464:a_man_alone 1114:a_man_alone 1049:a_man_alone 984:a_man_alone 855:Ron Weasley 760:imaginary." 160:123.2.53.91 129:—Preceding 36:This is an 1679:|answered= 1596:|answered= 1488:Ganglerian 1364:|answered= 1278:|answered= 1190:|answered= 1132:problem.-- 845:An editor 405:synonyms. 197:Opinions? 1794:Elizium23 1728:RudolfRed 1720:Not done: 1481:vampirism 1460:wp:engvar 1027:I Am Love 847:has added 112:Stroppolo 85:Archive 8 79:Archive 7 73:Archive 6 68:Archive 5 60:Archive 1 1450:spelling 1159:TEHodson 1134:TEHodson 1098:TEHodson 1032:TEHodson 998:TEHodson 951:TEHodson 892:TEHodson 883:TEHodson 826:Harry.-- 779:Ghmyrtle 749:article. 736:Ghmyrtle 722:Ghmyrtle 690:Ghmyrtle 634:Ghmyrtle 613:contribs 601:unsigned 586:official 488:original 143:contribs 131:unsigned 1820:Magidin 1749:Magidin 1722:. See 1562:Magidin 1507:Magidin 1434:Magidin 1145:Magidin 960:places. 902:Magidin 867:Magidin 708:Magidin 660:Magidin 481:WP:TIES 436:Magidin 407:Magidin 373:Magidin 371:point. 316:Magidin 298:Magidin 251:Magidin 199:Magidin 39:archive 861:, and 450:Jienum 402:Javert 388:Jienum 364:actual 331:Jienum 274:Jienum 228:Jienum 219:saving 154:Vandal 1683:|ans= 1673:This 1600:|ans= 1590:This 1409:Feezo 1368:|ans= 1358:This 1324:Feezo 1282:|ans= 1272:This 1238:Feezo 1194:|ans= 1184:This 922:EVula 704:those 515:staff 16:< 1824:talk 1798:talk 1776:talk 1753:talk 1732:talk 1705:talk 1649:talk 1626:talk 1566:talk 1542:have 1531:talk 1511:talk 1492:talk 1468:talk 1438:talk 1389:talk 1318:Done 1302:talk 1218:talk 1149:talk 1118:talk 1076:talk 1072:Mato 1053:talk 1012:talk 1008:Mato 988:talk 973:talk 927:talk 906:talk 871:talk 832:talk 797:talk 783:talk 769:talk 740:talk 726:talk 712:talk 694:talk 686:this 684:and 682:this 678:this 664:talk 638:talk 630:only 609:talk 560:KEYS 538:talk 495:KEYS 454:talk 440:talk 425:talk 411:talk 392:talk 377:talk 368:does 359:both 335:talk 320:talk 302:talk 288:role 278:talk 255:talk 232:talk 203:talk 164:talk 139:talk 107:here 105:and 103:here 1816:not 1726:. 1681:or 1598:or 1462:. 1366:or 1280:or 1192:or 1025:or 929:// 925:// 674:one 656:not 594:not 563:767 498:767 354:you 312:not 293:not 247:not 214:and 1826:) 1800:) 1778:) 1755:) 1734:) 1707:) 1687:no 1651:) 1628:) 1604:no 1568:) 1533:) 1513:) 1494:) 1470:) 1440:) 1415:| 1391:) 1372:no 1330:| 1321:. 1304:) 1286:no 1244:| 1220:) 1198:no 1151:) 1120:) 1078:) 1055:) 1014:) 990:) 975:) 935:// 908:) 873:) 857:, 853:, 834:) 799:) 785:) 771:) 742:) 728:) 714:) 696:) 688:. 680:, 666:) 640:) 615:) 611:• 590:no 568:⚡ 540:) 503:⚡ 456:) 442:) 427:) 413:) 394:) 379:) 337:) 322:) 304:) 280:) 257:) 234:) 205:) 194:is 189:is 170:) 166:) 145:) 141:• 64:← 1822:( 1796:( 1774:( 1751:( 1730:( 1703:( 1647:( 1641:Y 1624:( 1564:( 1529:( 1509:( 1490:( 1466:( 1436:( 1419:) 1404:Y 1387:( 1334:) 1300:( 1248:) 1233:Y 1216:( 1147:( 1116:( 1074:( 1051:( 1010:( 986:( 971:( 932:☯ 904:( 869:( 830:( 795:( 781:( 767:( 738:( 724:( 710:( 692:( 662:( 636:( 607:( 536:( 452:( 438:( 423:( 409:( 390:( 375:( 333:( 318:( 300:( 276:( 253:( 230:( 201:( 162:( 137:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index