User talk:Chazz

Just a place-holder in case someone wants to say something to me... Chazz 07:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't keep archives; this is talk, it is by its nature ephemeral. Of course, if you want to see what was on here that I have taken away, there is always the history... Chazz 01:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

In case anyone is wondering – I have grown excessively weary of editing the Muggles' Guide, and am electing to cut back my contributions significantly. Feel free to contact PNW Raven if you need pointers to ways to assist the Muggles' Guide. Chazz (talk) 21:45, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Elder wand "allegiance"

I disagree with your rejection of my changes regarding the change of ownership of the Elder Wand. While the progression may be mentioned in another section, the text in its current form is an incorrect assessment of how the Elder Wand changes ownership. The wand does not pass to Harry because he is in possession of Draco's wand but because he has disarmed Draco. I feel this is a subtle but important difference. While my wording was imprecise I think the distinction should be made (sorry if I am nitpicking)

173.78.79.204 (discuss) 16:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)Jeff

The operative reason for the elder wand accepting Harry as its master was that the wand that Harry held had been Draco's, when Draco disarmed Dumbledore. Harry's forcible claiming of Draco's wand would have been irrelevant to the Elder Wand had it not been the same wand that was used to forcibly remove it from its previous owner. (If Draco owned an ash wand and a willow wand, used the ash wand to disarm Dumbledore, and then Harry grabbed the willow one from him, the Elder Wand would see no point of contact between Harry's willow wand and Draco.) I'll grant you that the current wording does not completely clarify that, but the wording you put in covered too much irrelevant ground, and completely obscured that point... and I regret to say it also had at least one typo ("Voldermort"). I will alter the wording to make your point somewhat clearer.

Meanwhile, please feel free to sign up for a free user account; IP addresses can change, or be shared, and so are nearly useless for tracking and contacting editors, and are rather too good at identifying people for the peace of mind of many people. If you have a user ID, your IP address is protected, and even when it changes, we'll still know it's the same editor. Chazz (talk) 04:17, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

RE: Harry Potter

Hey. Thanks for considering my edit. It seems you have misunderstood my assumptions, probably due to me not being able to explain them properly in the space given to me.

1. Ok, I was referencing from memory, and having reread the parts of the books just now, it seems I was mistaken in my references. However, I have just checked the HP Wikia, and it seems that the curse still has an affect on inanimate objects. In OoTP ch. 36, it causes a small fire when it hit a desk, and in DH ch. 17, it states that the house was a rubble as soon as Voldemort had been hit by his own spell, possibly due to the fact it had rebounded.
2. The Fidelius Charm allows the SK to disclose the location to anyone, and indeed other people knew where the Potters lived. However, the people who knew where they lived, but were not SK could themselves enter the house, but not tell anyone else who didn't already know where the house was. So the theory that Hagrid might've had to wait for Sirius wouldn't be correct, as Sirius, though he knew where they lived, could not tell Hagrid if he didn't already know. More likely Hagrid knew where they lived anyway, and simply met Sirius after he left. --Imagine Wizard (discuss • contribs) 23:07, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi again

1. In DH 17, we witness through Harry/Voldemort's mind what happened on the 31 October. It states that the house was a rubble as soon as Voldemort got hit by the rebound. And whilst it's true that a successful Killing Curse leaves no damage or mark, this obviously was an exception. Harry was left with a scar when he shouldn't have had a scratch on his body, and the house was blown up when there's should've been no trace. IT seems clear to me that this attack is an exception to the rule that the Killing Curse is usually a clean attack
2. Yeah, perhaps that's what the description was trying to say, but it's long windedness seemed to imply to me that Sirius, being privy to the secret, was able to share it, which isn't how the Fidelius Charm works. Once you've been told the secret by the SK, you can see the hidden place, but you cannot tell anyone else, only the SK can do that. I think that long paragraph should be somewhat simplified to basically, 'Hagrid and Sirius were either in on the secret, or the charm ended on the Potter parents death, and so were able to see the house.', or something to that affect.

--Imagine Wizard (discuss • contribs) 01:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi

1. I don't think the situations in the Forest and Hall are the same. In the Forest, it didn't really rebound. Harry was saved from death because he was a Horcrux. But he was knocked out. For some reason, this had the same affect on Voldemort, but there's nothing to suggest the Killing Curse was deflected, in fact, if anything, it was successful. Only that it didn't kill Harry, it was the Horcrux inside Harry that it killed. In the Hall, rebounded because the Elder Wand refused to kill its master. I think the only reason it was so destructive in the instance of when Harry was a baby was the method of which it was deflected. Love. So it was a unique situation that had a unique result.

--Imagine Wizard (discuss • contribs) 23:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I support the edit you have done. Thanks :) --Imagine Wizard (discuss • contribs) 19:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

WCI conference 2011 : Would like to discuss a few things

Hello!

I will be delivering a Talk at the Wikimedia Conference India 2011 on the topic of "Accelerating Wikibooks".

Over the next few days, I aim to make the proposal more and more wholesome and relevant. I'd like to discuss with you about the proposal and hope you can recommend me a few names on Wikibooks with whom I can discuss this.

I'd be very happy if you could discuss the proposal at User:Thewinster/Accelerating_Wikibooks

--Thewinster (discuss • contribs) 08:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Summary of the proposal

This is not a summary of the final talk, only a tentative guideline.

• Create Roadmaps for a book
• Define Learning Outcomes
• Annotate and Discuss new content available from around the web.
• Minor tweaks and fixes which concentrate on crowdsourcing.
• Identifying Small Contribution that advance a book and designing good UIs and triggers according to B.J. Fogg's Behavior Change Model, 8 Step Design Process. The paper can be found here at Persuasive Design : Eight Step Process by B. J. Fogg

While I wish I could help, I'm afraid I cannot. I'm simply an editor, albeit a moderately prolific one, and it looks like you're more searching for people who are in leadership positions, on the project or on individual books. Chazz (talk) 17:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Pottermore Material

Chazz, I'm adding some factual information from Pottermore to the MG character pages. I just added a few facts about Mr. Ollivander, such as his first name (Garrick), his Hogwarts House, what his own wand is made of, etc. I don't want to get into incorporating more substantial story information or character info until you've had a chance to see Pottermore for yourself, then we can discuss what is appropriate to add or leave out. For example, there's background info on McGonagall's early life, which is not particularly important to the overall story. However, we have added info based on Rowling's post-series interviews. I have always wanted as much statistical detail for each character, such as birth dates, what wands are made of, stuff like that. There's only info on characters from the Philosopher's Stone, as that's the only book they have online at the moment, so other characters will have to wait.

As to Pottermore itself, it's good, but not great, but considering this is not an actual computer game, and it's free, I think they are off to a good start. The chapter sections are very brief, however. And I keep getting bumped out when too many users are on it. I only just got my clearance on Sunday, so I'm about halfway through it. Hopefully they will add more features later. It has nice graphics, but the scenes are static. Extra info on characters is interesting, but not substantial. There's a few interactive things, like making potions or casting spells, but these don't work so well. Users have commented on it. Let me know what you think. PNW Raven (discuss • contribs) 13:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Raven, it's hard for me to have an opinion about Pottermore, as I did not get a beta invite, and so I have no real idea what's on there. My opinion, for what little it's worth, is that so long as Pottermore content originates with Jo, we can consider it as a part of canon, we may be able to include it. The additions to the overview on Ollivander certainly don't hurt. However, we must always keep in mind that the idea of the project is HP as a literary work; while introducing background information on characters derived from sources like Pottermore can provide insight into motivations and character behaviour, and similar sorts of background on places and events can be helpful in understanding, it is the literary work, the main seven books, and why they are literature that should remain our focus. Anyone can write a simple catalog of the Potterverse; we are still trying at least to do more than that, to show why it has become worthy of so much attention. At least, in my not-so-humble opinion. Chazz (talk) 15:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree the main literary work should remain the focus and kept separate, as much as possible, from Pottermore info. My thought is that, at least for now, Pottermore info should be confined to the Character Overview section and also separate sections on places, magic, and magical objects (i.e. there's good info about the Hogwarts Express), solely to give additional background information for readers. Once you have an opportunity to read Pottermore, then let's discuss if anything should be added elsewhere.

BTW, I'm registered on Pottermore as NightQuest182 (that was the name I was automatically assigned. Let me know once you have seen Pottermore.PNW Raven (discuss • contribs) 23:27, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Chazz, I added a few facts about Quirrell from Pottermore. Someone else had added that his first name is Quirinus, stating that Rowling confirmed this on Pottermore. This may very well be true, but I don't see on Quirrell's Pottermore section. It may be somewhere else in Pottermore, but since I keep getting bumped out after about five minutes or so, I've been unable to verify this for myself. It likely is true, but wish I could confirm it. Do you know for certain if his first name has been substantiated elsewhere?PNW Raven (discuss • contribs) 12:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The confirmation I have seen predates Pottermore, and is at distant third hand, so I don't know how much reliance to place on it. The thing is, there evidently were two sets of Chocolate Frog cards produced, one set as part of a game by Wizards Of The Coast, and one set sold with Chocolate Frog treats. Both sets had cards for Quirrell; one set listed Quirrell's first name as Slatero, the other as Quirinus. Ms. Rowling has said on her site that she had input into at least one of those sets, though if only one, which one is ambiguous, as is how much input. Another fan site seems to have chased down this link and, of the two names, chosen Quirinus as the one that had Rowling's direct input, but I can't state this with any certainty. Chazz (talk) 15:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

You're Back!!!

I'm relieved, thrilled, delighted that you've returned to the Muggles' Guide. I really have been missing your presence, attentive eye, and firm guiding hand. I think your idea for a "Connections" sub-section is an excellent one. Some of the series' plot devices are so intricate and/or subtle that, even though they are nicely utilized, can be somewhat difficult to remember or follow; it is probably a little frustrating for readers who want to tie all these events together. Those wanting to see how everything connects from start to finish would probably greatly appreciate having this.

I hope all has been well with you. I have not had as much time of late to work on the Guide, as I'm now working full-time. I'm glad to have more income coming in, but I miss my leisurely hours to work on this and another project (I'm writing a young adult fantasy novel). Now that I'm used to the full-time hours, I'm definitely not as tired as I was when I started, and feel more energized now to work on stuff. OK, keep me up-to-date on how this is going.PNW Raven (discuss • contribs) 18:10, 16 May 2012 (UTC)